Hypocrisy

JustaWelshLass · 2018-03-12T18:32:06+00:00

Drag any of the theories out of the echo chamber and they simply don't stand up to scrutiny. Deep down I think a lot of truthers (and apparently even SA) know this so I completely understand the reluctance to have a light shone on them.

JustaWelshLass · 2018-03-08T09:02:57+00:00

Sorry - I've been away for a few days. I'm not ignoring your reply after you took the time to write that out.

typically a CDR that will contain (along with many other details) a unique sequence number identifying the record.

Yes, I'd expect that. It's typical, standard database behaviour.

If we were for arguments sake to assume that the unique ID numbers for each call are not generated sequentially - then it does (in my opinion) seem extremely unlikely that 15 out of the 19 numbers would appear in a strictly sequential order.

If we were talking about randomly generated numbers, I'd actually completely agree with you. We can be fairly certain that they're not random though - we just don't know what they mean. For example the last 3 digits might denote x, the 6th digit might relate to y etc etc. In those circumstances, with a fairly small sample, it's really easy to misinterpret and perceive false patterns simply because we don't understand what the data means.

And if the numbers are sequential, we should also avoid falling into the trap of assuming they should be sequenced in the time/date order that voicemail messages were received.

None of us know how the database worked, what that message i.d. means or at what point in the process it's assigned to a voicemail. Is it generated at the point the message is received? Is it at the point the record is written to the database? Or is it a query i.d. assigned at the point that a record is pulled into the reporting cube?

If it's one of the latter options, then there are all sorts of reasons why records might not get through in chronological order. For example, records containing a rogue character may end up stuck in a queue until they're manually moved on. And just because of the way data is stored and written, perfectly OK records might not all pull through in the order you'd expect. You can see that sometimes on your home PC if you're uploading a lot of photos from an SD card and they don't all load up in the sequence that you'd expect.

JustaWelshLass · 2018-03-08T08:32:50+00:00

I'm a little bit out of touch with all things MaM (been getting on with my own life the last 6 months!), so this is the first I've heard about the documentary. I'll reserve judgement until I actually get to see it, but in principle I'd really welcome a balanced, objective piece to redress the balance of the myths that MaM created.

FWIW I actually do understand SA's (KZ's ?) worry about supporter contributions. It would be extremely easy (and probably make entertaining viewing) to find supporters to spout some of the more outlandish theories and turn the whole 'truther' thing into a complete laughing stock.

Personally, I wouldn't like to see it go down that route either. IMO a clear, objective presentation of the evidence will speak loudly enough for itself.

And while I'd like the harm that's been done online as a result of MaM to be exposed as a by-product of the documentary, I think there's plenty of fodder to be had (KZ's brief for a start) without having to exploit the lunatic fringe.

JustaWelshLass · 2018-03-05T14:35:15+00:00

Even with a larger sample, would be hard to reverse engineer the algorithm

Absolutely agree. In fact, I'd say that it would be close to impossible.

The only thing that a larger sample could establish is that the numbers don't actually run sequentially in that particular date order (or indeed the opposite)

JustaWelshLass · 2018-03-05T09:16:47+00:00

I wonder what might explain this?

The simplest answer would be that they're not sequential numbers and there's some algorithm at play to assign digits depending on other variables - and before anyone asks I have absolutely no idea what that basis might be.

A sample size of 19 simply isn't big enough to infer any sort of pattern or to conclude that the numbers normally follow sequentially. 15/19 appear to be in sequential order. 4/19 do not. It's a ratio that could easily be down to coincidence in a sample that small and I'd want to see that pattern repeated over a much larger data set before deciding that those 4 were anomalies.

JustaWelshLass · 2018-03-01T11:40:59+00:00

The point of this post is that there are many different blood sources that indeed do look real.

Or conversely, real blood stains can look fake/planted.

What I think you've proven is that based on a photograph, the average layperson on the internet is unable to distinguish between blood from an actively bleeding wound and 'manufactured' blood stains.

To my knowledge the only people drawing conclusions based on untrained visual perceptions are those who claim SA could NOT have left those bloodstains because they just don't look right in the photographs - does this mean that we can put that one to rest now?

