Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[Sweetgrits]

I don't think the police department killed her. I think they saw an opportunity to pin it on SA, not caring who actually did it.

Can you share who you think did kill TH?

 

[Tawny]

Can you share who you think did kill TH?

As stated before, I don't know. Even if SA is guilty of the murder, it didn't happen the way it's presented by the prosecution.

My theory is this, and it leaves it open to pretty much anybody: Teresa took the photos and left as per usual (corroborated by the bus driver). After leaving the property, she's ambushed by someone (could be SA, one of his brothers, could be ST/BD (scott/bobby), could be her ex boyfriend, could be a random), murdered, transported to a burn spot in the back of the Rav4, burned, and the Rav4 abandoned.

Beyond that, it's fuzzy as to who did what and where the car was etc. I theorize everything from a brother dumping the body on the burn pile knowing SA intended to have a bonfire, to Colborn finding the Rav4 and moving it. I have no concrete ideas beyond her being ambushed, murdered, transported, and burned. I just know she wasn't murdered in that trailer or garage. JMO

 

[missy1974]

http://jonsjailjournal.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/making-murderer-update-6-suspicious.html

Here is something interesting about TH's RAV4. There was damage to her vehicle. I have not seen anything at all in any documents talking about this damage. The blog talks about the possibility of her car being towed and that's how the damage occurred. My question would be, if he had the key in his possession, why would he have to tow the RAV4 to the quarry?

 

[Tawny]

http://jonsjailjournal.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/making-murderer-update-6-suspicious.html

Here is something interesting about TH's RAV4. There was damage to her vehicle. I have not seen anything at all in any documents talking about this damage. The blog talks about the possibility of her car being towed and that's how the damage occurred. My question would be, if he had the key in his possession, why would he have to tow the RAV4 to the quarry?

That could also be explained by having been run off the road, which supports pretty much any theory that involves the murder happening off-property (could still be SA, one of hte others, or her ex).

 

[diesel]

When the RAV4 was found , was the battery cable missing? TIA

Sorry, I don't know the answer to that. Maybe someone here knows. My question would be why would the battery cable be disconnected or removed in the first place?

 

[Tawny]

Plus... wouldn't the police department have towed it to the crime lab?

 

[Sleuther87]

http://jonsjailjournal.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/making-murderer-update-6-suspicious.html

Here is something interesting about TH's RAV4. There was damage to her vehicle. I have not seen anything at all in any documents talking about this damage. The blog talks about the possibility of her car being towed and that's how the damage occurred. My question would be, if he had the key in his possession, why would he have to tow the RAV4 to the quarry?

Here you go: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur..._the_anonymous_tweet_about_the_damage/cyefwnp

In the Dassey Trial Transcripts, Prosecution Attorney Fallon directly examines John Ertl, who works for the State Crime Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, and is involved with the Crime Scene Response Team.
On Day 2, starting at 141/19:

Q: Now, while you were awaiting for the arrival of the equipment to secure the [RAV4] and move it to Madison, did you have an opportunity to examine, as it were, the SUV more closely?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Can you tell us… about the vehicle, itself? For instance, um, you mentioned something about the absence of license plates. What else did you note about the vehicle?
A: Um it — The doors were locked. We couldn’t gain access to it. And we looked through the glass with flashlights to see what we could see inside and it looked relatively clean inside.
Um, there was some minor damage to the vehicle. I believe there was a dent located behind the Rambler hood [which was used to obscure the vehicle] on the right rear quarter panel. And I believe the left front signal lamp, the plastic that covers that, was cracked and broken.
​

^ emphasis mine.
The prosecutor goes on to ask about the debris around the car, and Ertl doesn't mention anything about the damaged plastic being on the ground or anything like that.
Ertl also goes on to explain how the vehicle was towed, starting on 144/8.

The tow truck guy attempted to get under the hood to get access to the transmission linkage to disconnect that, and he couldn't get the hood open...
He then used his truck to maneuver the vehicle, the RAV4 vehicle, into a large covered trailer, and it was secured into that with, I believe, floor straps, and then the trailer was closed up.​

​

 

[missy1974]

Plus... wouldn't the police department have towed it to the crime lab?

I'm not sure... but you would think somewhere along the way it would have been mentioned that there was damage to the vehicle when they towed it? LOL I don't know. This is the first I have seen or read that there was any damage at all. That blog (I don't really want to call it an article lol), says that the wheel well cover is missing, if they damaged it in transport, they would still have it, wouldn't they? someone surely would have noticed.

