|
I know this sounds a little over the top, but has anyone brought up the idea that the cops could have actually murdered this woman for the specific purpose of framing Avery for it? Several of these people had been living with the sword of Damocles over their head ever since Avery was exonerated for the first attack, and then right as these depositions are getting started she disappears? She was known to have visited Avery several times before for the magazine she worked for, so I do think its possible(however remotely) that she was targeted for that reason. There could have been someone(Colburn perhaps?) staked out at Avery's place, and when they saw her leave they grabbed her. Obviously there's not any real evidence supporting that, but these guys were capable of some heinous poo poo and it wouldn't really shock me if they were also capable of straight up murdering somebody. Their careers and even their lives as free men were at stake after all.
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Kal Torak posted:I doubt the cops would go that far. That seems way over the top. I know its movie type poo poo but so are a whole bunch of things the police almost certainly did in this case. Edit: Also remember we wouldn't be talking about some massive conspiracy here. It's basically the work of like 5 or 6 guys. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Kal Torak posted:I think coordinating the murder of an innocent young woman by 5 or 6 law enforcement officers would be a massive conspiracy and extremely unlikely. Of course its extremely unlikely. Its easily just as likely Avery did it, there's no clear answers to be had in this thing. But no, 5 or 6 people isn't a massive conspiracy in the way I'm talking about. My point is its not as difficult to keep a secret if only a few people know about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
The implication the documentary was making there is that the brother and ex-boyfriend, who were leading the search party, must have had some meeting with the dirty cops where the whole thing was explained to them and they went along with it. The cops probably convinced them that Avery was totally 100% guilty for sure, and that moving the car was necessary to make sure he paid for the crime. Or maybe the ex-boyfriend did it who the gently caress knows.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Junkenstein posted:The defence states at one point that they're not allowed to mention who else might have done it. They obviously had people in mind, did this ever come out? The ex-boyfriend I think would have been the guy they would have named if they could have. Or possibly Brendan's brother.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The only issue is that it doesn't answer who killed her, but no one really has a motive for doing that. The one person who could have potentially had a motive other than random bloodlust/sexual deviancy is the ex-boyfriend. He would have had all the info he'd need to commit the crime and police usually look at those type of relationships first for a reason. Those deleted voicemails may have pointed in his direction, possibly him making threats or at the very least showing that he was angry at her about something at the time. The other people who had a clear motive are cops, but the ex-boyfriend is a much likelier scenario. At the very least its clear to me that he and the brother participated in the evidence tampering, that shifty interview in Episode 1 combined with the timeline of events makes that much fairly obvious I'd say. To be honest though if I had to put my life on the line with a single guess, it'd still be Avery himself. He shouldn't have been convicted of course, but the documentary didn't convince me that he's completely incapable of something like that, and the basic indisputable facts still make him the likeliest suspect. Very similar to the OJ Simpson case because even though its been established that some evidence was planted, I still firmly believe that OJ did it, as do most people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Kampfbereit posted:It fits if she was alive when he called it in. Like, he saw her in her car at a stoplight or wherever, called it in to see if it was her, followed her to a remote area and pulled her over. Not saying I believe that's what actually happened, but it possible. When the defense played that call in court, he looked crestfallen. Yea I don't think anyone is saying that Colburn or Lenk murdering her is the likeliest scenario, but it really shows how rotten that department is that you can walk away from this documentary and still have that little nagging doubt in your mind that its possible. If Theresa were still alive for a day or more after she met with Avery then I think she would have been seen by somebody, but I suppose if the one person she saw was the person who ended up killing her(ex-boyfriend), its possible. After all, her roommate didn't really seriously start to worry for like 2+ days, so maybe dropping of the map for 24-48 hours was normal for her. Her roommate is a figure in all this that hardly gets brought up in the documentary, but she could certainly have played a part in sparking a motive if she and the ex-boyfriend had been getting together and Theresa was vocal about not liking it. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
kaworu posted:It's like this: On top of having no motive, I don't think Steven Avery was anywhere near smart enough to pull off a murder like this and have the means and ability to properly clean up the way he did in the amount of time he had. On the flip-side, I also think that even if he somehow *was* capable of murder, there is no way he would have jeopardized his current situation where he was about to make millions in a civil suit. A dim guy like him frankly has a very dogged but one-track mind, as we learned in the film, and it simply does not pass the straight face test. I think you need to be both intelligent, confident, and ballsy as hell to murder someone when you are in a situation like the one he was in, or you have to be insane. And he was neither. Does that make sense? Just based on what I learned about the man over those 10 hours and the research I've done, that's how it feels to me. If Avery did it, the thing that really confuses the issue and makes it hard to establish what actually went down is Brendan's confession. Could a man of Avery's mental abilities done