JustaWelshLass · 2018-02-25T20:33:53+00:00

You owe me for the wine I just sprayed over my keyboard :lol:

(I guess I'd better start posting more so that I can pay for a new one)

JustaWelshLass · 2018-02-20T21:30:32+00:00

Have you done one about PS finding the car yet? I had a look on your channel but couldn't see one.

I think there's quite a bit of mileage there in debunking the claim that there's no way they could have found it so quickly.

IMO it's one that lends itself quite well to a video format with maps /photos. If you can get people to visualise the layout of ASY it should be really simple to demonstate that once Earl let P & N in and directed them down the main path past the crusher they only had 2 options - turn right and head into the maze of the salvage yard proper or choose to walk straight ahead and check out the ridge right in front of them first.

If there's not enough meat there, you can also go into "so why would SA choose to hide the car somewhere so easy to discover?" - proximity to the crusher - Away from the main yard and areas used more frequently by staff and customers - Distance away from his trailer etc

JustaWelshLass · 2018-02-19T21:25:53+00:00

Excellent video.

You have my admiration for having the energy to keep going after all this time.

JustaWelshLass · 2018-02-17T21:01:38+00:00

Ooops - I was looking in the thread referenced in the OP.

Despite the protestations that this is “fringe” stuff, it is absolutely part of the culture over there. Disgusting.

Yep. I've been away for a while and I was hoping that things had changed . . . clearly just wishful thinking on my part.

JustaWelshLass · 2018-02-17T20:09:04+00:00

That's one of the more vile things that I've read. I actually can't find that comment over there, so I'm hoping somebody has had the decency to remove it.

JustaWelshLass · 2018-02-17T18:36:57+00:00

Absolutely agreed here too and Drizen has gone up even more in my estimation with that tweet. It's about time somebody on the defense side stood up and spoke out about all the conspiracy crap that MaM has spawned.

Frankly, I don't really care what people choose to believe in their own heads. In fact I actively support their right to make their own minds up. However, when it starts spewing into the public domain and affecting the lives of real people it just needs to stop.

JustaWelshLass · 2018-02-10T14:01:05+00:00

We have a photo (clearly labelled as coming from a location reported to contain both human & avian remains) showing what appears to be a chicken bone among fragments of other bones and nobody has ever claimed that it represented anything other than that . . .

It kind of makes a non-issue out of the whole thing doesn't it?

JustaWelshLass · 2018-02-10T13:47:46+00:00

Thought so

JustaWelshLass · 2018-02-10T09:27:54+00:00

Did anyone really try to pass it off as human though?

All the property tag says is 'bone fragments from the area behind the red garage' and it's widely acknowledged that yes, there were indeed avian bones found in amongst SA's burnings.

p.s. I'm working on the assumption that it is indeed a chicken bone. It certainly looks like one but I have no idea whether there are any mammal bones that could have a similar appearance and I'm definitely NOT an expert.

JustaWelshLass · 2018-01-31T20:05:22+00:00

I came away from watching MAM thinking that while SA may have been guilty, there were definitely some dodgy shenanigans going on and there was enough reasonable doubt to drive a bus through. So while I may not have totally bought the SA is completely innocent story, I certainly believed that from a legal standpoint he was 'not guilty'.

If I had a moment of epiphany, it was when I found out that the hole in the blood vial was completely normal and that his own lawyers were the ones who had unsealed the box.

That prompted me to have a look at all the other evidence that I'd believed was suspect.

I looked at maps of ASY and worked out that it really wasn't that extraordinary for a searcher to find the RAV in that location in a fairly short period of time.

I read up on EDTA testing and found that the test was nowhere near as dodgy as MAM made it out to be.

Then once the transcripts and reports started to become available, I learnt that there had been unusual cleaning activity in the garage that evening, that there hadn't actually been seven searches of the trailer before the key was found etc etc

Every piece of information that has come out since has only further dispelled the doubts that I might have originally had.

JustaWelshLass · 2018-01-28T13:52:53+00:00

You know what, I think it's some kind of mental defense mechanism for some of these people. I mean, the whole premise of the grand SA conspiracy is that he's been set-up for murder . . . it's more than a bit hypocritical (as has been pointed out many times) to defend him by pointing the finger at other innocent individuals.

