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

[missy1974]

I don't understand why they cannot see how truly ridiculous and desperate this all seems, like people haven't researched for themselves the TRUE facts of the case. Not to mention, you would think that they would realize that SA now has an attorney such as KZ who is going to immensely enjoy shooting down all of these points they are trying to make. Anyway, this is all just my :twocents: on the situation.

Edit: Not sure why the first source isn't showing up, but it can be found by googling probably

I linked that interview in the Kratz thread and it hid it too.... I'm sure anyone that wants to listen to it can find it. As for the prison documents.... I posted last night, they gave those to the media, for free!!! Yet the emails that they have requested in digital format, they want to charge 25 cents a page, for 4000 pages. (4000 pages with key words Dassey/Avery/Netflix or Making a Murderer... seems like a lot of emails, doesn't it?)

The local media there.... is just feeding the locals that refuse to watch the show, read the documents, or even acknowledge that these Sheriff dept's may not have conducted a good investigation like they were led to believe. Let's face it... some people still believe he raped PB. *sigh*

I am somewhat surprised we haven't heard from Zellner today LOL Not even a cryptic tweet LOL

 

[BigCityAccountant]

No, as the audio between Remiker and Weigart clearly show on Nov 4, before the RAV4 was "discovered", some in LE were looking at the Zipperer residence as her last stop. It also mentions TH being spotted taking a photograph of a cow on the side of the road somewhere later that afternoon. (around 4:45 mark in video)

The audio is on the second video shown. (around the 2:18 mark)

Edit: included more information.

http://stevenaverycase.com/phone-calls-between-investigators/#sthash.EdJQb71y.dpbs

Ok--now I'm confused. Were we talking about whether TH's family and the search party (including RH) knew that was her last stop--or are we talking about whether LE knew it was her last stop...there is a difference. While LE might not have believed it was her last stop--her family got confirmation from Auto Trader that was her last stop and is the only information they could go on.

 

[missy1974]

Ok--now I'm confused. Were we talking about whether TH's family and the search party (including RH) knew that was her last stop--or are we talking about whether LE knew it was her last stop...there is a difference. While LE might not have believed it was her last stop--her family got confirmation from Auto Trader that was her last stop and is the only information they could go on.

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.

 

[Jaiddie]

I have a question about the legalities involved if someone is found not guilty of a crime, but then years later the prosecution goes on record accusing that person once again of the crime they were found not guilty of. In Kratz's latest interview (don't know how to link it, because it won't let me, but it's an Australian interviewer), at 9:00 in, he says, ""You have to believe these police officers are going to find a 25 year old photographer...kill her and CHOP HER UP, THEN BURN HER", then again at 35:35 in he talks about, ""the rape, murder and dismemberment of this girl".

Now, my question is, since SA was found NOT GUILTY of the mutilation of a corpse, can Kratz legally go on record accusing him of these crimes like he's doing, or is that slander of some kind? The same goes with him accusing SA of rape, since those charges were dropped before the trial because they did not have ANY evidence to back that up, except for BD confession, which they didn't use. Not to mention, where was this dismemberment supposed to have taken place? There was no DNA or blood of TH found on the Avery property except on the bullet fragment and in the RAV4. There was not enough blood in the RAV4 for a dismemberment to have taken place, soooo? That book is gonna be something else from the sounds of it, smh.

Am I wrong in thinking that all Kratz is doing is giving Zellner more ammunition every time he opens his mouth?

 

[shadowraiths]

I have a question about the legalities involved if someone is found not guilty of a crime, but then years later the prosecution goes on record accusing that person once again of the crime they were found not guilty of.

Being found "not guilty" does not mean being found innocent. It simply means the prosecution was unable to prove the charge "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

[missy1974]

Think OJ.... or Casey Anthony.... they were found not guilty.... doesn't mean we or prosecutors quit saying they did it ;-)

 

[shadowraiths]

I posted a link to these podcasts in the media thread. Thought I would post them, here, as well. Still listening to the first "Real Crime Profile" podcast. Have listened to "The Dockett." These are purely opinion pieces but definitely interesting.

Real Crime Profile, hosted by two ex-FBI profilers:

• iTunes,
• Soundcloud

The Dockett, hosted by two Canadian Attorneys:

• iTunes
• Soundcloud

 

[Jaiddie]

Being found "not guilty" does not mean being found innocent. It simply means the prosecution was unable to prove the charge "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Right, I understand that to a point, but there is no such thing as an "innocent" verdict. There is only guilty and not guilty, so how can it be permissible for the prosecution to continue to accuse him in the public eye of crimes he was never charged with or ones he was found not guilty of? They never even use the word "allegedly" in regards to these cases (which is another aspect of these cases that baffle me).

