For Those Who Do Think Avery was Framed & Evidence Planted - Discuss

[video=youtube;8m1pjJykpdY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=8m1pjJykpdY&app=desktop[/video]

This is a video of someone pointing out some of Kratz's inconsistent statements. I found it to be pretty factual and ironically humorous at times, lol.

Ok let's say he was framed. Let's say it was more than 1 person ensuring his conviction. It's a possibility even if I haven't seen the evidence yet. No one has to prove anything to me, nor is it required that everyone who posts on this thread believe exactly the same thing as everyone else. Some have stated they're not sure but are open to the possibility of framing. The judges will overturn Avery's conviction if they decide he was wrongfully convicted; I do believe in due process.

Ms. Zellner advocates strongly for her clients. I'm a fan of her work and have been for the last few years. If she says she will show evidence, then I believe she will show what she has to the appropriate courts at the appropriate time for the best outcome for her client. Any client is lucky to have her in their corner because she's smart and she will fight to the best of her ability. She wins her cases and she may win this one too.

Truth, evidence, and constitutional rights are important for all, not just for some. If Avery has been framed or if his case has otherwise been tainted then his conviction should be vacated. If someone purposefully placed, altered, or excluded evidence in order to obtain Avery's conviction they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of who they are or what position they hold.

<modsnip>

<modsnip>

I am pretty confident in my belief that the police department at a bare minimum grossly mishandled this case in almost all aspects. Based on my understanding of everything read, seen, listened to, etc I do believe certain police officers are probably guilty of planting evidence to secure the verdict. Do I believe they did this with the sole intent to frame an innocent man ... no. That is just too far of a reach for me. I do believe there was extreme negligence and the evidence tampering was probably due to certain law enforcement officers convinced of SA's guilt and wanted to make sure the case was tied up with a beautiful bow for the prosecutor.

I do believe SA is the most likely person guilty of this crime but the evidence presented during the trail, the media bias, and ineptitude of many of the key witnesses has me gravely concerned. Unfortunately I am a strong believer in maintaining an individual's rights so based on the way this case was handled I do believe SA should not be sitting in jail. This does make me sad as I am concerned about the state of the justice system if the proper checks and balances are just trampled on.

The law enforcement officers in question should never have stepped foot on that property. The prosecutor should not have tried this case in the media with information they knew was false and was not even introduced during the trail. The protocols that were not followed concerning the DNA should not have been allowed into this case. This included the contaminated DNA as well as the FBI unverified testing of the blood.

I would gladly accept a guilty man being freed due to these concerns then risk an innocent man (whether that be SA or someone in the future that this happens to) sitting in jail for a crime law enforcement just "thought" they committed so they took it upon themselves to ensure a conviction.

slashkiss said:

I wish we could have all gotten along long enough to keep the main threat from being locked. :tantrum:

I am one of those people that reads both of these forums - Do and Do Not!

I am pretty confident in my belief that the police department at a bare minimum grossly mishandled this case in almost all aspects. Based on my understanding of everything read, seen, listened to, etc I do believe certain police officers are probably guilty of planting evidence to secure the verdict. Do I believe they did this with the sole intent to frame an innocent man ... no. That is just too far of a reach for me. I do believe there was extreme negligence and the evidence tampering was probably due to certain law enforcement officers convinced of SA's guilt and wanted to make sure the case was tied up with a beautiful bow for the prosecutor.

I do believe SA is the most likely person guilty of this crime but the evidence presented during the trail, the media bias, and ineptitude of many of the key witnesses has me gravely concerned. Unfortunately I am a strong believer in maintaining an individual's rights so based on the way this case was handled I do believe SA should not be sitting in jail. This does make me sad as I am concerned about the state of the justice system if the proper checks and balances are just trampled on.

The law enforcement officers in question should never have stepped foot on that property. The prosecutor should not have tried this case in the media with information they knew was false and was not even introduced during the trail. The protocols that were not followed concerning the DNA should not have been allowed into this case. This included the contaminated DNA as well as the FBI unverified testing of the blood.

