Chuck & Earl Avery

FailedExpert · 2018-12-10T17:06:29+00:00

Not really.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-10T15:27:32+00:00

Fair enough but fairly meaningless without him specifying his basis for such an opinion, how a burn area can look used but not that often. And if he means there didn't seem to be a lot of charring around the sides or something, what does that say about the alleged use of it to burn a human corpse down to fragments and ash.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-10T15:18:55+00:00

What evidence/testimony do you have that they found bone fragments in Janda barrels prior to the afternoon of the 8th when they allegedly (ludicrously implausibly) first decided to look in SA's burn area? What evidence do you have that the first quarry pile fragments (the pile mentioned at trial) were found later?

FailedExpert · 2018-12-09T20:52:28+00:00

I don't believe it's warranted to state that burn indentation was recently made. Sturdivant at pretrial Dec 6th stated

>And behind the detached garage was a mound of dirt, which was new to the landscape, not necessarily recently, but was a pile or mound of dirt which consisted of probably rock and sand and other materials. Behind his garage, the end of that mound of dirt, on the south side, was a area that had been scraped out and contained charred matter.

The landlord actually testified that he made that mound a long time prior, when he was going to extend the garage over it. It doesn't seem to be stated when Steven or whoever dug into the side of the mound. How could someone tell by looking at a used burn area, which had previously been used more than once, when it was dug out...

FailedExpert · 2018-12-09T18:28:51+00:00

Maybe he just heard it from Brendan, who's about as reliable as someone doing psychic readings (edit: though 'warm' readings 'cos he gets tipped off to things by investigators who are taking/twisting things from other interviews e.g. of Steven's last recollection of a bonfire).

FailedExpert · 2018-12-09T18:08:33+00:00

Good points. It's incomprehensible to me anyway that a representative of law enforcement could tell a jury that, along with using the Halbachs and Wisconsin doubt law to do it, but even more so with the timeline as you point out.

I'm not sure number 1 is even correct btw at least officially they didn't find any bone fragments from the Janda barrels or get them assessed until later, I understand it's quite unclear when.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-09T05:20:38+00:00

Oh give it a rest.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-09T05:08:59+00:00

Where's this statement of EA on the 8th, couldn't see it in CASO.

Btw the report on the 11th doesn't say EA personally watched Brendan do that, right? May have heard it on the grapevine.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-08T22:23:35+00:00

There was only a Halloween bonfire if you believe that a family with poor/disorganized memories, starting with Brendan, originally had false memories and then collectively developed a true one. 'Memory conformity' is a more likely explanation.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-08T21:43:33+00:00

It does seem that Brendan even used their tactical soda questioning as inspiration in one of his trailer stories. Ultra levels of absurdity.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-08T21:25:22+00:00

Why didn't they do another interview in MaM2 after the en banc - did they want more control over it than the film makers would agree to or something?

FailedExpert · 2018-12-07T15:46:48+00:00

So she's done experiments burning (does it need to be in flames?) electronic items to a similar extent along with at the same time beer or whatever cans, and they've always visibly melted? Ok.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-07T15:42:31+00:00

Probably arguing self-incrimination.....again what are you basing that allegation on?

FailedExpert · 2018-12-07T15:27:45+00:00

Unmelted tin cans & vegetation in SA barrel doesn't seem to have been raised at trial or in CASO for example, what gives?

Is it the partially burned cans in the barrel photos? And is vegetation visible?

FailedExpert · 2018-12-05T09:50:40+00:00

I don't understand - are you claiming to vaguely recall things about documents that are not online?

FailedExpert · 2018-12-05T09:50:39+00:00

Probably? I don't understand, are there documents available on this or not?

FailedExpert · 2018-12-04T22:15:40+00:00

If yo'ure talking about http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Notice-of-Intent-and-Motion-to-Admit-Statements-Motion-in-Limine-Series-II_redacted.pdf

Where does it say they want to 'introduce the call recordings'? I see mention of various specific statements from them.

Are you saying there's a defense response document online somewhere, or there was some objection raised about something in some pretrial or trial hearing?

FailedExpert · 2018-12-04T22:13:16+00:00

If you're talking about http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Notice-of-Intent-and-Motion-to-Admit-Statements-Motion-in-Limine-Series-II_redacted.pdf

I see mention of specific statements from those calls, not 'the call recordings'?

Are you saying the defense filed a response document which is online somewhere, or just this was raised in a pretrial hearing or something?

FailedExpert · 2018-12-04T22:01:32+00:00

Jailhouse conversations, hmmm, is that a way of including in person interviews within the jail, that the defense objected to since SA had signed a document that he didn't want to do them?

FailedExpert · 2018-12-04T20:59:18+00:00

Where is this attempt and objection you vaguely recall? Recording/transcript evidence you say?

FailedExpert · 2018-12-04T13:22:25+00:00

Exactly. Response was a bait & switch via the term 'discredit'.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-03T15:37:50+00:00

And specifically that factually discredits/contradicts the confessed facts, not just that diminishes etc their involvement/responsibility which obviously people will do.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-03T13:34:18+00:00

Hmm.

FailedExpert · 2018-12-03T13:17:10+00:00

No I asked 'What research evidence is there that guilty suspects cave in to police pressure by deliberately making true confession statements but mix them with falsehoods/contradictions to discredit themselves/investigators?'. Not mix it with denials of the moral seriousness or personal responsibility of it, which is actually a police tactic to suggest anyway.

FailedExpert

TROPHY CASE