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

[Jaiddie]

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

Starting at around 28:30, my favorite FBI Agent (Moore to the Story) speaks about his opinions so far on what he has seen of the SA & BD cases. I was so excited to see this because I enjoyed reading his insightful bloq so much. I am also excited because he still seems to come across that he is exactly where I have been myself since watching the documentary and doing my own research. That is that I cannot say whether SA is guilty or not (but Brendan is innocent) because the evidence against him, itself, cannot be trusted to be true facts. For me tho, just the fact that the "evidence" is so questionable kinda points to SA innocence because why would they have had to go to such extremes (walling off the coroner, to name the most glaring example, tho there are many more discrepancies as well) to convict a guilty man.

 

[missy1974]

ohhhh thanks for the link Jaiddie!

I like this guy... he tends to think that SA is guilty, but he is absolutely open-minded about the evidence and believes that 100% the key was planted and if that is true, what does that say about the other evidence, it definitely opens the door. That is where I started! IF that was planted, how unrealistic is to think that other evidence was planted.

He has been looking at the evidence (outside the documentary) because he knows about SB and TH, and feels much like a lot of us, that they should have been investigated and NOT given access to the scene. He made me :giggle: when talking about Bear the "vicious dog".

 

[Jaiddie]

I know..."100 people held at bay by Cujo" LOL :giggle:

 

[missy1974]

Were license plates planted in Avery yard?

http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/l...e-license-plates-planted-avery-yard/83329278/

As it turned out, the day after Lenk and Colborn roamed the junkyard, William Brandes Jr., a volunteer with the Brillion Fire Department, came upon two dynamic pieces of evidence that further solidified special prosecutor Ken Kratz's case against murder suspect Avery.

It's a good article, it seems that this is the writers own thoughts and he didn't get it from a post online (which I am seeing way too much in this case). I didn't realize that Colborn and Lenk were searching vehicles in the junkyard the day before the plates were found, and also the same day that other 'evidence' was found, like the key.

 

[Jaiddie]

While most of the news that comes from the local media there in WI seems to toe the Pro-LE party line, one reporter has stood out in that he asks the logical questions that most of the rest of the world has had about curious circumstances in the TH investigation. Here is his latest article.

"Her sports utility vehicle was found on Saturday, Nov. 6, 2005, on the outer ridge of the Avery Salvage Yard – missing its license plates. But why would the plates be gone?..If the killer was Steven Avery, why would he carry those plates to another part of his family's 40-acre junkyard and flip them into the backseat of a wrecked vehicle?...The vital discovery of the license plates on Tuesday, Nov. 8 also coincided with another suspicious finding that day: Manitowoc County Sheriff's Lt. James Lenk and Sgt. Andrew Colborn revisited Avery's bedroom and noticed a spare key on the carpet near Avery's bed."

http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/l...e-license-plates-planted-avery-yard/83329278/

 

[GigiG]

While most of the news that comes from the local media there in WI seems to toe the Pro-LE party line, one reporter has stood out in that he asks the logical questions that most of the rest of the world has had about curious circumstances in the TH investigation. Here is his latest article.

"Her sports utility vehicle was found on Saturday, Nov. 6, 2005, on the outer ridge of the Avery Salvage Yard – missing its license plates. But why would the plates be gone?..If the killer was Steven Avery, why would he carry those plates to another part of his family's 40-acre junkyard and flip them into the backseat of a wrecked vehicle?...The vital discovery of the license plates on Tuesday, Nov. 8 also coincided with another suspicious finding that day: Manitowoc County Sheriff's Lt. James Lenk and Sgt. Andrew Colborn revisited Avery's bedroom and noticed a spare key on the carpet near Avery's bed."

http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/l...e-license-plates-planted-avery-yard/83329278/

The comments following this article are astounding to me. I guess logic only knows its master...

 

[Jaiddie]

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/Support/kratz/2009_CCAW_Brochure.pdf

This is from a 2009 LE convention (I think it was a convention) that was meant to teach up and coming LEO's in how to conduct award worthy investigations and prosecutions. The TH case highlights are on page 6.