I would gladly accept a guilty man being freed due to these concerns then risk an innocent man (whether that be SA or someone in the future that this happens to) sitting in jail for a crime law enforcement just "thought" they committed so they took it upon themselves to ensure a conviction.

Click to expand...

I kinda like having the Do and Do Not threads... like Mystic said, we are in here bouncing idea's around, and for the most part.... we don't say "hey, prove it", because obviously, there are just some things that can't be proven... there can be maybe's, there can be probable's and we can definitely have opinions, I was getting a bit tired of defending my opinion all the time. I don't do that in this thread

and on that note..... I agree with your opinion and it's stated well! I started as probably guilty, but geesh, this was messed up.... and the more I have read, the more I am not certain of his guilt. I just don't understand why they did some of the things they did.... and why they went to such great lengths to convict SA if he truly did it and they had enough evidence to prove it. (like coercing an unbelievable, unsubstantiated confession from BD)

missy1974 said:

I kinda like having the Do and Do Not threads... like Mystic said, we are in here bouncing idea's around, and for the most part.... we don't say "hey, prove it", because obviously, there are just some things that can't be proven... there can be maybe's, there can be probable's and we can definitely have opinions, I was getting a bit tired of defending my opinion all the time. I don't do that in this thread

and on that note..... I agree with your opinion and it's stated well! I started as probably guilty, but geesh, this was messed up.... and the more I have read, the more I am not certain of his guilt. I just don't understand why they did some of the things they did.... and why they went to such great lengths to convict SA if he truly did it and they had enough evidence to prove it. (like coercing an unbelievable, unsubstantiated confession from BD)

Click to expand...

Agreed with your whole post here. I started off (after watching the doc) with probably guilty for SA, as well. I thought that they had, more than likely coerced BD to state that confession as an assurance that they would get the conviction, because I didn't think Brendan was guilty at all. The tipping point, for me, was the bones. It's not even the fact that they were found in 3 different locations (though, that is odd), it is the fact that they would not allow ANY coroner or forensic specialist ON SITE to properly examine and remove the remains. I cannot come up with any logical, reasonable explanation for that fact, except that an expert would have been able to tell that evidence did not originate from there. They used the explanation that Debra Kakatsch was from Manitowoc County, and that is why they walled her, and her team, off. Okay, but that doesn't explain why the Calumet County Coroner wasn't called to assemble a team and come to the crime scene to examine, document, and recover the remains. As soon as I realized that the victim was just delivered to the medical examiner's office in a box to be examined, that cinched it for me. (I know I am obsessing this topic, but it bother's me so much. Almost as much as a 16 year old kid being drug into this so LE could get their guy)

*sigh* Rant over.

Don't get me started on those bones Jaiddie LOL It's all just so fishy. It could just be plain incompetence, but the totality of everything in this case.... it's just plain fishy IMO And if it was incompetence, why block the coroner? And then the bones being found in 3 spots..... and even the quarry isn't documented??? what the heck! Oh... and then, we aren't supposed to question the bones... the DNA... etc? *sigh*

missy1974 said:

Don't get me started on those bones Jaiddie LOL It's all just so fishy. It could just be plain incompetence, but the totality of everything in this case.... it's just plain fishy IMO And if it was incompetence, why block the coroner? And then the bones being found in 3 spots..... and even the quarry isn't documented??? what the heck! Oh... and then, we aren't supposed to question the bones... the DNA... etc? *sigh*

Click to expand...

I know... I think it bothers me so much because after MaM came out and there was the public outcry for the injustices done to the defendants, the prosecution came out of the gates shouting about how Teresa has been forgotten in all of this. Well, I call bull crap on that, back in 2005 and now today too. Where was the concern for Teresa during that sham of an investigation? Where was the concern for Teresa and her family during that lurid, make-believe fairy-tale to the press? And it's continuing to this day...every interview Ken Kratz does he seems to embellish his narrative a little more each time. Now, the public not only get to hear about the, "rape, murder, and burning" of her, now there is "dismemberment" in there as well. Dismembering someone is quite different to crushing bones into pieces as it requires the cutting of the body into pieces prior to burning them. So there is now another NEW horrible "fact" for the Halbach family to possibly have to process.
Ken Kratz is the LAST person who should be writing a book for Teresa Halbach, IMHO. :tears:

YOU got that right!

