Strang just disputed "sweat" DNA assertion. Said it was just DNA period. Could be from a toothbrush or skin particles, etc.

quote:

---

Brendan's story could be untrue, and he could also still be involved in the crime and/or cover up. It could have happened differently than his "confession".

---

Correct but it is insane to convict him on that.

100% agree. You can't convict on what you "think" might have happened.

I think we all agree about that.

If there is ever another test that finds EDTA do they arrest the police?

quote:

---

If there is ever another test that finds EDTA do they arrest the police?

---

They'd have to find out who did it

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/05/making-murderer-attorneys-reveal-evidence-wasnt-shown-netflix-documentary-series

Thank you!

Wouldn't this issue impact that lab screw up with the technician?

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/12/new-crime-lab-protocol-forcing-review-dna-evidence/

I have no idea but I think they overplayed that and should have just said the bullet was planted.

Either way, when new science comes up disproving or casting doubt on results from an old method of testing, it can be used to get a new trial.

That would be good, but I think a new trial will result in the same verdict unless they come up with a new test for the blood.

quote:

---

If there is ever another test that finds EDTA do they arrest the police?

---

They should have tested some of the blood directly from the vial to see if the edta showed up. Take some, spread it on a similar surface for a few days, sample it and test it.

I think the defense attorney said something along the lines of it will only really help if edta shows up in the blood from the car.

Proving the rest is bunk only means you have to come to the conclusion it was planted on your own.

Very similar to his rape case.

quote:

---

I think the defense attorney said something along the lines of it will only really help if edta shows up in the blood from the car.

Proving the rest is bunk only means you have to come to the conclusion it was planted on your own.

---

But if you do a test on a sample you know has edta and it comes back negative then you can throw out entirely their assertion that edta was not in the blood in the car because their testing process didn't come back positive with a sample known to contain edta. In this case the sample would be the exact sample of Avery's blood the defense is suggesting was used in the car.

quote:

---

I think the defense attorney said something along the lines of it will only really help if edta shows up in the blood from the car.

Proving the rest is bunk only means you have to come to the conclusion it was planted on your own.

---

Actually, for the car blood, there are indeed intact swabs that werent tested and still preserved in evidence.

If you refer to the FBI guy testimony, when cross examined he says he is certain the untested swabs would also not show the presence of EDTA. So its all teed up for advancement in the EDTA test tolarance levels to open things back up and make the FBI look stupid and arrest cops.

Now the bullet, that is done. They mentioned they only had one shot, thus their justification for admissing it even when cross contaminated.

quote:

---

But if you do a test on a sample you know has edta and it comes back negative then you can throw out entirely their assertion that edta was not in the blood in the car because their testing process didn't come back positive with a sample known to contain edta.

---

I agree, and you would think the prosecution would very gladly do that test IF they were so "certain" about their testing. They shut everyone up if tube blood tests positive, and car blood tests negative.

I also heard the EDTA test was put together and completed much much quicker than expected. No mention of established controls to determine the tolerance levels of the test. Not sure if that was left out, but technically unless its 100% accurate, you can ONLY prove the "the presence was not DETECTED"....which is very different than there was no EDTA.

I agree with you, but I am also saying if they prove the current test is horse **** it doesn't matter because the jury still has to come to the conclusion that the cops planted it.

It doesn't prove they didn't plant it, it proves that it could have been planted, which will never be enough to get him off.

If a test were ever made that could detect edta on something they put some blood from the vial on, and not on the car then that could ease some minds.

Really the audience is judges not a jury. The defense would be able to argue for a new trial based on that test not being reliable and a major point in the state's case. From there, they could move venue. They likely had a tainted jury pool last time due to the way the prosecution poisoned things with their press conferences. Now you'd be dealing with a different type of jury issue with all the publicity from the documentary.

The point is to convince judges you deserve a new trial.

I think you will have better chances finding another juror to corroborate the tampering than finding something to discredit the evidence presented.

