• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

478 Neutral

About ylekram

  • Rank
    3rd Year Veteran
  • Birthday 09/11/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,430 profile views
  1. richardsons comments about suh money went as follows " we want suh money". he didnt say "i want suh money". taken with the entire context of the interview, one can make the argument that sheldon was speaking for mo wilks as well
  2. Making a Murderer

    not sure what you mean here about cross contamination. i was suggesting that new technology would be used to tell the age of the dna, specifically the blood found in terasas car. ie: whether the blood found was from a 24 year old avery( which would suggest evidence planting and his innocence) or from a 44 year old avery( which would suggest that he actually bled in the car and his guilt)
  3. Making a Murderer

    new revelations in the case. steven avery's new attorney, kathleen zellner, states that she has new evidence that will exonerate steve avery. imo, the new evidence will revolve around steven averys blood found inside the car. specifically using new technology that can prove the age of the dna. i believe these tests are already done. why else whould his new lawyer claim that she has new evidence to exonerate steven avery? she is a prominate attorney that doesnt need the money or notoriety. she already has it. and here is the kicker. she aparently only represents innocent people. she has never lost a case. she took on 17 conviction cases and she got 17 guys released from prison
  4. Making a Murderer

    i dont agree with your answer because i care. i have reason to. i have already stated my opinion that i am not completely convinced of his innocence. but what i am convinced of is that he did not receive a fair trial. you call prosecuting a murder messy business and mistakes get made. to that i can agree. but lets not be convinced that these were all mistakes. not even close. were some honest mistakes made? sure, that seems plausible. were finding the bullet and the key honest mistakes? not a chance
  5. i had a very similiar experience with my youngest son. he reached the age where he started to garner an interest in football. i have never really talked about footballl with him, especially not about the patriots. but i did notice he had an admiration for tom brady, but never said anything to him that i did not. this took place right around deflate gate.so we went outside to throw the football around. he threw a really nice spiral and i made the comment "boy, you looked like joe willy with that throw". he then asks me who joe willly was. i proceed to explain to him who joe namath was and how inportant he was to the nfl and the jets. i tell him joe namath was to the jets as tom brady is to the pats. he stops, looks me in the eye and says " so joe namath was a cheater, too?"
  6. Making a Murderer

    just to add. there is alot of speculation going on right now on how the film makers were biased and purposely left evidence out of the documentary that pointed to steven avery being guilty. what about the evidence left out of the documentary that points to his innocense? just off the top of my head, i have 2 easy ones 1. what about the blood sample in the test tube? we all heard about the hole in the tube stopper and that the evidence seal on the outer box was broken. also the fact that there was blood residue between the rubber stopper and the glass tube. defense testifies that this is all suspect, while the state testifies there is an explanation or it is normal. both sides make compelling arguments. but what about the evidence seal that should have been present on the tube itself? the state has no answer for that. it was left out of the documentary 2. what about the fuel delivery guy, who has no ties to the case, very much like the school bus driver, who testified that he saw teresas car drive away from steven averys trailer at 4.00 pm? although he couldnt idenify the driver of the car, he saw the car driving away at 4 pm. that was left out of the documentary as well bottom line is with hundreds of hours of testimony crammed into a 10 hour series, not every last detail could be included. i feel the fil makers did a good job. the evidence left out of the doc wasnt one sided and imo, i think they left out more important evidence of the defense as opossed to the prosecution
  7. Making a Murderer

    i would love to compare notes with you on this subject, if you are interested
  8. Making a Murderer

    i have also watched the series. after watching the series, i was left with many questions. i went on to scour the internet for any and all information about this case. i have read every peice of testimony, watched. every minute of avery and brendons interogation, basically have read or watched every peice that is out there. if it is out there, i have watched or read it. as much as you are convinced that avery is guilty, i also have my doubts about averys innocence. but i am no more than 50/50 at this point. there is plent of reasonable doubt,imo now on to your points 1. steven avery molesting his nephew the way most people took it is that avery molested brendan when he was younger. keep in mind, avery was in jail when brendan was born untill brenden was atleast 14 years old. and if you beleive brendan is innocent, well you know he has a tendency to say things that are just not true. thats all i got on this one 2.  avery made teresa uncomfortable/ wore a towel to answer door/ she asked not to go back to the averys yea, avery is a creepy dude. most people get that. and his reputation around town was as such. what other evidence and or statements suggests why teresa felt unfomfortable around avery besides the towel incident? there is none. there have been a few times during my life when i answered the door wearing only a towel. i am sure many have. the appointment was made and she knowingly when to the avery property to take the pictures. she had her own protaghrapy business and was quiting the auto trader job soon. 3. the gun that fired the bullet. it was never proven that averys gun fired the bullet. testimony from the states witness states that the bullet was probably fired from the gun but cannot be certain. and thats if you beleive the bullet found was actually used to shoot teresa. it was found months later, after being thuroughly searched, on multiple occassions, only to be found by an officer who was not suppossed to be part of the investigation in the first place, and who also had much to gain if avery was convicted. on top of that, anybody with 2 eyes can see that the garage was not part of the crime scene at all. begging the question. how did the bullet get into the garage? 4. averys restraints the restraints WERE  found and were fully tested. there were 2 sets of dna found on the restraints. both excluded teresas dna. when asked about the restraints, avery admitted to the purchase and said they were used to spice up he and jodi's sex life. jodi has confirmed this 5. dna on hood latch once again, evidence that was found months later after many searches. evidence technicions admitted to touching other parts of the car containing averys dna, while not switching gloves. entirely possible and probable that this was contact dna 6. cat burning as horrible and diliberate as it was, it doesnt mean a thing as far as teresa goes
  9. senorgato, hats off you sly dog. i am sitting here laughing my azz off when my wife asks me what i am laughing about. i tell her a guy on the board is saying some silly sh*t and i think he is drunk. she tells me to hand her the laptop. she says "you dumbass, your being trolled". man, i gotta tell ya i had no idea. i thought it was funny that nobody else had anything to say.lol. you got me.well played.well played
  10. its a good thing that you didnt read it. because it proves you wrong. i get it. dont read it. cant be proven wrong. strategy and all emotional? i have been laughing my azz off for some time now reading your posts. i think i pissed myself about 4 posts ago          
  11. this is why this argument is not winnable for you. you are 2 burried. first you say wilkerson is the best 3-4 defensive end (not named watt) to ever play in the past decade. then you declare wilkerson to be one of the greatest jets of all time. on top of all that, you state wilkerson was playing at an "elite" level his rookie season. you back all that up as some kinda fact with what i bolded above and i am the one who types flatly stated stuff with no basis in truth or fact or reality. you and you alone are the only one who believes what you are typing. not one other person. with that said, i believe the burden of proof falls on you. and thats right. you dont have the proof. all you have is opinion. kinda hard to produce anything of substance when you are the only person in this entire universe who believes what you believe
  12. ahh. the grammar police tactic. when all else fails, right? i knew you had an ace up your sleeve
  13. i dont know where to begin with this nonsense. most of it is not pertinent to our discussions. but to 1 point. i do remember everyone that is anything saying that wilkersons rookie year was "elite" and thats why he won rookie of the year. his 3 sacks that year were just a farce
  14. dude, have we had a few too many cocktails tonight? my narrative? change my mind at any moment? geeze wilkerson is a fine player. really good player. dare i say great player. but there are only 2 people who thinks he is a twice in a generation player. you and wilkersons mom. i was going to say 3 people, but hell, wilkerson himself doesnt even believe that