The theory in the blog is that it was towed by tow strap. I don't think the police would tow it that way.

Again, just another interesting tidbit that I hadn't seen. I wonder if anyone had damage on their vehicles... Colburn, the brothers, the BIL, the ex-boyfriend, random person. No reason for SA to tow it if he had the key.

 

[stephsb]

In addition to the excerpts I posted about the car hood last night from the 3/1 interview, Brendan is asked in the 5/13 interview:

pg 838
W: Did he tell you that he unhooked the battery on her jeep?
B: Not that I know of

pg 843
F: I think Teresa's starting to be happy w. you right now, cause I think that's the truth. And that what'd you do after you put the car there?
B: We started throwing branches and car hood on it
F: And then what happened? Is this when you saw him do some things to the car?
B: Yeah
F: Tell me what
B: Well he went under the hood and did some stuff, but I didn't see him

The information about the branches/car hood had been in the media for months, and also introduced in the 2/29 interviews. Also, Brendan states that Steven went under the hood and did some stuff, but he didnt see him- thus explaining why he can't give a description of what was done (because he doesn't know). How would he know Steven was under the hood if he didn't see him? Because he was told as much in the 3/1 interview.

In order to understand Brendan's confession, I highly recommend anyone read all the statements in order- it truly shows how little he knew and how much information was given to him, as well as how inconsistent his statements are. In order, they are the 2/27 interview at Mishicot, the one at the police station, the 3/1 confession, and the 5/13 statement in custody. We are unfortunately missing the third 2/27 interview because the clowns couldn't make sure their equipment was working correctly, so one can only imagine what may have been said in there. Regardless, there is very little information that Brendan truly offers on his own in any of his statements.

 

[stephsb]

I'm not sure... but you would think somewhere along the way it would have been mentioned that there was damage to the vehicle when they towed it? LOL I don't know. This is the first I have seen or read that there was any damage at all. That blog (I don't really want to call it an article lol), says that the wheel well cover is missing, if they damaged it in transport, they would still have it, wouldn't they? someone surely would have noticed.

The theory in the blog is that it was towed by tow strap. I don't think the police would tow it that way.

Again, just another interesting tidbit that I hadn't seen. I wonder if anyone had damage on their vehicles... Colburn, the brothers, the BIL, the ex-boyfriend, random person. No reason for SA to tow it if he had the key.

The RAV4 was taken in a covered trailer to the crime lab in Madison, IIRC. Prior to that, it was left uncovered in the rain on the Avery property, against the advice of the forensic specialist from Madison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stephsb]

Agreed. I think that is a fair explanation as well. Brendan made up a lie to appease his mother. Kids do that kind of thing.

Much the same that I agree that Kayla could have easily made up that story about what Brendan told her.

But in terms of what we can evaluate in this case, there isn't much that you couldn't create an explanation for.

I don't think of my questions as binary where I must confirm they are true or false, but rather looking at them in terms of probability and plausibility.

Spending time around Brendan and his mother and getting an idea of how often he might lie or not lie about something of this nature, then we might adjust the probability of it being accurate.

Does it sound plausible and probable to me that a mother would question her child over bleached pants ? sure.
Do I think it'd be an odd thing for her to lie about ? sure. -- why would she say she noticed this, if she didn't ?
Do I think it's plausibe that Brendan would tell his mother the truth, if he had no reason to believe it would implicate him in something ? sure.
Do I think it's plausible that Brendan would lie because he didn't want his mother to know the truth that he might have messed up with the wash and it was easier to say he was helping someone. sure

So, theres alot of plausibility in many directions. Probability is something that we can evaluate, but definitely we an gain greater confidence in probability by understanding more about these individuals. If they are a proven liar, then probability goes out the window.

None of us can prove anything. But you, me, and everyone else, use plausibility and probability as something to base our opinions on.

There's a probability and a plausibility you are using to assess brendan's statements being coerced. If someone is told details about a crime and they are cognitively disabled, there is a higher probability that they are giving a false confession. But there is no way you can prove that any given detail that he gives is true or false. You can just point out inconsistencies, which lower your assessed probability of their truthfulness.

You cannot factually prove them correct or incorrect, but just that one or the other is false if you find a inconsistency. You can't really prove which is true/false.

What you can say to a high degree of probability is that whatever he said to police, cannot be trusted as facts.