I couldn't agree with you more!

Jaiddie said:

I know... I think it bothers me so much because after MaM came out and there was the public outcry for the injustices done to the defendants, the prosecution came out of the gates shouting about how Teresa has been forgotten in all of this. Well, I call bull crap on that, back in 2005 and now today too. Where was the concern for Teresa during that sham of an investigation? Where was the concern for Teresa and her family during that lurid, make-believe fairy-tale to the press? And it's continuing to this day...every interview Ken Kratz does he seems to embellish his narrative a little more each time. Now, the public not only get to hear about the, "rape, murder, and burning" of her, now there is "dismemberment" in there as well. Dismembering someone is quite different to crushing bones into pieces as it requires the cutting of the body into pieces prior to burning them. So there is now another NEW horrible "fact" for the Halbach family to possibly have to process.
Ken Kratz is the LAST person who should be writing a book for Teresa Halbach, IMHO. :tears:

Click to expand...

[ Last edited by shadowraiths; Today at 07:03 PM. Reason: alluding to differing opinions as wrong is off limits ]

Shadowraiths,

The only opinion I was alluding to in my post above as being wrong was my *own* opinion, and no one else's other than mine. I was making a concession that I might not be correct. Aren't I allowed to mention my own opinion or my own post as potentially being different or wrong or not in alignment? (I don't always agree with myself! ;-) )

I get it.

I've obsessed over this from the beginning.

Although, I've NEVER doubted SA's innocence.
Even if a person JUST watches the film;

Motive?
Brandens interviews?
TH's brother speaking too soon and talking about " grieving "
RH leading the search, only handing PS the camera and WOW..SHE finds the vehicle.
And Colborn and Lenk being EVERY WHERE they should NOT be.

Those are just a few thoughts that jump out of the ole memory bank..

Jaiddie said:

Agreed with your whole post here. I started off (after watching the doc) with probably guilty for SA, as well. I thought that they had, more than likely coerced BD to state that confession as an assurance that they would get the conviction, because I didn't think Brendan was guilty at all. The tipping point, for me, was the bones. It's not even the fact that they were found in 3 different locations (though, that is odd), it is the fact that they would not allow ANY coroner or forensic specialist ON SITE to properly examine and remove the remains. I cannot come up with any logical, reasonable explanation for that fact, except that an expert would have been able to tell that evidence did not originate from there. They used the explanation that Debra Kakatsch was from Manitowoc County, and that is why they walled her, and her team, off. Okay, but that doesn't explain why the Calumet County Coroner wasn't called to assemble a team and come to the crime scene to examine, document, and recover the remains. As soon as I realized that the victim was just delivered to the medical examiner's office in a box to be examined, that cinched it for me. (I know I am obsessing this topic, but it bother's me so much. Almost as much as a 16 year old kid being drug into this so LE could get their guy)

*sigh* Rant over.

Click to expand...

Madeleine74 said:

[ Last edited by shadowraiths; Today at 07:03 PM. Reason: alluding to differing opinions as wrong is off limits ]

Shadowraiths,

The only opinion I was alluding to in my post above as being wrong was my *own* opinion, and no one else's other than mine. I was making a concession that I might not be correct. Aren't I allowed to mention my own opinion or my own post as potentially being different or wrong or not in alignment?

Click to expand...

Hi Madeleine, I do not recall exactly what I snipped but I can tell you that I basically snip any mention of "tinfoil hat", that sort of thing. It is possible that I snipped incorrectly. If so, my apologies.

shadowraiths said:

Hi Madeleine, I do not recall exactly what I snipped but I can tell you that I basically snip any mention of "tinfoil hat", that sort of thing. It is possible that I snipped incorrectly. If so, my apologies.