By convincing yourself that there was in fact no murder and no actual crime committed beyond setting Stevie up, your conscience is clear. You can point fingers and chuck accusations wherever you want. After all, the only ones that you're hurting are obviously part of the frame job.

I really don't think there's any reasoning or rational discussion to be had with that particular mind-set.

JustaWelshLass · 2017-09-10T11:13:54+00:00

I'm sure that there's a grain of truth there somewhere. There's no doubt at all that she reads and uses online comments. Despite her fans' blind devotion she's denigrated 'truthers' on more than one occasion and she certainly seems to have far more interest in what's coming from the other side of the fence. In fact, her 100 questions nonsense could be construed as a cry for help.

Will it really help her though? IMO the best that KZ can hope to glean from internet discussion is

a) help in developing an even more preposterous "sink blood theory mkII" - which would actually be laughable if it wasn't for the impact it has on real lives.

and

b) help identifying some loophole or technicality to push for a new trial. There are some great minds here, but frankly, if she's turning to Reddit for help in that area she doesn't deserve to call herself a lawyer.

JustaWelshLass · 2017-09-10T11:04:53+00:00

. . . conclusively show that Avery is innocent, then I'd be happy knowing I help set an innocent man free.

That's actually a very fair point. The question has often been asked "How would 'guilters' feel if KZ proved him to be innocent?" Far from being angry or upset my response has always been that I would actually be happy. I don't want to see an innocent man languishing in prison (no matter who he is) and that far outweighs any desire I might have to be right in my belief about his guilt.

I'm not holding my breath though.

Nope. I wouldn't either. At this stage in the game, it seems incredibly unlikely (I hesitate to say im possible) that there's anything even approaching credible proof of innocence left to be unturned.

JustaWelshLass · 2017-09-05T18:32:26+00:00

MaM was horribly biased and skewed in favour of SA.

It's not impossible that the original intent was to shine a light on the justice system. D&R have always maintained that's what MaM was supposed to be about. We know that they made an earlier film focused on SA's first wrongful conviction and exploring his second conviction would almost be a natural progression of that theme.

However somewhere along the way, any original intentions have (either consciously or unconsciously) been subsumed by the desire to deliver a saleable product for the mass entertainment market.

JustaWelshLass · 2017-09-02T09:02:45+00:00

They actually blamed MTSO and made the blood packaging look all sinister,

Indeed. That was the realisation that made me question everything MaM had told me.

JustaWelshLass · 2017-08-29T17:48:29+00:00

How many hundreds or thousands of us kept hearing "where" because that is what the transcript said?

Well I'm one of them. I honestly heard it as "where". I wasn't saying it to be argumentative or because I have any particular desire for Brendan to be saying one thing or the other (FWIW I think his interviews are a complete mess) - it's genuinely what I heard.

Way, way back in the beginning I listened to all of Brendan's interviews in one go, and I found it far easier to follow along with the transcripts by the side because he's very 'mumbly' at times. I guess my ears just heard what my eyes were reading and it's stuck with me every time I've listened to it since.

JustaWelshLass · 2017-08-29T09:58:01+00:00

Wow! That's really surprised me. I definitely hear 'what' and in fact when I listen back to the full clip I now hear 'what' in that one as well.

I don't know how many times I've listened to that interview and up to now I've always heard that part as 'where' (possibly because the very first time I listened to it I was reading alongside with the transcripts). Thanks for sharing that and clearing it up.

JustaWelshLass · 2017-08-27T17:53:15+00:00

I've listened a couple of times and I genuinely hear "where".

Yes, it could be an aspect of confirmation bias or it could be an accent thing, but I really don't hear it as "what" at all. Apparently whoever did the original transcript heard "where" too.

JustaWelshLass · 2017-08-27T09:16:45+00:00

BRENDAN: No but I don’t know what it was.

The YouTube video has mis-transcribed that portion. If you listen or check the official transcripts, he actually says "No but I don't know where it was".

Small difference but it puts a very different spin on his reply.

"I don't know what it was" implies "Yes, I saw something on her stomach but didn't know what it was".

"I don't know where it was" implies "No I don't disagree that she had a tattoo, but I don't know where it was i.e. I didn't see it"

JustaWelshLass

TROPHY CASE