what Brendan describes and cleaned up the scene so well? Probably not, but what if Avery is guilty, and Brendan's confession is also bullshit? If we're going with the premise that Avery is too dumb to get away with this, then that doesn't preclude him from having done it because he got caught, he didn't get away with it. It just means he was too dumb to completely sanitize that garage, which is of no importance if he never tried to because the garage was never a crime scene to begin with. In the end I don't think we're ever given a complete enough picture of Steve Avery as a person to really know for sure what he is and isn't capable of, and I think that was probably by design. If he had developed deviant sexual appetites either in childhood or in prison, and they were too strong for him to resist, I'm not sure he's smart enough to say to himself "better not kill this person, it'll be easily traced back to me!". But he may be, I just can't say for sure. Sometimes he comes across as smarter than you'd expect for a guy with a 70 IQ, other times not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:The only way I can see him having done it is if he was arrogant and stupid enough to think the 'I was wrongfully accused before' defence would make him indefinitely immune to all crime. Which isn't totally out of the realm of possibility. Anything could have happened when the two of them were alone on his part of the property. He may have touched her inappropriately and she fought back, she may have insulted him in some way that led to him committing the crime in anger(we know he has anger issues), who loving knows. It didn't have to be some cold-blooded, calculated plan to murder her from the beginning. Remember, its very possible he did it but under a different set of circumstances than what Brendan confessed to.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:I just have a hard time thinking he did it when there's not a shred of evidence to prove he did that wasn't very obviously planted. Well there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, which is used to convict people all the time. Certainly not enough to convict in this case, I think we all agree on that, but it doesn't mean Avery is actually innocent. She was known to have met with Avery very very close to the time of her disappearance. Her bones were found on his property, outside of his trailer. Her car, which her blood and hair were found in, is found on his property. Its pretty likely the bones and the car were moved by police but there's really no evidence to prove that the same way there is with the blood vial, the bullet, and the key.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
kaworu posted:But again, the thing is, if it was something that got out of hand... Part of me thinks Steve would have owned up to it and plead guilty. Or that if he decided to cover it up, he'd have been smart enough to, you know, use that massive car crusher he owns instead of driving past it and parking Teresa's RAV4 in an obvious place and covering it with twigs and branches so it stands out. While being intelligent enough to perfectly clean his apartment and garage of all blood and DNA belonging to Halbach, but leaving several smears of both his and Halbach's blood that were incredibly visually obvious right in the car (which could have been cleaned up with a papertowel and some 409) even though he had the foresight to hide the car. It just doesn't pass the straight face test! As far as what we think Avery "would have" done in these scenarios, I don't think anyone's opinion is really an educated one because the documentary doesn't give us a complete enough picture of who he is. Ok, so a few times when he was younger he owned up to some bad stuff he did. If he's smart enough to know how big a deal murder is, he may not be as willing to own up to that as you'd like to believe. And as I said before, because of the police gently caress-ups and corruption, we simply don't know what evidence may have been cleaned or "covered up", or just never existed in the first place. There may have never been any blood in his apartment or garage if the crime didn't take place there, the reason the state believes it did is a dubious confession. There are so many different ways this could have gone down that would explain why Avery didn't do a better job covering his tracks, but we'll never be able to straighten it out because the police made that impossible. Edit: Just as one example, Avery's low intelligence may have led him to believe that his scrapyard was a bottomless pit that nobody would be able to find anything in. He literally may not have beleived the police were persistent or capable enough to go through each and every car in order to find Theresa's. The boards and sticks could have just been a half-assed afterthought. My overall point is we really don't have the first clue what's going on inside Avery's head, but we do have a person who was known to have met with him before disappearing and who's burned remains were found on his property. Those are the facts. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
kaworu posted:You sound a bit self righteous saying "those are the facts" because they're two facts taken entirely out of a much wider context. I apologize if it came across that way, but I mean in the empirical sense those are two facts that aren't disputed. Theresa did in fact meet with Avery that day, she did in fact disappear shortly after meeting with him, and her remains were in fact found on his property. Those very basic facts usually go a long way towards telling you who committed the crime, under normal circumstances. That's all I'm saying. You're obviously right that the context matters here, but if I had to choose the likeliest perpetrator, I'd end up on Avery. But to be clear I wouldn't be at all confident that I was correct, hence why I could never vote to convict if I were on the jury.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:Who said anything about Avery's character? Maybe not anyone specifically in this thread, but the documentary tries from the first few minutes of the first episode to establish a profile of Avery that supports their version of events. That he just got in with the wrong crowd and that's why he ended up burning the cat, that the woman he pulled the gun on was a liar and maybe kinda deserved a little wake up call. That he was a loving father tragically ripped from his child's arms when really its not all that clear if he gives a poo poo about his kids or not. The one letter we see that he sent them contains threats against their mother so I'm not sure those pictures they keep going back to over and over again from the day before his 1985 arrest are really the most accurate portrayal of who Avery is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
