Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (1 Viewer)

[Sinn Fein]

I don't know if it was ever a possibility, but I wonder if both Avery and Dassey would have been better off with a single trial. Typically, defendants like to separate - so that one is not tainted by the guilt of the other. But, had these cases been tried together, and the prosecution has to put Dassey's "confession" in with virtually no corroborating evidence - and then Dassey also gets the ancillary effect of Steven's attorney's attacking the credibility of the state's witnesses - I just wonder if that would have created more reasonable doubt.

 

[SFBayDuck]

He was charged with raping her based on a highly questionable confession not supported by any of the physical evidence, unlike all the physical evidence of something occurring in the garage. I believe that's the big miscarriage of justice here; the railroading of Brendan Dassey, not the conviction of Steven Avery.

Totally agree. Dassey is almost being forgotten about by many. I really don't know if Avery killed Halbach, but I'm pretty damned sure that Dassey didn't.

 

[Politician Spock]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Or leave the car with his and her blood in it on his property

Let's take this one step at a time. If they can't see one inconsistency, they won't see the many.

What I see is that many seem to think "consistency" is more important than mountains of evidence. Some of us don't. Sorry.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

What you call inconsistency I call incompetence. Steven Avery made a half-assed attempt to cover up certain glaring elements of his crime, and completely dropped the ball on other elements. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.

Look who's switching horses now.

 

[parrot]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Or leave the car with his and her blood in it on his property

Let's take this one step at a time. If they can't see one inconsistency, they won't see the many.

What I see is that many seem to think "consistency" is more important than mountains of evidence. Some of us don't. Sorry.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

What you call inconsistency I call incompetence. Steven Avery made a half-assed attempt to cover up certain glaring elements of his crime, and completely dropped the ball on other elements. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.

Look who's switching horses now.

That's fine, let me jump on a fish while I'm at it; I think placing this much emphasis on a lack of "consistency" in the face of a mountain of evidence is a huge red herring.

Would you let a bank robber off who wore a disguise into the bank but didn't change the plates on his car, because it's "inconsistent"? I wouldn't, I would chalk it up to "A lot of criminals are stupid, particularly the ones who get caught."

 

[shuke]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Same reason he left the car on the lot. He's a dumb###.

 

[shuke]

And the whole cleaning the garage theory doesn't explain why he would clean the garage, but then leave her blood in the back of the SUV.

Can we stop for a minute pretending that everything a psychopath does is rational?

I'm not saying that Avery is definitely a psychopath or definitely killed her. But whoever did may not have the same thought processes as someone like you or me.

 

[shuke]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one.

Then stop claiming he tried to. It weakens your argument.

 

[shuke]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

Curious, do you think there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit OJ?

 

[Sabertooth]

If it is revealed that the car was indeed found illegally, does that warrant a new trial for Steven?

 

[shuke]

Dassey's "confession" in with virtually no corroborating evidence

Really?

 

[Sabertooth]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

Curious, do you think there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit OJ?

I do.

 

[Sabertooth]

Dassey's "confession" in with virtually no corroborating evidence

Really?

What really? Evidence that she was chained, roped, raped, stabbed, throat slit, punched, strangled and shot in the bedroom? Yeah there is no evidence of any of that stuff happening. It was a totally coerced confession. Come on Shuke.

 

[shuke]

Dassey's "confession" in with virtually no corroborating evidence

Really?

What really? Evidence that she was chained, roped, raped, stabbed, throat slit, punched, strangled and shot in the bedroom? Yeah there is no evidence of any of that stuff happening. It was a totally coerced confession. Come on Shuke.

Just because things happened for which evidence was not found does not mean no corroborating evidence was found.

 

[Sabertooth]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Or leave the car with his and her blood in it on his property

Let's take this one step at a time. If they can't see one inconsistency, they won't see the many.

What I see is that many seem to think "consistency" is more important than mountains of evidence. Some of us don't. Sorry.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

What you call inconsistency I call incompetence. Steven Avery made a half-assed attempt to cover up certain glaring elements of his crime, and completely dropped the ball on other elements. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.

Look who's switching horses now.

That's fine, let me jump on a fish while I'm at it; I think placing this much emphasis on a lack of "consistency" in the face of a mountain of evidence is a huge red herring.

