Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[MaxManning]

Thanks for asking me to clarify that part of my statement MaxManning ("You say "if it was teresa this time..." I think you meant Steve Avery ? Or are you saying that if avery was let out there'd be another victim to be used to convict him again ?"). Although I never posted here on the case, I always followed along because, as I stated, I personally met Teresa on August 5, 2005... Anyhow, my son and his wife, having been friends with Teresa and locals closely followed the trial and I - admittedly - simply accepted that SA must be guilty as they and her family believed it to be true. For me, after watching the documentary and going back and reading reports and transcripts for myself, I very much suspect that MC law enforcement not only framed SA, but was also involved in causing her death. Why do I say that? To believe that Teresa just coincidentally happened to be on SA's property and met foul play while there - during a time when LE officers had been/were being deposed for his lawsuit - would be too huge of a coincidence for me to believe. Teresa had a contract with Auto Trader and took pictures throughout the county to be posted on AT's publication, including previous visits to ASY to take pictures. I believe LE knew this and CREATED an opportunity - rather than seized the opportunity ("seized the opportunity" would be to say that a huge coincidence occurred whereby TH was last seen on the property of SA, turns up missing, and is then found to have been murdered...). I am going even further by saying that this is more than a case of LE taking advantage of an opportunity that just fell out of the sky and onto their laps. IMO, this is more than MCLE simply planting evidence to frame SA. So my statement that you questioned directly refers to LE and their involvement in bringing about the death of TH and then framing SA for it. And, just to be clear, I am referring to MCLE specifically. JMO ~

Thanks for clarifying.

So, not sure if you are reading these trial transcripts of the dassey conviction, but you mention the auto trader. I have noticed a line of questioning that involves the bill of sale. I need to go back to the documentary because I don't believe I understood it's relevance at the time and now I think i am getting it. But I am not sure if the point ends up where I am thinking.


But the prosecution is creating a narrative about this bill of sale, and how that relates to teresa's process in doing her job.

Someone calls for a photographer to set up appointment for a picture to include in their ad in the auto trader.
Dispatcher calls photographer and gives her info about location , contact info etc.
She goes to the location to take the picture
She she leaves a auto trader magazine with the client
She fills out a bill of sale for her taking the pictures (possibly for the ad as well, I am not clear on that)
She then gets paid.
She then gives the client the bill of sale form/receipt ? Maybe there is a carbon copy ? not sure either.

But here is the point I think that is being made. They question about the stops she made BEFORE Avery and they all follow this process and those clients have a copy of a bill of sale that is filled out. At least that is my understanding.

Now, I think what might be said next is -- Hey, why doesn't Avery have a filled out bill of sale ?

Make sense ?

If that is the case, I have to agree that we need an explanation for that. right ? What is it ?

I will go back to the documentary transcript to better understand how it explained this document and if they left out something the prosecution said was important. I remember being confused by even understanding it's relevance other than maybe a pen in the house was used to fill it out ? But can't even remember if it was filled out, will have to check that. So far in this trial they have mentioned the bill of sale, but because I don't see picture, I can't verify if it was filled out.

But.. we do know the auto trader and that bill of sale is in the Avery trailer. Is it from teresa or maybe a previous issue ? that also could be the point. If it's a new issue, how did he get it ? from the store ? defense needs to explain that.

Make sense or am I missing something in this line of thinking ?

 

[MaxManning]

I went back to episode 6 of the documentary.

There is a part about two things seized on 11/5 :

1. A note on a pad - not ripped off - found on his computer table. It has teresa hallbach's number and the words : "Back to Patio Door".

2. A Bill of sale NOT FILLED OUT - on the same computer table.


So it seems to be heading where I thought.

Why does he have it and it's not filled out ?

Does he have these before Teresa gets there ?

Wouldn't that bill of sale complete the transaction and at that point teresa leaves ?

So, you can see why we need more information about this, right ?

Just now I have checked transcript of documentary and the video for mentions of bill of sale.

It gets mentioned in episode 6 -- by prosecution - no explanation by documentary or defense.
It gets mentioned in episode 8 -- again by prosecution - no explanation by documentary or defense.

So, it's easy to see why I was puzzled when watching what the significance was, because they don't have footage or transcript explaining why this was important to the prosecution. That is very manipulative. They say the bill of sale was there, but they don't discuss what the prosecution's real point was. So the viewer thinks, hey, just because there is an auto trader and a bill of sale there, that doesn't explain anything.


But give context of teresa's process in doing her job, and suddenly you have to wonder why it's not filled out, given thats what you find at the previous stops by halbach. right ?

Very misleading and manipulative imo.

However, I'll throw it out there as the other side of that -- could it also be planted ??

Everyone can draw their own conclusions on this topic, but if I see in the Avery or Dassey trial a discussion about this bill of sale in the context that I have described, I am going to feel awfully manipulated once again by the documentary. would you ?

 

[Really?]

Thanks for asking me to clarify that part of my statement MaxManning ("You say "if it was teresa this time..." I think you meant Steve Avery ? Or are you saying that if avery was let out there'd be another victim to be used to convict him again ?"). Although I never posted here on the case, I always followed along because, as I stated, I personally met Teresa on August 5, 2005... Anyhow, my son and his wife, having been friends with Teresa and locals closely followed the trial and I - admittedly - simply accepted that SA must be guilty as they and her family believed it to be true. For me, after watching the documentary and going back and reading reports and transcripts for myself, I very much suspect that MC law enforcement not only framed SA, but was also involved in causing her death. Why do I say that? To believe that Teresa just coincidentally happened to be on SA's property and met foul play while there - during a time when LE officers had been/were being deposed for his lawsuit - would be too huge of a coincidence for me to believe. Teresa had a contract with Auto Trader and took pictures throughout the county to be posted on AT's publication, including previous visits to ASY to take pictures. I believe LE knew this and CREATED an opportunity - rather than seized the opportunity ("seized the opportunity" would be to say that a huge coincidence occurred whereby TH was last seen on the property of SA, turns up missing, and is then found to have been murdered...). I am going even further by saying that this is more than a case of LE taking advantage of an opportunity that just fell out of the sky and onto their laps. IMO, this is more than MCLE simply planting evidence to frame SA. So my statement that you questioned directly refers to LE and their involvement in bringing about the death of TH and then framing SA for it. And, just to be clear, I am referring to MCLE specifically. JMO ~

Thanks for saying what I have been thinking all along....LE created the crime to set SA up.....then the only alibi he had......Brendan.....was bullied and basically told what to say.......I've been sick over this since the doc aired.

 

[MaxManning]

Thanks for saying what I have been thinking all along....LE created the crime to set SA up.....then the only alibi he had......Brendan.....was bullied and basically told what to say.......I've been sick over this since the doc aired.

With all due respect, I question how anyone could have any other than this opinion after watching the documentary. I too had the very same and I still do entertain the idea that you are correct.

But if you can, please take the time to read through some of these documents that other users have posted and evaluate what is being said. You might come out to the same conclusion, you might not. But to say things without actually looking at more than the documentary, you are kind of drinking the kool aid as they say.

I am open to hearing your explanation for the bill of sale.
I am open to hearing if you believe barb lied or didn't say anything about the pants and cleaning at all ?
I am open to hearing if you believe brendan was lying or truthful when he told him mother that essentially he and others were in some way sexually abused by Steve.

These are not things that even came up in the documentary. How do you feel about them ? We are all open to opinions.

If it's just that you don't want to read any of the documents and even consider there might be more to this than the documentary , then that is your right.

But how am I or anyone else supposed to respond to that in a meaningful way ?

I'm not going to say "you are wrong" a million times or until one of us tires of it.

If you give explanations for these things, it's your opinion and I think we all will respect that.

Not looking for an argument, but I am interested in how you explain these things ?

I have asked questions that are critical of LE and suggesting that it could have been a framing. I'm not convinced yet, but I see things that could point to that.

EDIT -- I wanted to add that after watching the documentary, 2 episodes in I was outraged. By end, I was just like you. Completely. but after thinking about it some, it didn't add up to me that a jury could call this guy guilty if they saw all the things we did. There had to be more is what I thought. Turns out, there is. Now we have to decide if we believe it or not. You can't reliably do that without evaluating it to begin with.

 

[Midge Montana]

"Lets not forget that accusing the police of corruption is not a small thing, but a large thing."

Yes, but...let's not forget that this police department and related government have already shown themselves to be corrupt, more than once over the years in relation to Steve Avery. SPECIFICALLY at least two key players in this murder case, Lenk and Colborn, who ironically are not even supposed to be allowed to participate in THIS investigation, yet have key roles (in regards to the day the vehicle is found & the miraculous discovery of the key!) Let's not forget either, that those two perhaps have a very good reason for wanting Steve Avery to conveniently 'go away' as their mishandling in the first case was being exposed and could possibly put their asses in hot water financially, professionally and maybe even legally.
So, yes, it is a big deal to accuse them of corruption in THIS case, but it's not a huge leap to make, however tragic and sickening it is.

 

[Midge Montana]

By the way, because I'm likely to be accused of being "swayed" by the document, I'd like to add that I've researched and read extensively on this case.
I'm having a difficult time posting from my iPad and my extensive notes are at home on my desk, but there are dozens of things that do not sit right with me. I'll be able to post more thoroughly in a few days.
Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[MaxManning]

"Lets not forget that accusing the police of corruption is not a small thing, but a large thing."

Yes, but...let's not forget that this police department and related government have already shown themselves to be corrupt, more than once over the years in relation to Steve Avery. SPECIFICALLY at least two key players in this murder case, Lenk and Colborn, who ironically are not even supposed to be allowed to participate in THIS investigation, yet have key roles (in regards to the day the vehicle is found & the miraculous discovery of the key!) Let's not forget either, that those two perhaps have a very good reason for wanting Steve Avery to conveniently 'go away' as their mishandling in the first case was being exposed and could possibly put their asses in hot water financially, professionally and maybe even legally.
So, yes, it is a big deal to accuse them of corruption in THIS case, but it's not a huge leap to make, however tragic and sickening it is.

There's different levels to all this , that I don't think we can ignore. Police plant evidence at times. I believe it happens. I believe it happened in the original rape case.

They didn't have DNA. They chose someone they believed did it and even ignored someone who did do it. I agree with you 100%. It's why I am still skeptical of them.

However, you can't just say that because they are corrupt that everyone is innocent because they are corrupt. I mean, you can, but you'd be wrong.

So, I also see the point that Avery is also a person who is causing them embarrassment and potentially criminal and or monetary penalty from that false rape conviction.k I get it. Just as outraged as you.

But that doesn't make Steve Avery a good guy. I am not assuming that. You may be, but I am not. I am going to look at everything. He was convicted and sentenced 6 years for pulling a gun on someone after running them off the road , and likely would have abducted if there wasn't a child present. We can also say that maybe say that that was all fake ? yet he seems to admit it happened.

How does police corruption allow you to overlook that side of Avery ? I'm not saying it makes him guilty here, but at minimum he's no better than the police in terms of doing something illegal - right ??

He got convicted for burning a cat. Was that a framing too ?

I see your points and I get them all. I believe I am being cautious about what I believe. I don't have a favorable opinion of either the prosecutors or the police.

But does that make avery innocent ? Sorry, I can't make that stretch without more than just you or anyone else telling me that.

As many have said an I have said before -- Police can be corrupt and Avery could still be guilty.

They could have planted evidence to strengthen the case or even fabricate a narrative. But does it mean he's innocent ?

We have to look at it all and not drop out parts we don't like without evaluation. jmo

 

[MaxManning]

By the way, because I'm likely to be accused of being "swayed" by the document, I'd like to add that I've researched and read extensively on this case.
I'm having a difficult time posting from my iPad and my extensive notes are at home on my desk, but there are dozens of things that do not sit right with me. I'll be able to post more thoroughly in a few days.
Just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks, and if you can take the time to give your opinions on the things that aren't favorable to avery that have been brought up , that would be appreciated too.

I think it's clear from my posts the things I am struggling with. I'm open to your thoughts on how they can be explained via planting or any other method.

I myself am only 2 days into the dassey trial transcripts and I am still just noting things that I question - on both sides of the coin.

 

[Midge Montana]

There's different levels to all this , that I don't think we can ignore. Police plant evidence at times. I believe it happens. I believe it happened in the original rape case.

They didn't have DNA. They chose someone they believed did it and even ignored someone who did do it. I agree with you 100%. It's why I am still skeptical of them.

However, you can't just say that because they are corrupt that everyone is innocent because they are corrupt. I mean, you can, but you'd be wrong.

So, I also see the point that Avery is also a person who is causing them embarrassment and potentially criminal and or monetary penalty from that false rape conviction.k I get it. Just as outraged as you.

But that doesn't make Steve Avery a good guy. I am not assuming that. You may be, but I am not. I am going to look at everything. He was convicted and sentenced 6 years for pulling a gun on someone after running them off the road , and likely would have abducted if there wasn't a child present. We can also say that maybe say that that was all fake ? yet he seems to admit it happened.

How does police corruption allow you to overlook that side of Avery ? I'm not saying it makes him guilty here, but at minimum he's no better than the police in terms of doing something illegal - right ??

He got convicted for burning a cat. Was that a framing too ?

I see your points and I get them all. I believe I am being cautious about what I believe. I don't have a favorable opinion of either the prosecutors or the police.

But does that make avery innocent ? Sorry, I can't make that stretch without more than just you or anyone else telling me that.

As many have said an I have said before -- Police can be corrupt and Avery could still be guilty.

They could have planted evidence to strengthen the case or even fabricate a narrative. But does it mean he's innocent ?

We have to look at it all and not drop out parts we don't like without evaluation. jmo

I don't believe I ever said Avery is a good guy. I've actually not stated my opinion on his guilt or innocence here. I was simply stating my opinion on what I've seen by several others as disbelief that corruption within is likely.
One of my best friends is a lifelong Manitowoc resident. We have discussed this case, the Avery clan, Teresa's family, etc.

 

[chaleigh26]

I took it as the prosecution were trying to prove that TH must of been there and in SA trailer cause of the bill of sale and where it was found.

 

[MaxManning]

I don't believe I ever said Avery is a good guy. I've actually not stated my opinion on his guilt or innocence here. I was simply stating my opinion on what I've seen by several others as disbelief that corruption within is likely.
One of my best friends is a lifelong Manitowoc resident. We have discussed this case, the Avery clan, Teresa's family, etc.

Glad to hear that. I honestly don't think anyone should make a decision based on documentary alone. They surely can, but it's clear to me at this point that there is much more to this whole thing than what documentary presents. Don't doubt for a moment the police are corrupt.

But there are levels to that. I have seen some say they believe maybe they killed her and framed him.
I hear some say they found the vehicle somewhere, she was dead, and they framed him from there.
Some believe that he's guilty and that they *enhanced* the evidence.
Some believe that nothing was planted.

I honestly feel the whole range is open to scrutiny here! haha But I find the first to be rather unlikely, I would need to see a whole lot more to believe they'd have killed her to frame him.

I likely won't form any opinions i feel strongly about in terms of how it happened, until i can see both trial transcripts and key statements to clarify questions i have had.


I can't recall seeing anyone on this thread ever saying that the police weren't corrupt to some level, but I could be wrong. Most have acknowledged questions about their integrity in terms of evidence and the interrogation of brendan.

 

[MaxManning]

I took it as the prosecution were trying to prove that TH must of been there and in SA trailer cause of the bill of sale and where it was found.

Right, so if the bill of sale was completed (filled out) at all previous stops by hallbach, but not at avery's residence. What does that suggest to you ?

I think that's the point.

How did he get that bill of sale? -- NOT FILLED OUT
Was it planted ?
Was it there via Halbach , giving evidence she was in the house ?
Did halbach give it to avery and he brought it in the house ?

Are there other possibilities i have not listed ?


I'm just stating that the documentary didn't show defense contesting this by saying "they planted the bill of sale". I find it manipulative to not state the prosecutors narrative as to why this document is relevant and then refute it.

 

[stephsb]

I am going to read what you have now said a few times and try to understand it, I am very confused.


The point is that they used her statements to say how they got to brendan. If she said brendan cried - that is why ? what specifically ?

She takes back telling the truth about the talk of the body parts.

So telling them that he was troubled and crying, was ok ? is that what you are saying ?

I'll read the transcript and we can come back to this. But also, I don't honestly care too much about what was allowed in court. If I come to a point where I believe that barb said what she did to the police or I don't see her deny it... I am going to believe she said it! haha

That is kind of the point of this whole conversation - do we believe that barb told police this detail ? I honestly don't care if it was admissable in court or not. I am not judge/jury or the system. If she said it and I heard it, i'd be investigating as if she was telling the truth, regardless of whether the court would accept it. I think that's a good way to look at it. I am not trying to make a decision based on law, but on plausibility. The documentary pretty much uses that same philosophy, right ? -- except they are seemingly leaving out some things completely.

In the end there is likely many things we can't prove. But i've not heard barb deny this in the documentary or the trial or the media.

Barb didn't testify at the trial, I am almost certain of that, although I would have to quick double check the witness lists of each doc.

And if you aren't concerned about if the quote was admissible in court, then I wouldn't worry about understanding the Rules of Evidence too much. The Hearsay Rule and Exceptions can be in a pain in the *** and that's coming from someone who has studied them and had to work w. them regularly. I was simply trying to provide a context for why Barb's statement isn't important to Dassey's arrest and conviction. We can't make a good judgment on the statement, IMO, until we have the context of how it was said to investigators. If the investigators acted w. Barb at all similar to how they acted w. Brendan, then the statement is meaningless, like the bulk of Brendan's confessions. These confessions are crucial, as Brendan could not have been arrested in the first place w.o them.

Brendan's statement to Barb, like everything he says, should be taken w. a grain of a salt. Barb says there was bleach stains on the pants, and she witnessed them for the first time on Oct 31. Brendan says that he got them cleaning Avery's garage. Based on the evidence given, this is not true. Chlorine bleach is the type of bleach that would leave bleach stains. If chlorine bleach was used in that garage, it would have shown when the luminol was used. Luminol found no evidence of bleach in that garage. From what I recall, the State in Avery's case tried to argue that the other type of bleach, which is rarely used, especially for large clean ups, was the bleach used in the garage. That type of bleach (and I forget the name, but its been mentioned on this board) is not picked up by luminol, but it also does not leave bleach stains on clothing- the stains are darker and not the ones seen on Dassey's pants. Also, Dassey states he got blood on his pants and hands, and there were other stains on Dassey's pants, none of which were mentioned by Barb, which the State explains away by the pants being washed since the crime. However, Barb saw the bleach stains and mentioned them, but never mentioned the blood ones? This is why Dassey's confession is so important- nothing he says makes any sense w. the evidence that is found, but it was the only thing connecting him to the crime. I don't contest the bleach stains, or that Barb saw them and made the statement, but they didn't come from cleaning Avery's garage.

The documentary is clearly skewed in the favor of the defense, that should be obvious. If they were concerned w. presenting both sides, they would have had the prosecutors and investigators talk about their sides. They didn't. I'm not opposed to the documentary being made, because it's brought a lot of attention to Dassey's conviction, which should have never happened, and it's obviously a great move to advocate for their client's cause, which is what all defense attorneys should be doing. The reason the legal aspect of this case is so crucial is that the purpose of the documentary is obviously to help bring awareness to Avery's case, and to a lesser extent Dassey's, in the hopes of them being granted a new trial, the best relief they can hope for. In order to form an opinion on whether they deserve them, the evidence used to convict them needs to be considered, not just what the documentary presents. JMO.

 

[MaxManning]

Page 84 of day 2 , 4/17 dassey trial trasncript :

Q:You mentioned there was a prior Crime Lab taper, of Crime Lab technican , that came through, made those circles, where you noted had been positive for the luminol testing; correct?
A That's what I was told.

It's however not confirmed, it's just what he was told.
It's not noted when that luminol testing was done.
I don't have a good idea of what spots were tested, and it sounds like it was specific spots from this - not the whole garage.

I find that troubling. Wouldn't you test the whole garage floor ??? Maybe someone with knowledge of this can speak to this. I am thinking that not testing the whole floor might have led to the "uh... we didn't test under the compressor on 11/5 & 6 , so that's why we didn't see the glowing bullet"

But he has mentioned earlier that they'd talk to someone about this spot - hopefully to get evidence about when and exactly where and what the test concluded - and how defense cross examines that person.

 

[MaxManning]

Barb didn't testify at the trial, I am almost certain of that, although I would have to quick double check the witness lists of each doc.


Brendan's statement to Barb, like everything he says, should be taken w. a grain of a salt. Barb says there was bleach stains on the pants, and she witnessed them for the first time on Oct 31. Brendan says that he got them cleaning Avery's garage. Based on the evidence given, this is not true. Chlorine bleach is the type of bleach that would leave bleach stains. If chlorine bleach was used in that garage, it would have shown when the luminol was used. Luminol found no evidence of bleach in that garage. From what I recall, the State in Avery's case tried to argue that the other type of bleach, which is rarely used, especially for large clean ups, was the bleach used in the garage. That type of bleach (and I forget the name, but its been mentioned on this board) is not picked up by luminol, but it also does not leave bleach stains on clothing- the stains are darker and not the ones seen on Dassey's pants. Also, Dassey states he got blood on his pants and hands, and there were other stains on Dassey's pants, none of which were mentioned by Barb, which the State explains away by the pants being washed since the crime. However, Barb saw the bleach stains and mentioned them, but never mentioned the blood ones? This is why Dassey's confession is so important- nothing he says makes any sense w. the evidence that is found, but it was the only thing connecting him to the crime. I don't contest the bleach stains, or that Barb saw them and made the statement, but they didn't come from cleaning Avery's garage.

Can you point us to where this evidence exists ?

So far in the dassey trial, there seems to be the narrative that there was luminal evidence of blood in garage. I haven't seen confirmation from someone who did testing, but that's been mentioned twice now as others on the stand believing that to be true.

We had someone on this thread say that chlorine bleach will not clean blood and make it undetectable to a luminol test. We have discussed that. But so far, we haven't found this in the dassey trial confirmed and discussed.

Have you seen the avery trial transcripts ? do you have them ?

 

[LemonMousse]

You have to realize that regardless of how this here sounds to you, you can't take it out of context of HOW the investigator knew about the bleach.

He didnt' just plant that word in his mind. Barb Janda TOLD POLICE that she asked brendan about the bleach stains on his pants that night and he said that he was helping steven clean the garage floor.


So are you saying that Barb Janda is lying ? or that Brendan lied to his mom about that ? -- I get where you are coming from, but this whole bleach and cleaning steve's garage thing, didn't come from police.

I'm still going through transcripts of the interviews with some knowledge of what that false confession doc said, and I am open to the idea that possibly SOME of what brendan is possibly true and some is false. I know some seem to think nothing he said was truth. I kind of think at the moment that it could be somewhere in the middle.

There are things in his interviews that could be verified, but we see no evidence of that , but then again we don't have trial transcripts do we ? So that is also part of my dilemna.

Do we know that the bleach wasn't mentioned in the trial ? Nope. What we know is that it wasn't mentioned in the documentary, which is clearly slanted towards the defense. why doesn't that seem to make sense to anyone ?

But I keep hearing say the same thing about the bleach, when it wasn't even something that was discovered in that interrogation, but something that Barb Janda said, before she even knew it's significance. And I am supposed to assume that she is lying ? And I am supposed to assume that Brendan was coerced into saying anything about bleach ?

Sorry, I can't accept that until I see some kind of explanation from Steve or someone about why Barb Janda witnessed the pants and was told about cleaning the garage floor.

Explain to me why you don't trust that Barb was telling the truth. - forget about brendan for a moment.

Classic overthinking, IMO.

I don't care whether Brendan said something to his mother about bleached jeans or not. Since I have no evidence that she's lying - and why would she make up something that implicates the son she loves? - I assume she was telling the truth and he did say that to her.

So what?

I WOULD care if there was evidence that a systematic clean up of the garage using bleach had taken place just a few hours earlier. But there wasn't. And the mere presence of such a common substance proves precisely nothing.

A woman got shot twice in that garage, along with having her throat cut. Blood, brain matter, bodily fluids and so on would have been all over the place, not just in one neat little pool that could be mopped up.

And we're expected to believe that the not terribly bright Steve and the even less bright Brendan cleaned that place so thoroughly (in between taking calls and nipping home to see Mum) that no trace of any violent crime could be detected? That they were able to source and eliminate virtually invisible particles that would have sprayed all over the place? That they replaced all of the old dust that covered the surfaces? But were careful enough to leave DNA of Steven's while clearing away Brendan's and Theresa's?

No. Sorry.

I do not believe that Brendan was in Steve's garage cleaning up a crime scene. I do not believe it.

And no strange comment from a learning disabled teen to his mother is going to be enough to make me believe it, I'm afraid.

I don't know why Brendan said that...and, like I said...in view of the above, I don't care.

 

[MaxManning]

Classic overthinking, IMO.

I don't care whether Brendan said something to his mother about bleached jeans or not. Since I have no evidence that she's lying - and why would she make up something that implicates the son she loves? - I assume she was telling the truth and he did say that to her.

So what?

I WOULD care if there was evidence that a systematic clean up of the garage using bleach had taken place just a few hours earlier. But there wasn't. And the mere presence of such a common substance proves precisely nothing.

A woman got shot twice in that garage, along with having her throat cut. Blood, brain matter, bodily fluids and so on would have been all over the place, not just in one neat little pool that could be mopped up.

And we're expected to believe that the not terribly bright Steve and the even less bright Brendan cleaned that place so thoroughly (in between taking calls and nipping home to see Mum) that no trace of any violent crime could be detected? That they were able to source and eliminate virtually invisible particles that would have sprayed all over the place? That they replaced all of the old dust that covered the surfaces? But were careful enough to leave DNA of Steven's while clearing away Brendan's and Theresa's?

No. Sorry.

I do not believe that Brendan was in Steve's garage cleaning up a crime scene. I do not believe it.

And no strange comment from a learning disabled teen to his mother is going to be enough to make me believe it, I'm afraid.

I don't know why Brendan said that...and, like I said...in view of the above, I don't care.

You are assuming far too much about what I believe and using that to dispute what we are questioning. You likely assume that I am accepting the police narrative.

You say things like her throat was cut. I don't see evidence of that.

You mention brain matter and bodily fluids needing to be all over the place.

I don't even know if she was shot in the garage, I have my reservations about believing that.

In the process of those misunderstandings you assume that Steve needs to be smart in some way to clean up anything in the garage ?

As I've said before, if there is something over someone's head - such as a pillow or (or some equivalent) and then the person's head is shot THROUGH that pillow, then where exactly would all this blood spatter you assume I believe was everywhere was ? Not even saying I believe that's how it happened, but it's plausible to me. Doesn't fit police narrative. But I have my own issues with their narrative.

In this scenario , they also don't need to replace any dust as again.. the mess in in the pillow.

Why would brendan's DNA be there ? no one said he was cut.

Steve's DNA makes sense to be there, he has a cut finger and it's his garage.

Teresa's blood should not be there, thus the importance o understanding whether they cleaned up and who said so - however the amount of blood anyone believes was in there. However, I am not even convinced it was there at all as I am still in the process of going through the transcripts of the dassey trial and hopefully avery trial next.

You say "so what ?" to the idea that brendan and steve were possibly cleaning the garage the night of the murder. Not even sure what to say, as it doesn't sound like you are willing to evaluate the implications of that. Someone lying about what they were doing that night. ok. it's your right to do that, and keep that opinion. I will not overlook it. I will keep thinking about it until there is a plausible explanation. But I do respect your right to disregard it, not looking to argue.

You don't care what Brendan said or his mother etc. Your right as well to not care.But, also respect our right to not so easily accept that things said on the night of that murder about their actions have no relevance in regards to this case.

That's all I can really say, not going to argue. If you are fine with not hearing any more evidence and evaluating it without bias, that is your decision and I respect it.

 

[stephsb]

"First, there are two kinds of bleaches that are found in homes. The most common one is Chlorine bleach while Oxygen bleach is becoming trendy. Chlorine bleaches are the most commonly found because it is cheaper thus purchased in larger quantities while Oxygen bleach is more expensive. While both are used to remove stains, Chlorine bleach leaves hemoglobin behind which will be shown present when Luminol or Phenophthalein is used to detect evidence of blood in a crime scene. Now Oxygen Bleach (hydrogen peroxide) will remove all traces of Hemoglobin and make it almost impossible to detect any blood traces unless splatter was missed. Now here's the catch/ big difference between the two. Chlorine bleaches will remove dye from fabrics (leaving white blotches) while Oxygen bleach in 99% of the time will not remove any dye from fabric but many times there is still the original stain but faded depending on fabric types. So it would seem that the bleach stains that Brendan is said to have on his pants after saying he helped Steven clean the garage last night could not be caused by bleach that would get rid of blood. Second it would be very expensive to use hydrogen peroxide type (oxygen) bleaches to clean large amounts of blood."

Reposted from #390 on this thread. I do not have Avery trial transcripts. The Avery trial took 5 weeks and I imagine the transcripts are enormous. As I've stated before, my family lives in Sheboygan County, and this trial was covered in the local papers, online, and on the local news daily, as was Dassey's. There are still blogs online covering each day/week of testimony at the trial, and I know the Post-Crescent did a good daily blog of the trial, but would be in archives. I followed the Avery trial while it happened, and the testimony about the bleach w. peroxide being able to clean up a crime scene came from John Earl, who worked for the State Crime Lab and also testifies in Dassey's trial. His exact quote is something along the lines of "someone like myself (a crime lab technician) could clean up blood at a crime scene w. bleach and peroxide, and not leave any evidence." Summaries w. quotes from his testimony are still available online. A bottle of bleach is mentioned by Dassey, but so is paint thinner, which would be a terrible thing to clean up a crime scene. Even w. this testimony and a bottle of bleach being found in the Avery bathroom(which is mentioned in the Dassey trial) no evidence of bleach being used anywhere on that property is given during trial, even though they ripped up carpeting and floor in certain areas. According to Dassey's confession, blood should have been found in large quanities in the bedroom, garage, and jeep, and if it had been cleaned by w. chlorine bleach, like Barb's statement suggests, luminol would have picked up the hemoglobin, and there should have been large quantities.

I'm not saying this makes Avery innocent (as I've said, I'm not convinced he is) but it makes Dassey's confession and Barb's statement clearly false. Doesn't make her a liar, but if they were cleaning up two pools of blood as Dassey states, there would have been evidence of it, if the chlorine bleach that clearly bleached his pants was used. As I've said, the statement is IMO not important to either of these cases, as it wasn't used to convict either of them and isn't consistent w. the evidence that was.

 

[stephsb]

There is no evidence Dassey and Avery cleaned that garage that night, except a statement allegedly made by Dassey that Barb Janda tells investigators about and is used in the criminal complaint, but nowhere else. Every statement Brendan made had holes, contradictions, and didn't make sense w. the evidence. If we are supposed to believe his statement to Barb, why would we disregard his statements where he says he slit her throat, shot her 1, then 2, then 10, then 5 times (it changes frequently) or cut her hair, or stabbed her in the stomach and chest. Dassey gave conflicting statements about where he was during the night of the murder every time he talked to police. His prints should have been on the gun, they weren't. As everyone had reiterated, it doesn't make Avery innocent, but there is NO WAY the crime happened the way Dassey says it did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

snipped to focus in on this aspect :

I followed the Avery trial while it happened, and the testimony about the bleach w. peroxide being able to clean up a crime scene came from John Earl, who worked for the State Crime Lab and also testifies in Dassey's trial. His exact quote is something along the lines of "someone like myself (a crime lab technician) could clean up blood at a crime scene w. bleach and peroxide, and not leave any evidence." Summaries w. quotes from his testimony are still available online. A bottle of bleach is mentioned by Dassey, but so is paint thinner, which would be a terrible thing to clean up a crime scene. Even w. this testimony and a bottle of bleach being found in the Avery bathroom(which is mentioned in the Dassey trial) no evidence of bleach being used anywhere on that property is given during trial, even though they ripped up carpeting and floor in certain areas. According to Dassey's confession, blood should have been found in large quanities in the bedroom, garage, and jeep, and if it had been cleaned by w. chlorine bleach, like Barb's statement suggests, luminol would have picked up the hemoglobin, and there should have been large quantities.

Unless I am missing it you are not saying that luminol found nothing. That is what I am looking for, where someone says it found nothing. I am in the dassey transcript and i have two people now who have testified that they were under the impression that luminol showed presence of BLOOD.

Luminol is not a test for bleach. It's a test for blood.

So, if they used chlorine bleach, you are correct the blood will still be detected. correct ?

Luminol from my understanding, does NOT detect bleach -- regardless of whether it's peroxide or chlorine. It's not what you are searching for.

So, please bear with me, I am open to the idea that I could be missing something. But until I see in the trial transcript that either prosecution or defense clarifies if luminol hit was made, when , and where. How can I just accept that it didn't? That's why I am asking you for some kind of reference to help me out.

I can only read these trial transcripts so fast -- I am now currently reading the Ertl testimony. I will post back if he says something.

I'm sorry if I seem unable to accept you are right, but I am open and willing to that being the case! I am admitting I don't know. But just like several other things in the documentary, I have discovered that they left out key details. So that is why I am so cautious, not because I don't trust you personally.

I know for myself that I have believed things that I later found out I didn't understand correctly or just recalled incorrectly. it's human.

I hope you can understand that.