So that is the light in which I pose these questions. Nothing I say can be proven. It's about what do I believe is most probable. That is how we all will form opinions and theories.

I currently believe it is more probable that Barb told the truth about that night than lied. Lying would have protected her child.

I currently believe that brendan helped cleaned steves garage floor because he told his mother that, and he was over at steve's that day, and he had bleach on his pants. Am I positive ? nope.


But I think it's more probable than Barb lying and Brendan lying about something that on 10/31 they had no idea was of significance in a murder case. I think that it was of so little of significance in Barb's mind that on the day she was originally questioned by police when halbach was found, she likely didn't even remember it. Maybe she did remember, but chose not to say at that point. plausible as well. but I find it more probable that Barb would never have spoke of those pants and that story if she knew it would implicate her son.

I agree that Barb wouldn't have mentioned the bleach if she knew it would implicate her son, that's why I'd love to know the context it was given in. I can't see Barb willingly mentioning to police on 2/27 she saw bleach on Brendan's pants, when prior she didn't mention it. Barb isn't the brightest person either-and I mean no disrespect to her in saying that, I truly believe she tried to do everything she could to help Brendan. However, when Brendan asked what inconsistent meant, she didn't know. That's telling. I'm not sure she'd do great in a police interrogation either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shadowraiths]

Given those horrendous press conferences at that time, I can see why they might have distanced themselves from SA not wanting to jeopardize other future cases?

I, personally, think it was unfortunate that they were so quick to distance themselves. After all, he *was* innocent of the 1993 rape. Importantly, by distancing themselves early on, they sent a clear message to the public: we think this guy is guilty. It sends another message, also. And that is, "Gee, maybe we should not have gotten this guy off. Now look what he went and did."

Moreover, now, we have an (apparently) different branch of the innocence project getting re-involved in his case? I personally think his new atty and the innocence project is more about the publicity... riding the tails of an outraged public, as opposed to actually trying to find justice for this guy.

So, yeah, I have a problem that they distanced themselves in the first place, and are jumping on the bandwagon 10 years later, and due to the media coverage, bc it removes the extremely important ingredient: objectivity. Which, imho, is wholly necessary for their particular charter.

I also think it is extremely telling when these high profile attys and groups jump on the let's free SA bandwagon, while completely ignoring whom I think to be another victim in this morass. Brendan Dassey.

And finally, most importantly, what about justice for the real victim, Teresa Haibach? And her family? What about the fact that LEOs used Brendan's coerced confession to grandstand and tell an horribly gruesome tail... telling parents to send their kids to bed?

Even those who think SA is guilty (I'm admittedly one of them, at this point) should be completely disgusted with the behavior of these officers and attys, and they way they went into excruciating detail, even if it was true, with regard to the moments before Ms. Halbach's death, and how she died. Without any thought whatsoever about her living family.

Anyway, hope that helps to clarify and apologies for the long rant!

 

[shadowraiths]

When the investigators asked BD why he didn't say earlier about shooting TH in the head. He says "cause I couldn't think of it"
He didn't say "I forgot" or "i didn't remember" but "I couldn't think of it".

To me that is a clear indication he was either making it all up or was fed a story of what happened and they were trying to get him to regurgitate what they told him happened.

Remember, what is in the video interview and transcripts is not the totality of their conversations with him. I would guess they spent considerable time with him "off the record" in which they fed him details they wanted him to "think of" when they were "on the record"
jmo

You can see the complete videos of both Brendan & SA [video=youtube;VTipx6RfTC0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTipx6RfTC0&list=PL7aG4xdJnM5QwSiGnLQgjtwC75jCKsVaF[/video], posted by Anonymous (OpAveryDassey).

 

[stephsb]

I, personally, think it was unfortunate that they were so quick to distance themselves. After all, he *was* innocent of the 1993 rape. Importantly, by distancing themselves early on, they sent a clear message to the public: we think this guy is guilty. It sends another message, also. And that is, "Gee, maybe we should not have gotten this guy off. Now look what he went and did."

Moreover, now, we have an (apparently) different branch of the innocence project getting re-involved in his case? I personally think his new atty and the innocence project is more about the publicity... riding the tails of an outraged public, as opposed to actually trying to find justice for this guy.

So, yeah, I have a problem that they distanced themselves in the first place, and are jumping on the bandwagon 10 years later, and due to the media coverage, bc it removes the extremely important ingredient: objectivity. Which, imho, is wholly necessary for their particular charter.