"Case Study: The Innocence Project Poster Child Turned Murderer: The Teresa Halbach Case: Thomas Fassbender, Norm Gahn, Ken Kratz, and Mark Wiegert.
On Halloween, 2005, Steven Avery lured Teresa Halbach, a photographer for Auto Trader Magazine, to the Avery Salvage Yard under the guise of having her take a picture of an automobile his family had for sale. His real plan was to rape, murder, and mutilate her. Steven Avery had been convicted in 1985 for a crime that he did not commit and he was exonerated in 2003 through the use of DNA technology. That same technology would be used to convict him for the 2005 crimes against Teresa Halbach.

Combating the "False Confession" Defense: Ken Kratz:
What happens at trial when a confession at trial is challenged by an "expert" as being the product of coercion or being unreliable? In this workshop, the presenter explains the common trial tactics in the area of false confessions, and teaches how to neutralize this defense.

Crime Scene Issues in Major Cases: Thomas Fassbender, and Mark wiegert:
Two seasoned investigators will relate their experiences with handling a variety of issues including working with local, state, and federal agencies, collection, preservation, and storage of a large amount of evidence, and in dealing with suspects and victim's families."

I find the recent cancellations of LE and prosecutors Q&A events to be extremely hilarious in light of finding information, such as this little tidbit of a 2009 event that took place, because I do not understand how they can keep shouting about "it's only fair for the public to get their side of the story too". Isn't that exactly what they had been doing all along for the past 10 years before MaM came out?

Also, I am wondering about legally, if they have shot themselves by putting on these kinds of events as they did. They speak about SA committing these acts of "rape, murder, and mutilation" as if these are the "facts" and that SA had been CONVICTED of these crimes. IIRC, the rape charges were dropped on him, and he was found NOT GUILTY of mutilation, so he was only convicted for the murder. Wouldn't this be considered defamation or slander for LE themselves to be putting this out there as "facts" when it is very much not true and they know it?

 

[missy1974]

I wondered about the legalities even after MaM was released Jaiddie. Kratz was still saying in media interviews that SA (and BD too I guess) raped and mutilated TH and he was never convicted of either, and in fact the rape charge was dropped.

I know ticket sales were low for the appearance that is now cancelled, but I also wonder if this pending legal action was part of the reason it was cancelled. Anything he said could possibly come back and bite him in the a$$, especially if Zellner is looking into his "violations". JMO

 

[dexter75]

Thanks so much for this!

I have always thought SA innocent. Not a good person by any means, however, NOT a murderer.

He is the mentally warped baby ( last born ) & momma's boy, of a pretty twisted family ( obviously, some, pretty mentally disturbed ) & did some pretty disturbing things, IMO.

Just looking at his face, watching LE LIE on the stand, and KRATZ tell HIS tale of events, it's clear ( to me ) he is thinking " they're doing this again?! I CAN'T believe they're doing this again. " IMO.

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

Starting at around 28:30, my favorite FBI Agent (Moore to the Story) speaks about his opinions so far on what he has seen of the SA & BD cases. I was so excited to see this because I enjoyed reading his insightful bloq so much. I am also excited because he still seems to come across that he is exactly where I have been myself since watching the documentary and doing my own research. That is that I cannot say whether SA is guilty or not (but Brendan is innocent) because the evidence against him, itself, cannot be trusted to be true facts. For me tho, just the fact that the "evidence" is so questionable kinda points to SA innocence because why would they have had to go to such extremes (walling off the coroner, to name the most glaring example, tho there are many more discrepancies as well) to convict a guilty man.

 

[dexter75]

BBM

One would think so. You make such great points, Jaiddie!

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/Support/kratz/2009_CCAW_Brochure.pdf

This is from a 2009 LE convention (I think it was a convention) that was meant to teach up and coming LEO's in how to conduct award worthy investigations and prosecutions. The TH case highlights are on page 6.

