Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[Tawny]

Just curious. Who here (besides me) does not believe LE framed Avery for TH's murder?

Does it count if we believe they simply thought they were strengthening their case against the person they truly believed was guilty?

 

[Madeleine74]

That would still fall under "framing."

Perhaps I'm the only one (besides Scarlett Scarpetta?) who does not see framing of SA or LE having anything to do with TH's death or rather, not without evidence to prove it.

 

[Tawny]

That would still fall under "framing."

Perhaps I'm the only one (besides Scarlett Scarpetta?) who does not see framing of SA or LE having anything to do with TH's death or rather, not without evidence to prove it.

It has everything to do with it because it prevents us from being able to determine what really actually happened to Teresa Halbach. We will likely never know, and so she may never truly get justice.

 

[dexter75]

You are absolutely onto something here =)

I have been saying all along, to my hubby anyway, there are MANY folks who believe SA is guilty and this is an open and shut case.

THIS thought is very scary to me. I do not plan to get into trouble in my lifetime, however , accidents happen.
FREAKS me out, the thought of such close minds serving on a jury ={

And the petition for the State of WI to be held accountable re the handling of this case, evidence and such
I agree.

It's the states JOB to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. of course all their witnesses will be called to do just this for the state. However there is another half of this case. Where the defense calls question to the states case. The testimony, the photographic evidence and the reports. The defense is to poke holes in the states version of the truth. To call into question if those witness are credible and reliable, does their testimony match the reported evidence and photo evidence. In this case the defense did a heck of job doing so. I do believe some of the states evidence, however the evidence that is not circumstantial is very much in question. His Blood, Her Key and the Bullet. I would not one someone who is not willing to even look or accept any of the rebuttal from the defense. I would not want someone without common sense on my case. One that don't even need to hear the defenses rebuttals or evidence. Have decided just with the prosecutions media coverage. Why not just let the prosecution present their case and then decide on guilt. Forget the defendant at all defending themselves. No why have a trial at all. arrest them hang them and ask questions later. Yeah that doesn't make any sense to me. That is not the kind of small minded people I would want to be serving on an jury I was facing.

The opening of KK states hes doing MCo. a FAVOR by being a special prosecutor. What exactly does that mean. I thought he was special prosecutor cause MCo. publicly recused themselves. He also states how Judge F. thinks is appropriate that Calumet county take the Lead on the case. Yet that judge did not also recuse himself from the case of BD the co defendant of SA's case. The Judge W who also did not step down from their duties and hand them to Calumet. These judges may not have been named directly in the lawsuit that SA filed, but he filed it against the County in a WHOLE. Anyone who worked for that county should have been excluded from the case once they found out he was one of the last appointment Teresa had that day. That alone makes the states case unable to be proven as truth. He wants to excuse it because it helps his case. But as American people we should not excuse it. All the people involved in presenting the states case had a responsibility to present it without a conflict of interest or the appearance of one. Only in the media would they do this. They did not avoid the APPEARANCE even of conflict of interest. Those officers are the Appearance even if they did not plant the evidence. That mistake lies on the state and the many key figures who should have known better. They all should be ashamed of themselves. Even if they were not directly in on any wrong doing they were all apart of allowing it to appear that there was a conflict. Which makes them equally guilty in my opinion. Omission is a lie in my opinion.

Maybe instead of petitioning for SA and BD to be pardoned. Why don't we Petition for the Whole State of Wisconsin's. From the DOJ all the way down to the Sheriff's Volunteers who served on a Jury they may not have been allowed on. Be investigated for Misconduct. For never investigating the, improper way Evidence is stored in the clerks office, to the tampering with the blood evidence. If found it was indeed not tampered with lets reprimand the person who DEVIATED from protocol in resealing that sample with scotch tape. If nothing else the way they care and handle evidence should be called into question. This also goes for the way they treated that poor murdered woman's bones. Teresa Halbach if nothing else deserved a better investigation into her death and better care in handing the case so the appearance was never there. Her Family deserves some closure into her death. And this does not give it to them. and it is at fault of LE. IMO

 

[dexter75]

Not sure if I count,

I am still reading, weighing and while I believe your FACTS TRUMP FEAR

I believe LE could have helped plant evidence to assure a conviction, if this is planting, then yes.