Would you let a bank robber off who wore a disguise into the bank but didn't change the plates on his car, because it's "inconsistent"? I wouldn't, I would chalk it up to "A lot of criminals are stupid, particularly the ones who get caught."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYHaZcu3cEM

 

[MattFancy]

And the whole cleaning the garage theory doesn't explain why he would clean the garage, but then leave her blood in the back of the SUV.

Can we stop for a minute pretending that everything a psychopath does is rational?

I'm not saying that Avery is definitely a psychopath or definitely killed her. But whoever did may not have the same thought processes as someone like you or me.

I'm not sure if I should be honored or scared to be considered on the same mental level as you

 

[Politician Spock]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Or leave the car with his and her blood in it on his property

Let's take this one step at a time. If they can't see one inconsistency, they won't see the many.

What I see is that many seem to think "consistency" is more important than mountains of evidence. Some of us don't. Sorry.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

What you call inconsistency I call incompetence. Steven Avery made a half-assed attempt to cover up certain glaring elements of his crime, and completely dropped the ball on other elements. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.

Look who's switching horses now.

That's fine, let me jump on a fish while I'm at it; I think placing this much emphasis on a lack of "consistency" in the face of a mountain of evidence is a huge red herring.

Would you let a bank robber off who wore a disguise into the bank but didn't change the plates on his car, because it's "inconsistent"? I wouldn't, I would chalk it up to "A lot of criminals are stupid, particularly the ones who get caught."

I don't think you know what a red herring is. Your example is a red herring. Recognizing inconsistency in evidence is not.

 

[Sabertooth]

Dassey's "confession" in with virtually no corroborating evidence

Really?

What really? Evidence that she was chained, roped, raped, stabbed, throat slit, punched, strangled and shot in the bedroom? Yeah there is no evidence of any of that stuff happening. It was a totally coerced confession. Come on Shuke.

Just because things happened for which evidence was not found does not mean no corroborating evidence was found.

That was the whole confession. What are you talking about? I'm talking about the confession Dassey gave at school.

 

[Politician Spock]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one.

Then stop claiming he tried to. It weakens your argument.

Link to where I claimed he did.

 

[Politician Spock]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

Curious, do you think there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit OJ?

I can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that OJ did it. Can you?

 

[shuke]

Dassey's "confession" in with virtually no corroborating evidence

Really?

What really? Evidence that she was chained, roped, raped, stabbed, throat slit, punched, strangled and shot in the bedroom? Yeah there is no evidence of any of that stuff happening. It was a totally coerced confession. Come on Shuke.

Just because things happened for which evidence was not found does not mean no corroborating evidence was found.

That was the whole confession. What are you talking about? I'm talking about the confession Dassey gave at school.

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I thought Dassey's interview at school included Teresa's bloody body in the truck, the truck parked on the property and covered with branches and car hood, and Teresa's body and clothes in the fire pit.

I would say there is corroborating evidence of those. Would you?

 

[shuke]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

Curious, do you think there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit OJ?

I can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that OJ did it. Can you?

Well that settles it then.

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't recall those things. I have not read the entire transcripts of the "confession" though and they very well could be in there. That would give a lot more weight to it.

 

[shuke]

I don't recall those things. I have not read the entire transcripts of the "confession" though and they very well could be in there. That would give a lot more weight to it.

Just so I understand the basis of the arguments we are having in here, if you have not read the transcripts, how would you recall what was in them?

 

[Politician Spock]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

Curious, do you think there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit OJ?

I can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that OJ did it. Can you?

Well that settles it then.

Pretty sure that's how it settled many years ago.

 

[shuke]

 

[SacramentoBob]

Did Reddit crack the case yet?

 

[cockroach]

He was charged with raping her based on a highly questionable confession not supported by any of the physical evidence, unlike all the physical evidence of something occurring in the garage. I believe that's the big miscarriage of justice here; the railroading of Brendan Dassey, not the conviction of Steven Avery.

Totally agree. Dassey is almost being forgotten about by many. I really don't know if Avery killed Halbach, but I'm pretty damned sure that Dassey didn't.

I don't think so. People are focusing on what will exonerate Steven because that should get Dassey out by default. I don't even think there would be near as much attention as there is if it weren't for the BD element.

 

[Joe T]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

 

[urbanhack]

Did Reddit crack the case yet?

No...we're doing it here bromigo.