Click to expand...

I was not talking about anyone else, and there was no mention of any tinfoil hat. I included a written statement that I could be wrong and 'so be it.' Sometimes I don't agree with myself and I'm still considering or thinking about it. I think I'm allowed to criticize myself, right?

missy1974 said:

But AutoTrader only knew of her 3 appointments that day.... they had no idea of the order of the visits, etc. They had no idea if she had any hustle shots. So if they knew it was her last stop, I would have some more questions for the women at AutoTrader. Wiegert at this point had also talked to AutoTrader... they still didn't know where her last stop was.

Click to expand...

If the receptionist at Auto Trader said she was on her way there and then there was no communication after that--If I was TH's family and friends--I would assume that was her last stop and I would be heading over there in a heartbeat.

BigCityAccountant said:

If the receptionist at Auto Trader said she was on her way there and then there was no communication after that--If I was TH's family and friends--I would assume that was her last stop and I would be heading over there in a heartbeat.

Click to expand...

But according to RH's testimony, that Saturday morning, he didn't think they knew that it was possibly her last stop.

I agree with you about if they did think it was, I would be there in a heartbeat too. But according to MH and RH, they had never been on the property. Nope. Never ever. Which is also one of the reasons I think they lied btw. Because if I even had a hint that my sister or friend was there last... and knowing some of the history.... damn right I would find the back way in and look... or just ask the property owner if we could search.

ETA: the denial of even thinking about going to the Salvage yard until Pam showed up is just plain strange IMO

missy1974 said:

But according to RH's testimony, that Saturday morning, he didn't think they knew that it was possibly her last stop.

I agree with you about if they did think it was, I would be there in a heartbeat too. But according to MH and RH, they had never been on the property. Nope. Never ever. Which is also one of the reasons I think they lied btw. Because if I even had a hint that my sister or friend was there last... and knowing some of the history.... damn right I would find the back way in and look... or just ask the property owner if we could search.

ETA: the denial of even thinking about going to the Salvage yard until Pam showed up is just plain strange IMO

Click to expand...

So, the thought has crossed my mind that they did in fact go there at night with a flashlight to look around and possibly did find the car. With that being said, what a mess that would be if they did do that and those fingerprints are able to be traced back to them...how the heck do they explain that away--and if they are innocent--they might just get charged with murder. I always say better to come clean at the beginning then to risk having to back peddle!

Gosh, I wish they had the interviews of Barb and Bobby and others they had interviewed. Would love to have read what they had to say....

On another note, in SA's interview with Marinette County Detective O'Neill, he made a drawing of where he saw the headlights as well as a drawing of how entry would be made to the rear of the property from the "Redon's" Gravel business. Gosh, wish the drawings were attached too....

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...1/Steven-Avery-Interview-Report-2005Nov06.pdf

shadowraiths said:

And finally, the retired FBI profiler in the 'Real Crime Profile' podcast, that I linked above, provided a very plausible explanation regarding why the cremains were found in multiple locations, as well as why there was no smell of burning flesh, etcetera. These, by the way, were the biggest problems that I, personally, had with the case. Especially the cremains found at the Radnant quarry. However, if, as this man suggests, her remains were not completely destroyed, I could see him putting those in the burn barrel, as well as trying to empty the barrel in the quarry. It would also go a long way to explain why one of the cadaver dogs hit on the golf cart (i.e., he used the cart to carry the barrel to the quarry).

Click to expand...

from episode 2
https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-profile

Thought I would bring it over here to discuss since it's about framing/planting ;-)

The FBI guy seems to also believe that the key was possibly planted. The 3rd search of a small area and it appears. The fact that the shelf was obviously not moved (because of the stuff on top/in it) Basically what a lot of us have all been saying about the key.

The bullet... TH's DNA, the fact that the lab deviated from protocol was just wrong. He also discusses the spatter/blood, or lack of in the garage. He doesn't believe she was killed in the garage.