Do I believe they set out to do this from the beginning? NO.

Just curious. Who here (besides me) does not believe LE framed Avery for TH's murder?

 

[dexter75]

NOT impossible.

I think much will come out if a proper and thorough investigation is done on multiple levels.

Nothing is impossible, and we are all human.

I noticed the top too.. but could that have been from it being tested in the past??? I don't know.. I would love to know how much blood was in that vial originally and now.
I believe that there is no way that the amount of blood that was in her car came from the vial and still left blood left. I believe in fact it was new blood that came from him. I am good with the test from the FBI. I know that people like to believe that everyone who ever came in contact with this case is corrupt but that is just impossible.

 

[Madeleine74]

I can't go with beliefs without some kind of corroborating evidence. I'm fully open to looking at evidence but if someone's argument is "because soAndso hated Avery and wanted to bring harm to him to save the county...." that's not going to fly without evidence.

And frankly, if someone's burned body parts showed up in anyone's yard and that person was absolutely with the victim at the time they went missing, and that person also absolutely had a bonfire that went for hours at the same time the victim was missing, you bet that person should (and would) be looked at very closely, and I don't care what state you live in.

 

[Tawny]

I can't go with beliefs without some kind of corroborating evidence. I'm fully open to looking at evidence but if someone's argument is "because soAndso hated Avery and wanted to bring harm to him to save the county...." that's not going to fly without evidence.

And frankly, if someone's burned body parts showed up in anyone's yard and that person was absolutely with the victim at the time they went missing, and that person also absolutely had a bonfire that went for hours at the same time the victim was missing, you bet that person should (and would) be looked at very closely, and I don't care what state you live in.

The evidence seems to be them insisting they "had the right guy" when they knew full well someone else admitted to the 1985 rape. The evidence seems to be them arresting SA before they ever found Teresa's body.

You have to have a BODY or at a MURDER WEAPON to arrest someone for murder lol

 

[lisette]

You have to have a BODY or at a MURDER WEAPON to arrest someone for murder lol

Not true...Many people have been arrested for murder without a body or murder weapon, many of them discussed on this website. None come to mind and I don't have time to search right now. I'm not saying that I think LE framed SA...I'm still on the fence about that...I do think he killed her, but how much LE was involved in planting corroborating evidence? Just not sure...

 

[Tawny]

Not true...Many people have been arrested for murder without a body or murder weapon, many of them discussed on this website. None come to mind and I don't have time to search right now. I'm not saying that I think LE framed SA...I'm still on the fence about that...I do think he killed her, but how much LE was involved in planting corroborating evidence? Just not sure...

Pretty sure most of them are arrested after some time and investigating, not immediately.

 

[Malli]

Just curious. Who here (besides me) does not believe LE framed Avery for TH's murder?

I don't believe they framed him.

I am unsure on planting evidence (I mean the key, nothing else.)

I cannot find it in myself to believe any LE would move bones etc to make up a burn site.

I do not believe they would move and hide the Rav 4. My main issue with this is the plates being removed. If I was framing someone, I would damn well leave those plates on.

 

[Soulmagent]

Not true...Many people have been arrested for murder without a body or murder weapon, many of them discussed on this website. None come to mind and I don't have time to search right now. I'm not saying that I think LE framed SA...I'm still on the fence about that...I do think he killed her, but how much LE was involved in planting corroborating evidence? Just not sure...

Alexis Murphey , Claudine Giford. Both of those are VA cases. With convictions in the last few years. Both of these trials it is very clear the men convicted are guilty. While Tony Spencer was the special prosecutor in Claidine's trial, he was typical in the way he prosecuted the case. He also has some drama going on in his career .
Anthony Martin was the prosecutor in Alexis's case. He was an outstanding prosecutor in that case. He is also a really nice guy.

 

[SophieRose]

The evidence seems to be them insisting they "had the right guy" when they knew full well someone else admitted to the 1985 rape. The evidence seems to be them arresting SA before they ever found Teresa's body.

You have to have a BODY or at a MURDER WEAPON to arrest someone for murder lol

How long have you been following true crime?