 

[shuke]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

 

[Politician Spock]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

That theory could easily be proven by evidence showing the remnants in the barrel were different than the remnants in the pit. Unfortunately the evidence shows the remnants in both the pit and the barrel were the same. Because of this, both the prosecution and the defense agree that evidence suggests remnants were moved. They just disagree on from where to where they were moved.

 

[Sinn Fein]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

Serious question - do bones float? There was a pond on the property - why not move all the ashes/bones to the pond?

Also when did the police first visit Avery - re the missing person's report?

When was the vehicle found? I assume he had time to clean up any mess he made - like the bones/ashes, key, crush the car, etc...

Also - any discussion of tire tracks - looked kind of muddy by the car, seems like they should have been able to tell how the car made it to that spot - from what direction.

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't recall those things. I have not read the entire transcripts of the "confession" though and they very well could be in there. That would give a lot more weight to it.

Just so I understand the basis of the arguments we are having in here, if you have not read the transcripts, how would you recall what was in them?

I watched the Netflix series.

 

[Joe T]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

And then move them to the "quarry" area?

 

[Joe T]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

The bolded part is speculation and the logic fails on this from anyone with the basic knowledge of burning things.

 

[The Gator]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

When was the vehicle found?

After Coulburn found it and had his family's towing company move it to the Avery compound.

 

[Joe T]

From reddit:

However the subject does come up in the Avery trial. In episode 6 at about 35min Dr. Eisenberg says that she "suspected" that a couple of bone fragments from the quarry site "appeared to be" from a human pelvis.

Here's what she says in the documentary:

Eisenberg:

There were no entire bonesthat were found, but at least a fragment or more of almost every bone below the neck was recovered in that burn pit.

[Fallon] Did you find evidence of any human bone identified as being collected from a site other than the burn pit behind the defendant's garage?

[Eisenberg] Human bone also was collected from what was designated "burn barrel number two."

Now, you did offer an opinion that you believe the location for the primary burning episode was the burn pit behind the defendant's garage, is that correct?

That is correct.

[strang] There was a third site, was there not?

Yes.

And this would be the quarry pile.

Yes, sir.

You found in the material from the quarry pile two fragments that appeared to you to be pelvic bone.

[Eisenberg] That's correct.

You suspected them of being human pelvic bone.

That's correct.

The charring and calcined condition that you saw was essentially consistent with the charring and the calcined condition in the Janda burn barrel and behind Steven Avery's garage.

[Eisenberg] That is correct, sir.

Nowhere did you find evidence that you were looking at bone fragments from more than one body.

That is correct, sir.

So what you conclude is that by human agency, bone fragments here were moved.

Some bone fragments identified as human had been moved.

That's correct.

 

[parrot]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Or leave the car with his and her blood in it on his property

Let's take this one step at a time. If they can't see one inconsistency, they won't see the many.

What I see is that many seem to think "consistency" is more important than mountains of evidence. Some of us don't. Sorry.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

What you call inconsistency I call incompetence. Steven Avery made a half-assed attempt to cover up certain glaring elements of his crime, and completely dropped the ball on other elements. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.

Look who's switching horses now.

That's fine, let me jump on a fish while I'm at it; I think placing this much emphasis on a lack of "consistency" in the face of a mountain of evidence is a huge red herring.

Would you let a bank robber off who wore a disguise into the bank but didn't change the plates on his car, because it's "inconsistent"? I wouldn't, I would chalk it up to "A lot of criminals are stupid, particularly the ones who get caught."

I don't think you know what a red herring is. Your example is a red herring. Recognizing inconsistency in evidence is not.

My example is an analogy meant to demonstrate the silliness of exonerating a criminal based on "inconsistency".

A red herring is an extraneous point meant to confuse the facts of the situation, like the idea that a homicidal criminal must adhere to some imagined ideal of consistency or it somehow invalidates the evidence against him. There is no inconsistency in the evidence, just tons of unsupported speculation surrounding it.

 

[Politician Spock]

That's fine, let me jump on a fish while I'm at it; I think placing this much emphasis on a lack of "consistency" in the face of a mountain of evidence is a huge red herring.

Would you let a bank robber off who wore a disguise into the bank but didn't change the plates on his car, because it's "inconsistent"? I wouldn't, I would chalk it up to "A lot of criminals are stupid, particularly the ones who get caught."

I don't think you know what a red herring is. Your example is a red herring. Recognizing inconsistency in evidence is not.

