08-24-2016, 11:50 AM
You don't present evidence or logic, Gunnar.
You oppose evidence and logic, make false claims, and tell people who explain their reasoning and provide sources that it's irrelevant (or suggest that they're not intelligent enough to know what they're talking about) if what they present doesn't support what you believe.
I don't think it's in your DNA to be able to engage in a rational exchange of opinion and fact when you've already dug your heels in.
In any case, I always do my homework, which is not limited to watching a defense mini-series. Upthread, you criticized that homework because only the tv show was relevant to you. Flip flop.
I read LeBeau's CV when the case went to trial and read it again years later when the Netflix series came out. You can view it here: content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-433-CV-of-Marc-LeBeau.pdf . He was a qualified forensics expert for years before the Avery trial. Some forensic professionals who watched the series attest to his findings. Others say that the testing protocols should be updated.
So, if new blood testing by a defense-approved expert using an approved updated protocol is conducted and it proves conclusively that Avery's blood collected from Teresa's car is negative for EDTA, will you acknowledge that the blood was not planted and the 'framed' theory is seriously weakened? Or, will you change course and claim that the new tests are irrelevant/tainted because they undermine your theory? I suspect the latter.
If ever you're interested in doing some homework, you can find the trial transcripts, evidence docs, expert CVs and such here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/ http://www.stevenaverycase.org/exhibits/
You oppose evidence and logic, make false claims, and tell people who explain their reasoning and provide sources that it's irrelevant (or suggest that they're not intelligent enough to know what they're talking about) if what they present doesn't support what you believe.
I don't think it's in your DNA to be able to engage in a rational exchange of opinion and fact when you've already dug your heels in.
In any case, I always do my homework, which is not limited to watching a defense mini-series. Upthread, you criticized that homework because only the tv show was relevant to you. Flip flop.
I read LeBeau's CV when the case went to trial and read it again years later when the Netflix series came out. You can view it here: content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-433-CV-of-Marc-LeBeau.pdf . He was a qualified forensics expert for years before the Avery trial. Some forensic professionals who watched the series attest to his findings. Others say that the testing protocols should be updated.
So, if new blood testing by a defense-approved expert using an approved updated protocol is conducted and it proves conclusively that Avery's blood collected from Teresa's car is negative for EDTA, will you acknowledge that the blood was not planted and the 'framed' theory is seriously weakened? Or, will you change course and claim that the new tests are irrelevant/tainted because they undermine your theory? I suspect the latter.
If ever you're interested in doing some homework, you can find the trial transcripts, evidence docs, expert CVs and such here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/ http://www.stevenaverycase.org/exhibits/