I also think it is extremely telling when these high profile attys and groups jump on the let's free SA bandwagon, while completely ignoring whom I think to be another victim in this morass. Brendan Dassey.

And finally, most importantly, what about justice for the real victim, Teresa Haibach? And her family? What about the fact that LEOs used Brendan's coerced confession to grandstand and tell an horribly gruesome tail... telling parents to send their kids to bed?

Even those who think SA is guilty (I'm admittedly one of them, at this point) should be completely disgusted with the behavior of these officers and attys, and they way they went into excruciating detail, even if it was true, with regard to the moments before Ms. Halbach's death, and how she died. Without any thought whatsoever about her living family.

Anyway, hope that helps to clarify and apologies for the long rant!

Brendan does have great attorneys- his longtime WI attorney is now being helped by two Chicago based attorneys from Northwestern Univ's Center for Wrongful Conviction of Youth. One of the attorneys has dealt extensively with false confessions, and has taught on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

I agree that Barb wouldn't have mentioned the bleach if she knew it would implicate her son, that's why I'd love to know the context it was given in. I can't see Barb willingly mentioning to police on 2/27 she saw bleach on Brendan's pants, when prior she didn't mention it. Barb isn't the brightest person either-and I mean no disrespect to her in saying that, I truly believe she tried to do everything she could to help Brendan. However, when Brendan asked what inconsistent meant, she didn't know. That's telling. I'm not sure she'd do great in a police interrogation either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hear you. Barb doesn't come across as the brightest person either.

I also admit she might have even had the wrong day that this occurred, and brendan might not even know himself. They strike me as that kind of people honestly.

For example if the police said, do you have bleach in your house ? Or have you ever seen Steve using bleach ? Hell, she might have remembered that indeed once Brendan had bleach on his pants and said he had been helping steve clean the floor. I mean, it's plausible to me that it could have happened in july and she gets talked into maybe it was that day. I get it.

But then, you hear a coworker of tadych's makes a statement that Scott is worried about blood stains on his kids laundry being mixed in with his.

So, in my mind, there's too much of this laundry/bleach talk going on for it to not be highly probable that indeed it happened that day. Something happened that day with bleach, imo. And as I said, could be completely innocent and police twisted it. That I don't doubt. That is plausible.

I am with you on brendan 100%, he was saying whatever they wanted to hear so he could get back to school to see his girlfriend or whatever. I almost cried watching him listen to music after that one interview, because I could tell that's all he was thinking about - his girlfriend. He was starting to realize that he likely never sees her again. Very sad.

 

[Safeguard]

Even those who think SA is guilty (I'm admittedly one of them, at this point) should be completely disgusted with the behavior of these officers and attys, and they way they went into excruciating detail, even if it was true, with regard to the moments before Ms. Halbach's death, and how she died. Without any thought whatsoever about her living family

LE was in constant contact with Halback family, met with them privetly, I feel they were most likely told in advance that some things would need to be said that weren't known to be absolutely fact. Doesn't change the fact that it must have been a nightmare for them, but I DO believe, they were told Dassey's testimony was the slam-dunk, that LE needed to win, but not neccarily the way she died.

If I heard that about my daughter, I would have been hospitalized over those gruesome details, Mike Halback seemed almost. .. elated...over Dassey's (so called), confession.

 

[shadowraiths]

Btw, and as an aside, while i, personally, think SA is guilty, at this point, were I a jury member, I would have to acquit. Bc, I do not think the prosecution presented their case beyond a reasonable doubt. To wit, and in no particular order.

1. Bobby Dassey testified that he access Ms. Halbach's voicemail. And there seems to be evidence that strongly indicates some of her messages were deleted.

2. Ryan Hillegas and his friends broke into her phone account.

3. Neither LEOs, prosecution or defense atty's requested phone ping logs that could have gone a long way to proving either side's contentions.

4. I do believe physical evidence, specifically the key and bullet fragment, was planted to bolster the states case against SA. And, btw, why didn't the defense ask the LEO (I forget his name), whether or not the shell casings found were spent?

5. The contaminated blood evidence.

6. The quite obviously coerced confession of Brendan.​

There is more, I'm sure, but this is all I can think of at the moment.

Again, my opinion could change once I finish reading the available court documents.