My example is an analogy meant to demonstrate the silliness of exonerating a criminal based on inconsistency. A red herring is an extraneous point meant to confuse the facts of the situation, like the idea that a homicidal criminal must adhere to some imagined ideal of consistency. There is no inconsistency in the evidence, just tons of unsupported speculation surrounding it

Your example is an en extraneous point meant to confuse the facts of the situation.

The only speculation going on is people's theories of what Avery did that aren't consistent with the evidence. Lot's of that going on in here.

 

[shuke]

I don't recall those things. I have not read the entire transcripts of the "confession" though and they very well could be in there. That would give a lot more weight to it.

Just so I understand the basis of the arguments we are having in here, if you have not read the transcripts, how would you recall what was in them?

I watched the Netflix series.

Sounds about right.

 

[shuke]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

And then move them to the "quarry" area?

Never confirmed to even be human bones.

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't recall those things. I have not read the entire transcripts of the "confession" though and they very well could be in there. That would give a lot more weight to it.

Just so I understand the basis of the arguments we are having in here, if you have not read the transcripts, how would you recall what was in them?

I watched the Netflix series.

Sounds about right.

What did you do? Drive to Wisconsin?

 

[Politician Spock]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

And then move them to the "quarry" area?

Never confirmed to even be human bones.

There was no confirmation that they were Teresa Halbach's bones, as there was no tissue left to determine who they came from.

But they were confirmed to be from a woman and they were charred consistent with Teresa Halbach's bones found in the pit in the barrell. There was also no other missing woman for one to speculate they came from someone else.

I agree it's inconclusive if the quarry has anything to do with TH. It's one of those WTF pieces.

 

[parrot]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

And then move them to the "quarry" area?

Never confirmed to even be human bones.

There was no confirmation that they were Teresa Halbach's bones, as there was no tissue left to determine who they came from.

But they were confirmed to be from a woman and they were charred consistent with Teresa Halbach's bones found in the pit in the barrell. There was also no other missing woman for one to speculate they came from someone else.

I agree it's inconclusive if the quarry has anything to do with TH. It's one of those WTF pieces.

The quarry bones were not confirmed human;

Leslie Eiesenberg;

All right. Now, the bone that you suspected to

be the iliac crest, can you say to a reasonable

degree of scientific certainty that that, uh, is

human bone?

A No, sir, I cannot.

Did you find evidence, uh -- or -- of a bone

that's referred to as the sacral iliac

articulation?

Actually, those are two bones. It's where the right

half of the sacrum, or the lowermost part of the

spine, um, articulates -- it's actually adjoined --

with the right side of the hip bone.

Q And in terms of that, uh, suspected bone

fragment, can you say to a reasonable degree of

scientific certainty that that was human bone?

A Um, I cannot.

 

[Politician Spock]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

And then move them to the "quarry" area?

Never confirmed to even be human bones.

There was no confirmation that they were Teresa Halbach's bones, as there was no tissue left to determine who they came from.

But they were confirmed to be from a woman and they were charred consistent with Teresa Halbach's bones found in the pit in the barrell. There was also no other missing woman for one to speculate they came from someone else.

I agree it's inconclusive if the quarry has anything to do with TH. It's one of those WTF pieces.

The quarry bones were not confirmed human;

Leslie Eiesenberg;

All right. Now, the bone that you suspected to

be the iliac crest, can you say to a reasonable

degree of scientific certainty that that, uh, is

human bone?

A No, sir, I cannot.

Did you find evidence, uh -- or -- of a bone

that's referred to as the sacral iliac

articulation?

Actually, those are two bones. It's where the right

half of the sacrum, or the lowermost part of the

spine, um, articulates -- it's actually adjoined --

with the right side of the hip bone.

Q And in terms of that, uh, suspected bone

fragment, can you say to a reasonable degree of

scientific certainty that that was human bone?

A Um, I cannot.

So despite the mountain of evidence that's a pelvic bone from a human woman, there still exists reasonable doubt. I'm good with that.

 

[shuke]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

And then move them to the "quarry" area?

Never confirmed to even be human bones.

There was no confirmation that they were Teresa Halbach's bones, as there was no tissue left to determine who they came from.

But they were confirmed to be from a woman and they were charred consistent with Teresa Halbach's bones found in the pit in the barrell. There was also no other missing woman for one to speculate they came from someone else.