If he were given a new trial, would he need to supply his own attorney since he's exhausted his appeals? The documentary mentioned he wouldn't be given a court appointed attorney but in this situation would his process 'reset' so to speak? None of this matters if he can't afford a lawyer.

yes. There'd be no shortage of top lawyers who would take the publicity or documentary deal or anything and do it pro bono. Avery and Dassey would have their list of choices.

quote:

---

I would think that if he got a new trial, Netflix would be so over the moon about all the press they've gotten from this documentary, they'd probably foot the lawyers bill in exchange for another documentary series

---

Or some high-end lawyer would do it pro-bono. The publicity would be huge.

quote:

---

I still don't see how anyone thinks Brendan is a credible witness.

---

I totally agree. Steve told Brendan she scratched him?

Hey Brendan, Steve here, help me get rid of this dead body. Now let me tell you, o box of rocks, exactly how I did it and the exact timeline. And I want to point out she scratched me in case the police find any of my blood whatsoever. The fact that I killed her in HER CAR but ONLY put her blood in the back while ONLY my blood was in the front - see I am an idiot savant. An idiot for not crushing the car, an idiot for not hiding the car, an idiot for not checking for my blood, but a savant at raping, pillaging, shooting, stabbing, chaining but leaving no evidence whatsoever.

Wow, how convenient. Give Brendan credit - for a kid who doesn't know the difference between a foot and a yard - he has a photographic memory of a conversation that was 8 months old. Well, at least all the good incriminating parts.

quote:

---

That is my understanding. Here is a map:




So my theory was that he killed her at the "quarry pile", tried to burn her there, but couldn't sit out there all day. And so stuck the remains in a barrel with a shovel and took it to the burn pit to burn some more. I read that you need 1500-2000 degrees or (maybe and) a long time to burn a body that well.

That doesn't jive with a few things Brendan said in that testimony. He made it sound like she was pretty much intact. And that Avery dragged her there in a sled or something. But They supposedly found pieces of hip bone at the quarry (I could be wrong), so that does not sound very intact.

Another thing... I get the impression that they did not identify those bone pieces at the quarry to belong to her. But reading an anthropologist post about it on Reddit, he said that an anthropologist could identify the bones as belonging to a human "with near 100% accuracy". So going off of that, I'm making an assumption that they belong to her.

---

If he only had somewhere to bury the body. Or be able to throw it in a fish pond. Or put it in a car crusher.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Any chance his sweat and DNA could have found its way to the hood latch by someone taking his undergarments from his bedroom during those 8 days and rubbing them on the car?

Brainstorm random stupid ideas?

---

My understanding is yes. You can transfer in such a way.

---

They have found multiple dna in panties that go back to the manufacturer. So yes.

Jurors coming out later shedding light on sketchy things (including direct threats) during their deliberations don't usually get someone a new trial. I've heard a lot of stories over the years of messed up crap happening and judges just don't like giving new trials or vacating verdicts over that.

I am still not convinced Steve is innocent. But they railroaded him again. Don't you - at minimum - have to rule out the boyfriend and roommate? If you aren't doing that, you aren't really investigating.

The key and bullet were plants. Come on - 8 searches and no key? Could you really find a bullet casing in THAT garage? Her whole body could be on the shelf and it would take you a week to find it.

The car. I mean I know Steve is really low IQ but even low IQ people wouldn't leave the car right there. He operated the car crusher the next day after her disappearance. It would never occur to him - hey I ought to crush her car! It has loads of blood! And the cop reading the license plate after the car was missing but before it's found?

So for me, that leaves the bone fragments. That's the only evidence I see. And while that definitely makes Steve suspect number 1, I dunno if I would have convicted.

The *67, maybe the attorney is right. If you name was David Berkowitz, maybe you make all your calls with *67 so you don't have to answer 20 questions or hear a bunch of crap on every single phone call?

I do think he had the hots for her. The towel incident, the fact she didn't want to go out there, I think he was attracted to her.

quote:

---

Jurors coming out later shedding light on sketchy things (including direct threats) during their deliberations don't usually get someone a new trial. I've heard a lot of stories over the years of messed up crap happening and judges just don't like giving new trials or vacating verdicts over that.

---

If a juror says they voted against what they believed because there were threats of harm to them or their family, I bet that could get a new trial.

Jury tampering is a crime unto itself. If this juror goes public and can prove whatever they are saying, it would have to be retried I would think.