Eta ~ Point 1, should be Mike Haibach, not Bobby Dassey (see episode 5 @ 28.40 mark). Thanks for the heads up, Max!

 

[GigiG]

I, personally, think it was unfortunate that they were so quick to distance themselves. After all, he *was* innocent of the 1993 rape. Importantly, by distancing themselves early on, they sent a clear message to the public: we think this guy is guilty. It sends another message, also. And that is, "Gee, maybe we should not have gotten this guy off. Now look what he went and did."

Moreover, now, we have an (apparently) different branch of the innocence project getting re-involved in his case? I personally think his new atty and the innocence project is more about the publicity... riding the tails of an outraged public, as opposed to actually trying to find justice for this guy.

So, yeah, I have a problem that they distanced themselves in the first place, and are jumping on the bandwagon 10 years later, and due to the media coverage, bc it removes the extremely important ingredient: objectivity. Which, imho, is wholly necessary for their particular charter.

I also think it is extremely telling when these high profile attys and groups jump on the let's free SA bandwagon, while completely ignoring whom I think to be another victim in this morass. Brendan Dassey.

And finally, most importantly, what about justice for the real victim, Teresa Haibach? And her family? What about the fact that LEOs used Brendan's coerced confession to grandstand and tell an horribly gruesome tail... telling parents to send their kids to bed?

Even those who think SA is guilty (I'm admittedly one of them, at this point) should be completely disgusted with the behavior of these officers and attys, and they way they went into excruciating detail, even if it was true, with regard to the moments before Ms. Halbach's death, and how she died. Without any thought whatsoever about her living family.

Anyway, hope that helps to clarify and apologies for the long rant!

BBM1:

I agree that the Steven Avery case seems to get the lion's share of publicity and interest. I think two things are going on here: 1) It was his trial that allowed the LE and prosecutor to ensnare Brendan, and 2) Due to that, if it can be proven that the case against Steven Avery was hopelessly flawed, that would in turn provide Brendan's lawyers more ammunition in gaining him a new trial, and leave them better poised to prove his innocence.

That said, Brendan is a separate case and from what I have heard and read, he currently has excellent representation. Perhaps not as well-publicized as Steven's, but who knows, that might just work in Brendan's favor.

BBM2:

I truly wonder what Teresa Halbach's family thinks now. They bought Kratz' theory of the case; hook, line and sinker, including all the lurid speculation and (unsubstantiated) details. It had to have hurt them to the core to envision her going through all those things Kratz postulated as having happened.

But what about the truth of the matter? That was largely disregarded in the courtroom, overshadowed as it was by personal agendas, and trumped by wild theories which were backed up by tainted evidence.

I'm curious as to whether or not, given 10+ years of living with their loss, in addition to this new (and very public) revisiting of those awful times, they're having their own doubts about how things played out and what actually did happen to Teresa.

 

[MaxManning]

Btw, and as an aside, while i, personally, think SA is guilty, at this point, were I a jury member, I would have to acquit. Bc, I do not think the prosecution presented their case beyond a reasonable doubt. To wit, and in no particular order.

1. Bobby Dassey testified that he access Ms. Halbach's voicemail. And there seems to be evidence that strongly indicates some of her messages were deleted.

2. Ryan Hillegas and his friends broke into her phone account.

3. Neither LEOs, prosecution or defense atty's requested phone ping logs that could have gone a long way to proving either side's contentions.

4. I do believe physical evidence, specifically the key and bullet fragment, was planted to bolster the states case against SA. And, btw, why didn't the defense ask the LEO (I forget his name), whether or not the shell casings found were spent?

5. The contaminated blood evidence.

6. The quite obviously coerced confession of Brendan.​

There is more, I'm sure, but this is all I can think of at the moment.

Again, my opinion could change once I finish reading the available court documents.

Do you mean Hillegas ? I haven't seen any testimony saying Bobby was in her voicemail.

 

[shadowraiths]

Oops! Knew I would think of more!

Ryan Hillegas giving Pam the camera and a "direct line" to the lead investigator, raised serious issues in my mind.​

That said, one reason I have a hard time believing someone else murdered Ms. Halbach is bc I cannot imagine LE finding her remains and then planting them on SA's property. This is not to say that didn't happen however that is, to my mind, a real stretch. It is less of a stretch that the killer planted them bc they knew SA would immediately come under suspicion. And that LE, upon finding them, in their tunnel vision, interrogated Brendan, to the point of extracting a confession of their version of events.