I agree it's inconclusive if the quarry has anything to do with TH. It's one of those WTF pieces.

The quarry bones were not confirmed human;

Leslie Eiesenberg;

All right. Now, the bone that you suspected to

be the iliac crest, can you say to a reasonable

degree of scientific certainty that that, uh, is

human bone?

A No, sir, I cannot.

Did you find evidence, uh -- or -- of a bone

that's referred to as the sacral iliac

articulation?

Actually, those are two bones. It's where the right

half of the sacrum, or the lowermost part of the

spine, um, articulates -- it's actually adjoined --

with the right side of the hip bone.

Q And in terms of that, uh, suspected bone

fragment, can you say to a reasonable degree of

scientific certainty that that was human bone?

A Um, I cannot.

So despite the mountain of evidence that's a pelvic bone from a human woman, there still exists reasonable doubt. I'm good with that.

What mountain of evidence suggests it's a human pelvic bone?

 

[shuke]

I don't recall those things. I have not read the entire transcripts of the "confession" though and they very well could be in there. That would give a lot more weight to it.

Just so I understand the basis of the arguments we are having in here, if you have not read the transcripts, how would you recall what was in them?

I watched the Netflix series.

Sounds about right.

What did you do? Drive to Wisconsin?

No. I actually did research and looked into the facts before I got on a message board making a statement without any basis.

 

[Politician Spock]

What are the theories again on why the bones were moved presumably by Steven Avery?

What motive does he have to place the bones in 3 locations?

Her bones were found in 2 locations. My theory is that he put the entire body in the burn pit. Large pieces that were still intact the next morning were put in the barrel for easier containment to try to completely destroy.

And then move them to the "quarry" area?

Never confirmed to even be human bones.

There was no confirmation that they were Teresa Halbach's bones, as there was no tissue left to determine who they came from.

But they were confirmed to be from a woman and they were charred consistent with Teresa Halbach's bones found in the pit in the barrell. There was also no other missing woman for one to speculate they came from someone else.

I agree it's inconclusive if the quarry has anything to do with TH. It's one of those WTF pieces.

The quarry bones were not confirmed human;

Leslie Eiesenberg;

All right. Now, the bone that you suspected to

be the iliac crest, can you say to a reasonable

degree of scientific certainty that that, uh, is

human bone?

A No, sir, I cannot.

Did you find evidence, uh -- or -- of a bone

that's referred to as the sacral iliac

articulation?

Actually, those are two bones. It's where the right

half of the sacrum, or the lowermost part of the

spine, um, articulates -- it's actually adjoined --

with the right side of the hip bone.

Q And in terms of that, uh, suspected bone

fragment, can you say to a reasonable degree of

scientific certainty that that was human bone?

A Um, I cannot.

So despite the mountain of evidence that's a pelvic bone from a human woman, there still exists reasonable doubt. I'm good with that.

What mountain of evidence suggests it's a human pelvic bone?

Human pelvic bones are very unique because of our upright posture. It would be difficult for someone like Eisenberg to mistake a non-human pelvic bone as human.

 

[Wrigley]

I don't recall those things. I have not read the entire transcripts of the "confession" though and they very well could be in there. That would give a lot more weight to it.

Just so I understand the basis of the arguments we are having in here, if you have not read the transcripts, how would you recall what was in them?

I watched the Netflix series.

Sounds about right.

What did you do? Drive to Wisconsin?

No. I actually did research and looked into the facts before I got on a message board making a statement without any basis.

I love that the "facts" are from a coerced confession

Anything said during this "confession" should be looked at with skepticism

 

[shuke]

I don't recall those things. I have not read the entire transcripts of the "confession" though and they very well could be in there. That would give a lot more weight to it.

Just so I understand the basis of the arguments we are having in here, if you have not read the transcripts, how would you recall what was in them?

I watched the Netflix series.

Sounds about right.

What did you do? Drive to Wisconsin?

No. I actually did research and looked into the facts before I got on a message board making a statement without any basis.

I love that the "facts" are from a coerced confessionAnything said during this "confession" should be looked at with skepticism

Pretty sure I'm getting trolled at this point.

Regardless of whether the confession was real or coerced, it doesn't change what was actually said.

I'm talking about facts about what was said in interview, not necessarily facts about what actually happened.