 

[Jaiddie]

http://gmancasefile.com/moore-to-th...erer-an-fbi-agents-take-episode-4-part-2-of-3

"An FBI Agents take on the BD confession."

 

[Jaiddie]

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/making-a-murderer-to-run-a-second-season-featuring/398089


"with the report saying that a second juror has come forward, and is prepared to say on record that they believe Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey were framed for the murder of photographer Teresa Halbach."


A second juror??? Who's willing to go ON RECORD??? I am going to assume that this is someone other than the dismissed juror, as it states a "second" juror, as he was the first. Whoa! If this proves to be true, that would probably go a long way towards proving jury tapering, IMHO.

 

[Madeleine74]

The problem with this is what a juror comes to believe years later has no bearing on the decision of the jury at the time of the verdict. There have been cases where a juror later had second thoughts and eventually decided maybe the person wasn't guilty. That holds no weight with the courts.

Jurors are polled in open court after voting guilty, and this is done to ensure each juror has a chance to say if their vote was something different. Once the jurors have been polled the judge accepts the verdict and it's recorded into the record.

 

[Jaiddie]

The problem with this is what a juror comes to believe years later has no bearing on the decision of the jury at the time of the verdict. There have been cases where a juror later had second thoughts and eventually decided maybe the person wasn't guilty. That holds no weight with the courts.

Jurors are polled in open court after voting guilty, and this is done to ensure each juror has a chance to say if their vote was something different. Once the jurors have been polled the judge accepts the verdict and it's recorded into the record.

I don't know the details of this "second juror" or exactly what they will say if this article proves to be true. My speculation was more along the lines of, if any jurors believed that SA and BD were framed by LE at the time of the trials, then it would make sense for them to again give the "guilty" verdict for the judge. If jurors believed in the frame up, that would make them also fear for their own future and their loved ones, because the thinking could be, "If they can do this to SA, what could they do to me or my loved ones if I don't vote this the way they want me to?" JMO.

I know that is something I would be worrying about in such a situation, especially since the acting Sheriff had went on national television, bragging about how it would have been so easy to just KILL SA.

 

[TheDuchess]

I think these have been discussed and posted about, but for those who haven't seen any of these, I felt this one was quite compelling about Chief Herrmann's possible involvement in a framing conspiracy.

[video=youtube;8r9IpXC-Ucw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r9IpXC-Ucw[/video]

 

[Jaiddie]

http://www.nbc26.com/news/manitowoc-county-clerk-seeks-additional-time-in-avery-appeal

"For the second time this month, Manitowoc County’s Clerk of Circuit Court is asking for more time as convicted killer Steven Avery seeks a new trial."

Well...looks like more stalling is going on. Isn't this the THIRD total extension they have asked for since the appeal was filed?

 

[Madeleine74]

The sheriff wasn't *bragging* it would be easy to kill Avery. He was commenting on the level of difficulty in *actually* framing someone. Everyone thinks this is such an easy thing to do. Many people have made the comment that it would have been so easy to frame SA, especially as a way to put him away or end him for good and most of the people making that statement are then saying "that's what LE did and that's why."

The sheriff was taking that same (faulty) logic, expressed by many, and pointing out if "ease" of getting rid of someone is the benchmark, then killing them to get rid of them once and for all would be easier than trying to frame them.

And the sheriff is correct. It would be "easier." Not legal, as neither is legal. Not okay. Not a good thing to do. But "easier/faster", yes, that's true.

It does not mean that any sheriff, let alone this sheriff, would ever endorse such a thing. It's a statement of how people use poor logic to make an assertion and challenging their assertion and poor logic with a shocking but true statement of fact to illustrate the point. And that's all it is. An illustration of a point being made.

It scares me that so many people don't realize this -- that their reasoning skills are so weak that they don't understand the point being made and they take what's being said and turn it into something else entirely (ala "OMG the sheriff is saying they could either frame or kill Avery!!111")

 

[Madeleine74]

Did police hassle or harass SA at any time during the 2 years since he was released from prison?