"Case Study: The Innocence Project Poster Child Turned Murderer: The Teresa Halbach Case: Thomas Fassbender, Norm Gahn, Ken Kratz, and Mark Wiegert.
On Halloween, 2005, Steven Avery lured Teresa Halbach, a photographer for Auto Trader Magazine, to the Avery Salvage Yard under the guise of having her take a picture of an automobile his family had for sale. His real plan was to rape, murder, and mutilate her. Steven Avery had been convicted in 1985 for a crime that he did not commit and he was exonerated in 2003 through the use of DNA technology. That same technology would be used to convict him for the 2005 crimes against Teresa Halbach.

Combating the "False Confession" Defense: Ken Kratz:
What happens at trial when a confession at trial is challenged by an "expert" as being the product of coercion or being unreliable? In this workshop, the presenter explains the common trial tactics in the area of false confessions, and teaches how to neutralize this defense.

Crime Scene Issues in Major Cases: Thomas Fassbender, and Mark wiegert:
Two seasoned investigators will relate their experiences with handling a variety of issues including working with local, state, and federal agencies, collection, preservation, and storage of a large amount of evidence, and in dealing with suspects and victim's families."

I find the recent cancellations of LE and prosecutors Q&A events to be extremely hilarious in light of finding information, such as this little tidbit of a 2009 event that took place, because I do not understand how they can keep shouting about "it's only fair for the public to get their side of the story too". Isn't that exactly what they had been doing all along for the past 10 years before MaM came out?

Also, I am wondering about legally, if they have shot themselves by putting on these kinds of events as they did. They speak about SA committing these acts of "rape, murder, and mutilation" as if these are the "facts" and that SA had been CONVICTED of these crimes. IIRC, the rape charges were dropped on him, and he was found NOT GUILTY of mutilation, so he was only convicted for the murder. Wouldn't this be considered defamation or slander for LE themselves to be putting this out there as "facts" when it is very much not true and they know it?

 

[dexter75]

A key with only SA's DNA, imagine that....

While most of the news that comes from the local media there in WI seems to toe the Pro-LE party line, one reporter has stood out in that he asks the logical questions that most of the rest of the world has had about curious circumstances in the TH investigation. Here is his latest article.

"Her sports utility vehicle was found on Saturday, Nov. 6, 2005, on the outer ridge of the Avery Salvage Yard – missing its license plates. But why would the plates be gone?..If the killer was Steven Avery, why would he carry those plates to another part of his family's 40-acre junkyard and flip them into the backseat of a wrecked vehicle?...The vital discovery of the license plates on Tuesday, Nov. 8 also coincided with another suspicious finding that day: Manitowoc County Sheriff's Lt. James Lenk and Sgt. Andrew Colborn revisited Avery's bedroom and noticed a spare key on the carpet near Avery's bed."

http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/l...e-license-plates-planted-avery-yard/83329278/

 

[dexter75]

Also, Volunteer Brandes Jr. said he was told to keep an eye out for " her clothes, personal items, phone, plates"

Were license plates planted in Avery yard?

http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/l...e-license-plates-planted-avery-yard/83329278/



It's a good article, it seems that this is the writers own thoughts and he didn't get it from a post online (which I am seeing way too much in this case). I didn't realize that Colborn and Lenk were searching vehicles in the junkyard the day before the plates were found, and also the same day that other 'evidence' was found, like the key.

 

[Jaiddie]

BBM

One would think so. You make such great points, Jaiddie!

:tyou:

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Also, Volunteer Brandes Jr. said he was told to keep an eye out for " her clothes, personal items, phone, plates"

Funny how when told what to look for they always seem to find just the right things like keys and plates and bullets. And Shady Sherry comes up with miraculous DNA matches that even the FBI can't pull off but oops they are one time deals.

 

[Jaiddie]

http://puu.sh/ouuHl/48e03677ad.png

I saw this from where someone posted on another site. It was taken from a news video (short clip that starts at 5:39 of part 2) that is linked below. To me, it looks like it very possibly could be a photo of the quarry burn site where the "rock pile" was with the mystery stain item CX. Looking at this photo gave me chills, as it appears very ominous to me for some reason, but that is just my personal feeling.

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/the-state-of-wisconsin-vs-steven-a-avery-part-2-618615875686

 

[dexter75]

I'm not sure if this is the proper thread for this comment.