The RAV4 ... he acknowledges that the circumstances were strange. The Colborn call... sounded like he was in the front of the vehicle and needs to be explained, but on the stand, he could not explain it. They also found Pam finding the vehicle and the call as "strange" and how the branches, etc. made it stand out, not hide it. The blood in the RAV4.... he thinks the blood vial... and the break in the chain of custody (scotch taped box), should have invalidated all the blood evidence. He also thinks any good lawyer would have had it thrown out. Sounds like he is sceptical of the EDTA testing too.

bones - hours and hours of burning with lots of fuel (gas, tires, etc) When the big fire went out, they (or he) put the remaining bones (or larger one's I think?) in the burn barrel, poured gas over it and tried to burn the rest of it. And then maybe after that, it was taken to the gravel pit, it was dumped there. That is his best theory. They talk about the lack of it being investigated properly.

They do have some of their facts wrong, but the basics, from the documentary are there. And this was posted 26 days ago.... so I doubt they have reviewed some of the documents at that point.

The one thing with the bones is.... Dr. Eisenberg testified that all the bones from all 3 locations had the same consistency of burning/charring. I also think the FBI guy is unaware of how many or which bones were found where. So although, it sounds like it could be a possibility... it doesn't make sense since the burning to the bones in the barrel/pit/quarry were all consistent in charring, etc. The bones weren't "dumped" at the quarry... they found 2 pelvic bones there. The bones in the barrel were from all over the body, not pieces of one or two bones.

It's an interesting listen, considering my take is, they think he is guilty, but they were still able to say well uhmmm yeah, the key is fishy LOL Colborn's call is fishy.... the Rav4 was found under odd circumstances.... the blood vial sitting in a box with scotch tape causes issues.

I see episode 3 is the BD confessions... might have to listen to that one tomorrow ;-)

BigCityAccountant said:

So, the thought has crossed my mind that they did in fact go there at night with a flashlight to look around and possibly did find the car. With that being said, what a mess that would be if they did do that and those fingerprints are able to be traced back to them...how the heck do they explain that away--and if they are innocent--they might just get charged with murder. I always say better to come clean at the beginning then to risk having to back peddle!

Click to expand...

I have to say.... I do think that some of their "oddness" may just be because they did do things that they are just not admitting too.... like cmon... as if they didn't discuss who SA was... what he was in jail for when he was exonerated, etc..... the denial of that just makes me sceptical of everything they say. I think this could explain MH's odd behaviour for sure. RH on the other hand, it's not just these statements... it's everything as a whole. Something is just off there IMO

Don't forget too that TH's other brother TH is and was a lawyer at the time. He knew, or should have, what they could and couldn't do legally.

BigCityAccountant said:

Gosh, I wish they had the interviews of Barb and Bobby and others they had interviewed. Would love to have read what they had to say....

On another note, in SA's interview with Marinette County Detective O'Neill, he made a drawing of where he saw the headlights as well as a drawing of how entry would be made to the rear of the property from the "Redon's" Gravel business. Gosh, wish the drawings were attached too....

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...1/Steven-Avery-Interview-Report-2005Nov06.pdf

Click to expand...

I *think* there are requests out asking for all of these reports from Calumet and Manitowoc Sheriff Dept's. I also think there is a request out for any recordings from Calumet County SDept, like what we have heard from Manitowoc.

Barb was picked up and was being held at the jail on Saturday Nov 5th for pot... I wonder if her statement was recorded?

pulling this over from the other thread...

shadowraiths said:

Btw, and aside, another thing I found odd, was the "pinkish" substance the found in the Quarry (across from where the school bus stops) that tested positive for blood (page 34 of Day 6). Yet, it does not appear to be mentioned again.

Click to expand...

omg ... I looked all over to see if there was another mention of that, and I found nothing!!! He said it looked like "flesh", and I couldn't match it up to anything in the lab reports (although, they are not labelled that great)

Ertl.... I like him. I like that he was honest about the photo's or the reason why he didn't take any. (even if it didn't make any of them look good) If I was Zellner.... he's the one I would want to talk too!