SA had a weapon, which is ILLEGAL FOR A FELON TO POSSESS, in his trailer, on the wall. All LE had to do was show up at SA's home, with a warrant -or- with permission by SA at any time, to look around, find the rifle and boom...SA is back in prison, just like that. No framing required. He was doing something illegal for him to do, something which would have resulted in being sent to prison. But that didn't happen. No one went to SA's trailer. Until TH went missing and her own schedule showed she was at the Avery yard that afternoon, police wouldn't have been on Avery property. The activities and movement of the victim is what led them there.

 

[missy1974]

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/making-a-murderer-to-run-a-second-season-featuring/398089


"with the report saying that a second juror has come forward, and is prepared to say on record that they believe Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey were framed for the murder of photographer Teresa Halbach."


A second juror??? Who's willing to go ON RECORD??? I am going to assume that this is someone other than the dismissed juror, as it states a "second" juror, as he was the first. Whoa! If this proves to be true, that would probably go a long way towards proving jury tapering, IMHO.

I think that tidbit was taken from an earlier story. Back in January the film makers were on the Today show and they mentioned the 2nd juror.

http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-believes-he-deserves-a-new-trial

I was looking for another article and now I can't find it lol I can't remember which site it was, but they contacted all the jurors, and one juror said something like 'he's guilty, he (or they) raped and tortured her', which of course, none of that was part of SA's trial. Brendan wasn't a part of the story for SA's trial, and the rape charge was dropped, because of course.... they couldn't prove that. I will keep looking.

I'm assuming anyone that is willing to talk, has talked to Zellner. I know she has asked the dismissed juror to not speak publicly any more... and I doubt we will hear from any others now too (if they were willing to talk to her).

 

[missy1974]

http://www.nbc26.com/news/manitowoc-county-clerk-seeks-additional-time-in-avery-appeal

"For the second time this month, Manitowoc County’s Clerk of Circuit Court is asking for more time as convicted killer Steven Avery seeks a new trial."

Well...looks like more stalling is going on. Isn't this the THIRD total extension they have asked for since the appeal was filed?

hmmm I wonder what the hold up is?

She was able to get some records to someone else and they are now online .... so maybe I'm not understanding something. I can't help but visualize all his records sitting in a cardboard box on the counter.... just send em over haha

 

[Madeleine74]

For those who do think Avery was framed ... have you changed your mind ?

If there's evidence to show framing, then I will conclude he was framed. Simple as that. I haven't seen evidence of it (yet), but remain open minded to seeing it. I haven't made any final conclusion--my beliefs are based on evidence presented. According to Zellner (who I've been a fan of despite some recent tactics, and have said before I'm a fan), there's some evidence, and I'm waiting to see it. Fair enough?

 

[Jaiddie]

The sheriff wasn't *bragging* it would be easy to kill Avery. He was commenting on the level of difficulty in *actually* framing someone. Everyone thinks this is such an easy thing to do. Many people have made the comment that it would have been so easy to frame SA, especially as a way to put him away or end him for good and most of the people making that statement are then saying "that's what LE did and that's why."

The sheriff was taking that same (faulty) logic, expressed by many, and pointing out if "ease" of getting rid of someone is the benchmark, then killing them to get rid of them once and for all would be easier than trying to frame them.

And the sheriff is correct. It would be "easier." Not legal, as neither is legal. Not okay. Not a good thing to do. But "easier/faster", yes, that's true.

It does not mean that any sheriff, let alone this sheriff, would ever endorse such a thing. It's a statement of how people use poor logic to make an assertion and challenging their assertion and poor logic with a shocking but true statement of fact to illustrate the point. And that's all it is. An illustration of a point being made.

It scares me that so many people don't realize this -- that their reasoning skills are so weak that they don't understand the point being made and they take what's being said and turn it into something else entirely (ala "OMG the sheriff is saying they could either frame or kill Avery!!111")

My use of the word "bragging" was probably incorrect here, as that was just the impression I got while viewing Sheriff Peterson saying that. What I found most shocking was how matter-of-fact and superior he appeared to be while making a statement that sounded like he wouldn't have thought twice about "eliminating" a troublesome problem. I have also NEVER heard such a comment coming from an influential LEO, even if it WAS just to prove a point. The sheer ARROGANCE coming off that man while giving that interview is what blew me away.

And I stand by my point that had I been a part of a jury on a case such as this, and I believed the defense's side that SA and BD were framed, it would have been difficult to consider going against what the state wanted, and possibly putting myself and my loved ones in jeopardy. That television interview would have been a contributing factor, because the sheriff was way too nonchalant about the ease (in his eyes) in taking a man's life. Not to mention, he was the BOSS talking like that. I am sure, as boss, he could make sure he had like-minded people working under him. IMO.