I suppose its an unavoidable flaw of the jury system but yea I'm sure there are countless cases where people who were wrongfully convicted maybe wouldn't have been if they'd been lucky enough to have a Henry Fonda type on the jury. Someone who's going to say "gently caress it, we'll stay in this room for the next year if that's what it takes to make sure justice is done".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Kelly posted:The Halbachs did not murder their daughter. She did not kill herself. The police did not kill her. Some of you sound like mental patients. I really don't get your issue. Almost every single person in this thread has expressed the same feeling, that all things considered the likeliest scenario is Steven or one of the other Averys/Dassey's did it. Simply tossing around theories about the boyfriends potential involvement or really over the top stuff like the police actually committing the murder doesn't mean we're betting our life savings on it. There's a whole bunch of different ways the murder could have occurred, some are more likely than others. Why shouldn't we discuss them all? I've said this a few times already but if I were betting my life on this I'd say Steven Avery did in fact commit this murder. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Kelly posted:Few pages back there was a discussion about how the Halbachs/police did it - seemed fairly 'serious' all things considered. I went back three pages and didn't see anything like that. Maybe you saw someone who posted about how the Halbachs were probably "in on it", but didn't realize they meant the evidence tampering? The deleted voicemails on Theresa's phone point to the boyfriend or her brother, but almost nobody is actually saying her brother or parents murdered her, its more about whether they cooperated with police in framing Avery. If they did they probably did it with noble intentions, honestly believing in what the dirty cops were saying and believing that Avery was the guy who killed their daughter. If someone in my family were brutally murdered, and I came to believe I knew with certainty who did it, I'd probably help out any way I could to nail the guy to the wall even if that means doing something illegal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Theresa's DNA not being found at the "crime scenes" means absolutely nothing because Brendan's confession is the only reason anyone thinks that's where the murder occurred. If she were killed in her car(where plenty of her DNA was found), there'd be no reason for anything to have ended up in the trailer or garage. But again, there are two very basic facts that have never been in dispute. Theresa DID meet with Steven that day and disappeared shortly after. Her remains WERE later found on his property. If, for the purposes of discussion, you can put aside all the corrupt cop stuff, those facts make Steven Avery the likeliest suspect. There's never been any evidence that Theresa actually saw anyone else after her meeting with Avery, and theres no evidence that she was killed somewhere outside of Avery's property and then brought back later.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Except the few bones found in the Quarry. The relatively small number of them makes it unlikely that they were dumped there. I was under the impression that area was also Avery's property, but even if its not, its an area adjacent to his property where the likelihood of someone other than an Avery family member being around there is much less than the likelihood that it was actually Avery or a Dassey. Just to be extra super clear, we're talking about possibilities and likelihoods here. I have no certainty at all as to what actually happened, that's the frustrating part. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah but unless he/one of his family has a weird fetish it doesn't make any sense to move them closer to his bedroom. I'm saying that the police definitely tampered with evidence and probably moved the bones closer to the trailer to make Avery look even more guilty. Leon Einstein posted:This isn't at all damning though? Both can be true. Avery may be guilty but Colburn and Lenk felt like they needed to make sure it was an open and shut case.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Zsa Zsa Gabor posted:Did anyone find out who was calling Theresa prior to her disappearance? That detail stuck with me. I figured if they (the defense) could show the court her cellphone message records, and when certain messages were deleted, it would be easy to pinpoint the number that kept calling her, but I don't remember this being answered in the doc. I'd bet there just wasn't anything in the phone records that was definitive. Like, yea probably her ex boyfriend called her a bunch of times in the months leading up to her death but is that really all that suspicious on its own? I think if evidence were uncovered that she had some crazy stalker we'd have been shown that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
precision posted:Also, as mentioned, it seems much more likely the body was burned in the quarry and nonsensical that it would have then been moved to the Avery compound by Steven or another Avery. I don't think anyone is arguing that though. The idea would be that one of the people living on the Avery property killed her, loaded her into her car, burned her body out at the quarry and left. Then the cops found the bones and the car and moved them closer to Avery's property.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
The quarry is a little further away from the property than I realized, but really it doesn't change anything because its close enough for Avery to know every inch of it and I imagine its waaaaay more likely to find an Avery around that area than anybody else. I'd be interested in knowing more about the quarry though, like was it active with people working there and everything? Would it be an attractive place to take a body if you wanted it to stay hidden for a while? We don't really get any details about it.
Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Glenn_Beckett posted:Yup. I did watch a hilariously biased "documentary." Here are my options: The police found the car, drove it to Avery's property, bleached his garage, paid off neighbors to claim they saw Avery bleach his garage. Or Avery murdered a person. I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. Do you think the police acted completely appropriately and didn't plant evidence in this case at all? And if you agree they did plant evidence are you saying that was ok because Avery is probably guilty anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:No, it's not. Trolling is saying something controversial solely to elicit a response or make people angry. I"m saying that because I genuinely think you're an idiot stoner if you actually lean towards evidence being planted with no evidence of that other than the wild doubt casted by the slick defense lawyers. It really seems like you didn't even watch the documentary though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it a reasonable doubt to think that his blood and her remains were planted. To me, no. What about the car key and the bullet? If you concede that those pieces of evidence are likely to have been planted then you have to accept that there's doubt about the other stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:I don't think they were planted either, and don't think it's fair to say it is likely they were planted. I just focused on the big 2, because those 2 alone are a slam dunk. But the cops who are responsible for finding the blood and the remains are the same ones who are accused of planting the key and the bullet. If you thought there was a good chance the key and bullet are planted doesn't that make it less of a "slam dunk" that the blood and remains are legit? I'm just trying to figure out if you have any sense of logic or if you understand what reasonable doubt means.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Eau de MacGowan posted:What was the deal with Kachinsky having his private investigator interrogate Brendan and have him draw up a bunch of rape diagrams? I thought he was going make Brendan confess to a bunch of nonsense so that he could prove how easily manipulated he was, but apparently the drawings Brendan did actually got submitted as evidence for the prosecution? My interpretation of what was going on in that scumbags head is that he was being pressured by the sheriffs department to get Brendan to take the plea, because if he did then it would make the Avery case a slam-dunk. I have no doubt that there are ways the department could have made it worth it for Kachinsky to gently caress over his own client, aside from simply paying him of course.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
nooneofconsequence posted:He confessed to raping, torturing, brutally murdering, and then burning a woman and thought he could go back to school that day. Yea its not that Brendan doesn't understand that raping or murdering someone is wrong, he has enough basic intelligence to get right and wrong. Its that he doesn't have the capacity to understand the legal system, even basic concepts, like that confessing to something can get you put in jail even if you were making it up. For someone with normal or even a little below average intelligence, its hard to understand the thought process of someone who'd honestly think "the cops just want me to say a specific thing and then they'll let me go". But Brendan isn't really capable of understanding how investigations work, what cops actually do on a daily basis, and how our system determines who is guilty of a crime.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Kingtheninja posted:Whatever happened with the blood vial? I remember having an oh poo poo moment when that showed up at the end of episode 4, but didn't really see it come into play during the trial. I thought that was a shocking piece of evidence. The state figured out a way around that too. They magically developed a test for the blood (a test that they'd previously claimed would take too long to develop in time for the trial) that would determine if a certain additive used for preservation was in the blood. The test came back negative and the jury probably was too simple-minded to understand the whole idea that a positive result is 100% reliable, but that the test wasn't precise enough to know whether a negative result actually meant the additive was not there. It was explained to them by an expert but I doubt they really absorbed it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I thought the point the defence was making was that the FBI and such tend to drag their feet with these sorts of tests until it becomes a vital part of the prosecution's case. If the results of a test could save a man from the chair it'll take 6-8 years. I believe Junkenstein is correct, this was either a brand new test or a test that hadn't been in use for a long enough time that the procedures had to be put in place from the beginning. What exactly that entails I have no idea but they said it was impossible to get it done in time for the trial. Then all the sudden, probably when someone decided that the test was going to come up negative no matter what, they shockingly were able to perform it sooner than expected.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:I'd be interested to know if any information was ever disclosed about the detection threshold for that particular test. The expert witness that the defense brought in mentioned that, I think, in her explanation of how it could come up negative even if the preservative was present, but I don't think they ever came back to it. I think its just the fallibility that every chemical analysis test has, there has to be a detection threshold. In the case of this blood test its not like a certain minute amount of the additive would just be in the blood naturally, so you'd think they'd want that threshold to be as tiny as possible since any amount present is very relevant to a case. I think what the expert was saying though is that no matter what, there's always the possibility that a tiny amount was present and it was simply under the detection threshold. That's why a positive result means something definitive and a negative result doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Whether or not Avery and Brendan should have been convicted is a completely different issue than their actual guilt or innocence. If we're talking the court case, I don't see how you can just accept any of the physical evidence at face value once you come to the conclusion that the car key and probably a few other key pieces of evidence were very likely planted. The car key, the bullet, and the blood in the car all are highly suspicious, and all were collected by members of a law enforcement agency that everyone agrees shouldn't have been involved in the case at all. So at the very least incompetence led to them being involved, and that incompetence tainted the evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:And they just kind of... figured out her password. I could easily get into any of my parents accounts, their passwords are always one of their three dogs, sometimes followed by two specific numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Schurik posted:My point being that they would be increasing the risk with their actions. If they had just shut up and kept out of the case, things wouldn't have gotten worse for them. Maybe not worse if they stay out, but possibly a lot better if they risk it. With Avery completely discredited they were off the hook for all of the poo poo they were potentially in for before the murder. If Avery's just a person of interest in a case that never goes anywhere they gain nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:The really annoying thing is someone could easily think Steven Avery killed Teresa without being ... like you. It's totally believable that he did it. But the stuff you're saying is trash. Yea that is particularly aggravating for me because as I've thought about it more and more this past week I'm of the opinion that Steven probably did commit the murder. But its depressing to see others come to that same conclusion, yet for some reason find it necessary to dismiss the obvious corruption and criminal acts of so many involved in the investigation. Justice for the murder of an innocent young woman is very important, but even more important is the fact that our justice system is rotting from the inside out. If this kind of thing is allowed to continue, many more guilty murderers will go free in the future. That's an element that even the documentary didn't emphasize enough in my opinion. Because of the grudge the sheriffs department had against Steven Avery, a serial rapist was allowed to operate for years past when he normally would have been behind bars. Thank god he wasn't a Ted Bundy type because multiple lives could have been lost as a result of this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Yea I have an issue with those facts being left out of the documentary. Making a woman feel creeped out and then giving false information in order to see her again when she's already requested off the assignment isn't damning evidence on its own but there's no good reason to leave it out either. The makers of the documentary clearly wanted to present a certain picture of what type of person Avery is, and when little things like that contradicted that picture they just left them out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:This entire thing is frustrating because it seems like everything here (the doc included now) has a moderate amount to a shitton of stupidity attached to it and it all just kind of runs together into a muddy mess. That's why the procedures of a criminal investigation, and specifically interrogation and evidence collection, are more important than whether or not one potential murderer walks free. Its because when things get this muddled and unclear, no case is worth poo poo. If we can't have even a basic level of trust that evidence collected by professional law enforcement officers will be processed properly then we'll never know who's guilty and who isn't in any case, ever. We just can't have that, our entire justice system and maybe even society as a whole would be completely hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Hobo Clown posted:Devil's advocate: what else should Ken Kratz have done at the time? He was district attorney for the state, his job was to get a conviction. Should he have thrown the case intentionally because things seems fishy? He didn't need to be so smarmy about it during the press conferences but as far as the case goes it seemed like he was doing what he was supposed to. The one thing he did(as opposed to his general demeanor which as we know is as slimy as it gets) that is just plain unethical and unprofessional is holding that press conference. He grandstanded all over the place and completely poisoned the jury pool, which I'm thinking was probably what he set out to do. That press conference happens in like episode 3 or 4 but I never forgot about that for the rest of the documentary, if not for that I might have come away from it thinking he was just a typical prosecutor.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Grem posted:Evidence tape is really flimsy and is easy to destroy accidentally. It was designed that way on purpose but ends up being a pretty unreliable marker for meaning there's a purposeful breach. The vial was sandwiched between two pieces of Styrofoam and taped on both sides. Both sides tape were broken, is that something that really happens by accident? I could see maybe someone accidentally ripping one side, but both at the same time?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Shath Hole posted:So I'm only 3 episodes in, but this series is as amazing as it is horrific. My wife and I just sit silently every episode with a "What the gently caress" whispered here and there. There's no way I could even get through this if I weren't watching alone. I'd be pausing every 2 minutes to go on a rant about something, it would take 6 months to watch.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 18:09
|
|