7-year-old Danielle Van Dam disappeared Feb 1-2, 2002. David Westerfield was arrested Feb 22 (small blood stains on his clothing and in his RV), her body was found by searchers on Feb 27. San Diego, CA

Nina Reiser disappeared Sep 5, 2006. On Oct 10, 2006, her ex-husband Hans Reiser was arrested for her murder. He was found guilty of first degree murder by a jury on Apr 28, 2008 (WITHOUT A BODY.) On July 7, 2008, Hans Reiser led police to her body in a plea deal for second degree murder and a maximum sentence of 15 years (rather than the death sentence or life without parole.) Oakland, CA

 

[stephsb]

The evidence seems to be them insisting they "had the right guy" when they knew full well someone else admitted to the 1985 rape. The evidence seems to be them arresting SA before they ever found Teresa's body.

You have to have a BODY or at a MURDER WEAPON to arrest someone for murder lol

Caylee anthony is the most well known example, IMO, of an arrest before the body was found. A grand jury indicted Casey for first degree intentional homicide prior to the body being found. They never found a definitive murder weapon (because they never definitively determined cause of death) and had a very weak case. So can you get arrested w. No body, no murder weapon, and no motive? Yes, but you better hope you find 1 of those before heading to trial.

I would have agreed with your statement more had you said you can't go to trial and get a conviction without a body. Cases of conviction without a body are rare, and always good for the defense (gives them some great doubt right off the start- person isn't dead). They're difficult cases, and a conviction results in strong circumstantial evidence, good science, and a great prosecution. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

The evidence seems to be them insisting they "had the right guy" when they knew full well someone else admitted to the 1985 rape. The evidence seems to be them arresting SA before they ever found Teresa's body.

You have to have a BODY or at a MURDER WEAPON to arrest someone for murder lol

So TH's remains found burned to bits is not considered a body?

They matched shell casings & a bullet(s) to a rifle owned by SA and it was in his own home. 1 bullet found with tissue DNA tested as matching TH. Forensic anthropologists found evidence TH had been shot (twice in her head).

No evidence?

BTW, you are incorrect in that a murder weapon and a body has to be found in order to convict someone of murder. Not at all. Many convictions have taken place where no weapon had been found and believe it or not, there are convictions where no body was found.

 

[MysticJynx]

Motive never has to be proven in a murder case.

yes it does Defense had the burden show motive in the 3 pong denny test, to point the finger at another person. But the state doesn't have to prove. Is that not a double standard?

 

[MysticJynx]

So TH's remains found burned to bits is not considered a body?

They matched shell casings & a bullet(s) to a rifle owned by SA and it was in his own home. 1 bullet found with tissue DNA tested as matching TH. Forensic anthropologists found evidence TH had been shot (twice in her head).

No evidence?

BTW, you are incorrect in that a murder weapon and a body has to be found in order to convict someone of murder. Not at all. Many convictions have taken place where no weapon had been found and believe it or not, there are convictions where no body was found.

I don't believe the bullet had tissue on it. In fact Sherry Culhane could not even tell you if it was blood. Just nucleated cells. Someone could have rubbed her dna on that bullet fragment the same way they rubbed his dna on the key.

 

[Madeleine74]

yes it does Defense had the burden show motive in the 3 pong denny test, to point the finger at another person. But the state doesn't have to prove. Is that not a double standard?

I think you're confused and are using your emotions to argue the law. Things like "double standard" and "hey, that's not fair" are the clues to that. The law doesn't care about emotions. The judges who rule are going by the laws of the state and interpreting the motions and briefs that are presented against those laws. You don't have to like it, but that's how it's done in this country.

 

[MysticJynx]

I don't believe they framed him.

I am unsure on planting evidence (I mean the key, nothing else.)

I cannot find it in myself to believe any LE would move bones etc to make up a burn site.

I do not believe they would move and hide the Rav 4. My main issue with this is the plates being removed. If I was framing someone, I would damn well leave those plates on.

Would you if you were the LE officer that called them in. You don't think that the LE Officer may not want them on the back of the car so it looks less likely like he was looking at the plate when he did so. but plant the car with the big huge RAV4 on the back showing to make sure someone found the car.

 

[shajon123]

Just curious. Who here (besides me) does not believe LE framed Avery for TH's murder?

I have not been on websleuths since the Travis Alexander tiral. But I'm back, and I am a firm believer LE did not frame him....