Throwing it out there that IF SA is indeed exonerated, does not mean that I like the guy, or WILL like the guy, or have ever liked the guy.
Same goes should he be released on a " technicality " etc.

Hoping everyone here understands, just because some of us want to see " justice served " doesn't mean we LIKE Steve Avery, who he is, or anything he stands for.

 

[Embley]

I'm not sure if this is the proper thread for this comment.

Throwing it out there that IF SA is indeed exonerated, does not mean that I like the guy, or WILL like the guy, or have ever liked the guy.
Same goes should he be released on a " technicality " etc.

Hoping everyone here understands, just because some of us want to see " justice served " doesn't mean we LIKE Steve Avery, who he is, or anything he stands for.

This is my opinion as well.

I do not think he's a good guy, I'm just not convinced he is guilty of the crime that he is in jail for. I'm not sure he's innocent, but I'm not positive he's guilty either.

 

[ZOOL]

I'm not sure if this is the proper thread for this comment.

Throwing it out there that IF SA is indeed exonerated, does not mean that I like the guy, or WILL like the guy, or have ever liked the guy.
Same goes should he be released on a " technicality " etc.

Hoping everyone here understands, just because some of us want to see " justice served " doesn't mean we LIKE Steve Avery, who he is, or anything he stands for.

dex ~ I hear you, and I sort of figure that's where the subject and legal definition of reasonable doubt lies. In my opinion, anyone is entitled to doubts. But can those doubts meet the legal standard for reasonable doubts -- that is, can they stand the test of logic and reasoning. Alan Dershowitz wrote Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996). I was amazed with his reasoning, ie. his logic on the blood trail from Nicole's lifeless body to Simpson's shower stall. It does not bother him that O.J. Simpson may be released from jail in 2017. But when I look at the mound of evidence presented against Simpson for murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, it bothers me. In like manner, when I view the evidence against Steven Avery, and reason out everything which I have read and seen, it bothers me that Steven Avery could walk away from the murder of Teresa Halbach.

So you and I merely disagree on Avery's guilt through our processes of reasoning.

 

[dexter75]

Pretty Much sums it up, yep

It also bothers me that the evidence that all the logical folks claim to follow, IMO, could absolutely be planted in some way or another. I say this because Man. County was just too darn insisting on being RIGHT there, and they really should not have been.

dex ~ I hear you, and I sort of figure that's where the subject and legal definition of reasonable doubt lies. In my opinion, anyone is entitled to doubts. But can those doubts meet the legal standard for reasonable doubts -- that is, can they stand the test of logic and reasoning. Alan Dershowitz wrote Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996). I was amazed with his reasoning, ie. his logic on the blood trail from Nicole's lifeless body to Simpson's shower stall. It does not bother him that O.J. Simpson may be released from jail in 2017. But when I look at the mound of evidence presented against Simpson for murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, it bothers me. In like manner, when I view the evidence against Steven Avery, and reason out everything which I have read and seen, it bothers me that Steven Avery could walk away from the murder of Teresa Halbach.

So you and I merely disagree on Avery's guilt through our processes of reasoning.

 

[ZOOL]

Pretty Much sums it up, yep

It also bothers me that the evidence that all the logical folks claim to follow, IMO, could absolutely be planted in some way or another. I say this because Man. County was just too darn insisting on being RIGHT there, and they really should not have been.

My guess is that there are two places on this board where the debate of Avery's guilt or innocence is being evaluated: the Sticky Poll: Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder, and the Thread: Where Do You Think Teresa Halbach was Killed. There appear to be two separate discussions with different participants at those locations.

In the Sticky, the He did its are 27.15% vs. the Not Guiltys 21.24% (but the Undecideds are 36.56%). And in the Thread...well, I haven't been able to decipher that..yet :thinking:

But down here in the thick of things, it looks as though we of different opinions are fairly well represented by the percentages of the He did it and the Not Guilty. So if we could take a straw poll of the Board's Jury, you might say we have

• 3 Guilty (25%)
• 3 Innocent (25%)
• 6 Undecided (50%).

Looks like the debate will continue. :whoosh: