Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[LemonMousse]

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.

Are we going to stick with the evidence or are we going to make things up to try and fill in blanks?

Was there evidence that she was shot through a pillow? Nope. So why should I consider that?

I am assuming nothing about what you think...I am reading your posts. You find it fishy that Brendan said to Barb that he had bleach spots on his jeans from cleaning the garage with Steve? Yes?

Well, the only logical way this could be fishy or suggestive is if there is supporting evidence that the garage was cleaned shortly beforehand with bleach. There isn't. So where does that leave us? Absolutely nowhere.

I tend to think that the bleach got there just as Brendan said...helping Steve clean the garage. He helped him do lots of things in there all the time. But I don't believe, based on the evidence, that there's the slightest indication that wholesale cleaning up of blood took place in there....either that night or at any time in the recent past.

A forensic expert specifically said on the documentary that it is close to impossible to clean up the scene of a violent crime so well that no specs of anything can be found...and that even people with training who know what to hide would struggle. So yes, I think you'd have to be a pretty clever, knowledgeable person to manage a clean up that well...in two places, if we believe Brendan's "confession"....and I don't believe either Steve or Brendan could manage it. I don't think anyone could, tbh.

I didn't say "So what?" to the possibility that Brendan helped Steve clean up the garage that night. Because of the forensic evidence I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS HAPPENED - and if it did, they were not cleaning up blood, brain matter or DNA. I was saying "So what?" in the light of this.

I'm afraid I give more credibility to uncontested forensic evidence than a reported comment from a teen with learning difficulties to his mother.

Please, please, please drop the notion that someone who is disagreeing with you is showing "bias". That is a dishonest turn threads like this often take and I find it childish and unnecessary.

I might suggest that trying to, basically, make up scenarios to explain oddities in the evidence - like getting shot through a pillow - displays bias, but I wouldn't be that rude.

I agree with you that there is potentially more to this case than the documentary showed and that it is naive to rigidly assume that he's innocent based on that. I just don't agree with the examples you've given so far. Sorry.

 

[MaxManning]

Alright, I am now reading what is said about this luminol topic right out of the dassey trial transcript, day 2 - 4/17 starting at page 159 - you can find the document here --> https://www.dropbox.com/s/s4jyyith9lwpstx/dassey_4_17_07.pdf?dl=0

Will post after I have read it, just wanted to give others a chance to read it without having to search for a reference to it.

 

[stephsb]

Maybe I wasn't explaining myself clearly, I certainly am aware Luminol's main purpose is to detect blood.

Bleach used at a crime scene can affect Luminol tests, it is one of the drawbacks. Certain bleaches, when used to clean crime scenes, react w. luminol and would cause the entire crime scene to glow, thus being evidence of a clean up, but effectively concealing the blood spatter and trace amounts of blood it is designed to show. This has been shown in countless of true crime shows (like forensic files) and a simple wikipedia search shows this.

If bleach is used to clean a crime scene, there should be evidence of it, especially to clean a scene such as Dassey was describing. But no evidence of bleach being used was entered, even though they effectively tore parts of that property completely apart.

 

[chaleigh26]

Are we going to stick with the evidence or are we going to make things up to try and fill in blanks?

Was there evidence that she was shot through a pillow? Nope. So why should I consider that?

I am assuming nothing about what you think...I am reading your posts. You find it fishy that Brendan said to Barb that he had bleach spots on his jeans from cleaning the garage with Steve? Yes?

Well, the only logical way this could be fishy or suggestive is if there is supporting evidence that the garage was cleaned shortly beforehand with bleach. There isn't. So where does that leave us? Absolutely nowhere.

I tend to think that the bleach got there just as Brendan said...helping Steve clean the garage. He helped him do lots of things in there all the time. But I don't believe, based on the evidence, that there's the slightest indication that wholesale cleaning up of blood took place in there....either that night or at any time in the recent past.

A forensic expert specifically said on the documentary that it is close to impossible to clean up the scene of a violent crime so well that no specs of anything can be found...and that even people with training who know what to hide would struggle. So yes, I think you'd have to be a pretty clever, knowledgeable person to manage a clean up that well...in two places, if we believe Brendan's "confession"....and I don't believe either Steve or Brendan could manage it. I don't think anyone could, tbh.

I didn't say "So what?" to the possibility that Brendan helped Steve clean up the garage that night. Because of the forensic evidence I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS HAPPENED - and if it did, they were not cleaning up blood, brain matter or DNA. I was saying "So what?" in the light of this.

I'm afraid I give more credibility to uncontested forensic evidence than a reported comment from a teen with learning difficulties to his mother.

Please, please, please drop the notion that someone who is disagreeing with you is showing "bias". That is a dishonest turn threads like this often take and I find it childish and unnecessary.

I might suggest that trying to, basically, make up scenarios to explain oddities in the evidence - like getting shot through a pillow - displays bias, but I wouldn't be that rude.

I agree with you that there is potentially more to this case than the documentary showed and that it is naive to rigidly assume that he's innocent based on that. I just don't agree with the examples you've given so far. Sorry.

:tyou:

 

[MaxManning]

I might suggest that trying to, basically, make up scenarios to explain oddities in the evidence - like getting shot through a pillow - displays bias, but I wouldn't be that rude.

I apologize if you think I was attempting to be rude. I am rather stating that you have chosen to say you don't care about evidence in the trial.

Wasn't trying to insult you, but I do believe you are not open to the idea that the prosecution or defense's narratives or even the documentary's narrative are infallible.

Again, not going to argue, I apologize if you took what I said as an insult. But I do factually believe that you have made up your mind, and have not heard all the evidence. Even further you have stated you don't care what barb/brendan said. So you have disregarded it's relevance - which it may or may not be relevant. But you aren't even interested in hearing. That's your right, and I respect that.

But there are others here, who are questioning the same statement. So I do ask that you respect our right to discuss it.

Maybe there is a better word I could have used. But that's all that I meant by it.

 

[MaxManning]

Are we going to stick with the evidence or are we going to make things up to try and fill in blanks?

Was there evidence that she was shot through a pillow? Nope. So why should I consider that?

I am assuming nothing about what you think...I am reading your posts. You find it fishy that Brendan said to Barb that he had bleach spots on his jeans from cleaning the garage with Steve? Yes?

Well, the only logical way this could be fishy or suggestive is if there is supporting evidence that the garage was cleaned shortly beforehand with bleach. There isn't. So where does that leave us? Absolutely nowhere.

I tend to think that the bleach got there just as Brendan said...helping Steve clean the garage. He helped him do lots of things in there all the time. But I don't believe, based on the evidence, that there's the slightest indication that wholesale cleaning up of blood took place in there....either that night or at any time in the recent past.

A forensic expert specifically said on the documentary that it is close to impossible to clean up the scene of a violent crime so well that no specs of anything can be found...and that even people with training who know what to hide would struggle. So yes, I think you'd have to be a pretty clever, knowledgeable person to manage a clean up that well...in two places, if we believe Brendan's "confession"....and I don't believe either Steve or Brendan could manage it. I don't think anyone could, tbh.

I didn't say "So what?" to the possibility that Brendan helped Steve clean up the garage that night. Because of the forensic evidence I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS HAPPENED - and if it did, they were not cleaning up blood, brain matter or DNA. I was saying "So what?" in the light of this.

I'm afraid I give more credibility to uncontested forensic evidence than a reported comment from a teen with learning difficulties to his mother.

Please, please, please drop the notion that someone who is disagreeing with you is showing "bias". That is a dishonest turn threads like this often take and I find it childish and unnecessary.

I might suggest that trying to, basically, make up scenarios to explain oddities in the evidence - like getting shot through a pillow - displays bias, but I wouldn't be that rude.

I agree with you that there is potentially more to this case than the documentary showed and that it is naive to rigidly assume that he's innocent based on that. I just don't agree with the examples you've given so far. Sorry.

You realize that there is a whole lot of evidence that was in a fire - whether that be the one at avery's place or elsewhere.


That's the point, this case doesn't have alot of evidence as it's rather sane to believe it was burned. right ? But there is no evidence of blood spatter. we both agree. So ?


Am I saying there was blood spatter ? nope.

Am I giving an example of why there might not be ? sure.

Why don't you explain to me how you know Avery had the bill of sale ? Or how you know definitively that something was planted ? Do you have a picture of them doing it ?

When I ask why the cadaver dog didn't find a bullet with teresa's blood on 11/6 -- that's a question you nor anyone else has asked. Yet.... it's a good one.

Also if they did luminol on 11/8 - why didn't they find the glowing bullet then ?

I dont' have any proof what happened. Neither do you.

You keep on saying stuff about the documentary and cleanup, but you don't realize that I am not saying that there was blood spatter. But you keep trying to argue about that. no argument here.

I give you a reason why it might not be there and you want to now argue it had to be there if she was killed in the garage ??!?! how do you know that ?

You want to argue, I'm not going to. Feel free to respond however, I will continue to theorize based on evidence that we do know and search for plausible explanations. I'm not a judge and jury. Just someone following the case.

 

[stephsb]

A cadaver dog is used to detect human remains and decomposition. They follow the scent of decomposing flesh to find human remains. Whether or not the cadaver dog hits depends on what it specifically is trained to detect (some are trained for early stage decomposition, some specifically for older remains). I'm not sure why they would hit on a bullet.

 

[CarmelEyesD]

Former prosecutor says Avery documentary unfair

MADISON, Wis. -

The prosecutor who put Steven Avery in prison for killing a young photographer says a Netflix documentary chronicling the case is slanted toward the defense.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/former-prosecutor-says-avery-documentary-unfair/37137826

 

[MaxManning]

A cadaver dog is used to detect human remains and decomposition. They follow the scent of decomposing flesh to find human remains. Whether or not the cadaver dog hits depends on what it specifically is trained to detect (some are trained for early stage decomposition, some specifically for older remains). I'm not sure why they would hit on a bullet.

On page 35 of the 4/16 dassey trial transcript the person with the dog said that the dog would hit on human remains or human blood.

I did some reading on cadaver dogs and they can detect remains even 100 feet underground. They also can detect remains as old as 30 years old.

On 11/5 they noted they could not inspect the burn pit area because of the avery's aggressive dog there.

They got a hit on the halbach vehicle and the golf cart belonging to Steve Avery's mother.

The golf cart is in some of dassey's interviews of that night, so we should verify if at any point they suggested he was riding that golf cart. From what I recall, he said was riding around with steven to get debris for the fire, but like I said, it seems like they could have coerced him to repeat that detail. A detail like that he wouldn't likely even think about too much. Ok, you want me in the golf cart, you got it. :/


So my question stands -- if blood was on the bullet, the dog should have hit on it. We know that the blood was good, because supposedly they got a DNA match on it. So dog should have hit on it. So maybe the question is did they even go in the garage with the cadaver dog ?

 

[MaxManning]

Former prosecutor says Avery documentary unfair

MADISON, Wis. -

The prosecutor who put Steven Avery in prison for killing a young photographer says a Netflix documentary chronicling the case is slanted toward the defense.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/former-prosecutor-says-avery-documentary-unfair/37137826

I think this has been posted a few times.


One thing that I think would be good, might be submitting some questions to the juror that got excused from the trial as deliberations began.

It would be interesting to hear what he thinks of certain things as he was going to vote not guilty. So he could give us a good perspective on the things he was basing that on, via those answers.

To a large degree, we as well as him now, have a bunch of evidence that was not in the trial via the documentary. So some of the documentary might have strengthened his beliefs of innocence. Unfortunately, he hasn't been too vocal on what those things are, but rather about the jurors he believed influenced the rest to a guilty verdict. I believe it was him that specified the deputy's father was one of the strong willed ones.

 

[latentprints]

I like most, am open to the idea that evidence could have been planted.

But I have also said that I don't think the police being corrupt means anyone is innocent.

I think this was the point of the documentary and the defense. The police were so focused on getting Steve Avery that they left logical leads unturned. There was no logically explanation to not look at the ex-boyfriend, room mate, or the other residents of the salvage yard. Based on the information surrounding the Convoluted Brian alternate theory, the man described should have been investigated as well (reminds me of the West Memphis Three Mr. Bojangles, except the Manitowoc County Sheriffs Department had the guy in custody almost as soon as the car was found).

***EDIT***
Adding Reddit thread relating to Convoluted Brian alternate theory ... good read: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y1ms3/an_alternate_theory_continued_spoilers/

There are actually a few threads related to the people involved in, including some that question the veracity of the account ... compelling none the less.

 

[LemonMousse]

You realize that there is a whole lot of evidence that was in a fire - whether that be the one at avery's place or elsewhere.


That's the point, this case doesn't have alot of evidence as it's rather sane to believe it was burned. right ? But there is no evidence of blood spatter. we both agree. So ?


Am I saying there was blood spatter ? nope.

Am I giving an example of why there might not be ? sure.

Why don't you explain to me how you know Avery had the bill of sale ? Or how you know definitively that something was planted ? Do you have a picture of them doing it ?

When I ask why the cadaver dog didn't find a bullet with teresa's blood on 11/6 -- that's a question you nor anyone else has asked. Yet.... it's a good one.

Also if they did luminol on 11/8 - why didn't they find the glowing bullet then ?

I dont' have any proof what happened. Neither do you.

You keep on saying stuff about the documentary and cleanup, but you don't realize that I am not saying that there was blood spatter. But you keep trying to argue about that. no argument here.

I give you a reason why it was there and you want to now argue it had to be there if she was killed in the garage ??!?! how do you know that ?

You want to argue, I'm not going to. Feel free to respond however, I will continue to theorize based on evidence that we do know and search for plausible explanations. I'm not a judge and jury. Just someone following the case.

This is annoying frankly.

I don't explain to you how Avery had the bill of sale?? You never asked me! I've never addressed that.

Everything I have said to you so far is in relation to Brendan's possible involvement and possible blood in the garage. That's it. I am quite happy to talk about other aspects, but give me a chance, for goodness sake.

As far as Brendan is concerned, is it so blindingly obvious to me that he is entirely innocent that I am slightly astonished anyone feels differently.

His entire "confession" was fed to him by those officers. He volunteered NOTHING. His responses were monosyllabic and most of the time he was just agreeing with suggestions they made. And yes, I have read the transcripts. Couple this with zero supporting evidence (of his involvement) and his eventual testimony coinciding with his very first story I have no option but to disregard Brendan's testimony entirely with regard to whether or not Steven was involved. And, therefore, the jeans too.

There clearly was little likelihood that Theresa was murdered in either the trailer or the garage. But this does not mean that Steven did not kill her.....because who says if he did that it had to be in either the garage or the trailer? If she was driven in her car offsite to be raped and murdered, then this could have been as easily done by Steven as anyone else.

Her not being killed in the trailer or garage exonerates Brendan - unless we assume he "confessed" with a pack of lies - but it does not exonerate Steven.

It is entirely possible, you know, for Steven to be guilty AND for the police to plant evidence.

Regarding the bill of sale, since it is apparently beholden to me to explain it (dunno why) there are two scenarios off the top of my head:

Theresa comes into the trailer to fill out the bill of sale, but Steven attacks her before she can so it's left blank.

Theresa gets in the car to retrieve a bill of sale in order to fill it out. She does so, but she's chatting to Steven and not quite concentrating. She offers him (or he asks for) a magazine and accidentally hands over the bill of sale at the same time without realising. She then slips another one out of her folder to fill in. Sort of thing that can happen easily when people aren't paying much attention.

Seems rather odd that a cold blooded killer who takes great steps to destroy a body and hide a car is quite happy to leave evidence sitting in full view on his desk that he knows got there when his victim came into his trailer.

I don't want to argue with you or anyone, i just disagree with those of your many posts that I've read. I'm sorry if that is a problem for you.

 

[LemonMousse]

Former prosecutor says Avery documentary unfair

MADISON, Wis. -

The prosecutor who put Steven Avery in prison for killing a young photographer says a Netflix documentary chronicling the case is slanted toward the defense.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/former-prosecutor-says-avery-documentary-unfair/37137826

I hate it when imbeciles can only respond to people they disagree with with death threats and spiteful comments about cancer. How disgusting.

My understanding is that Katz and the prosecution team were asked to take part and refused. That's what the makers have said.

Some of the evidence not shown in the doc is apparently:

Sweat DNA from Avery found under Theresa's car hood.

Three calls that were made from Avery's phone to Theresa's that day:

Two before she arrived using #67 to disguise the number (in the UK it would be 141).

And one at around 4.30 where the number was not disguised.

This is important evidence and I would like to know what Avery's explanation for that last call.

 

[MaxManning]

I think this was the point of the documentary and the defense. The police were so focused on getting Steve Avery that they left logical leads unturned. There was no logically explanation to not look at the ex-boyfriend, room mate, or the other residents of the salvage yard. Based on the information surrounding the Convoluted Brian alternate theory, the man described should have been investigated as well (reminds me of the West Memphis Three Mr. Bojangles, except the Manitowoc County Sheriffs Department had the guy in custody almost as soon as the car was found).

***EDIT***
Adding Reddit thread relating to Convoluted Brian alternate theory ... good read: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y1ms3/an_alternate_theory_continued_spoilers/

There are actually a few threads related to the people involved in, including some that question the veracity of the account ... compelling none the less.

I have been trying to find information on this, but everyone points me to the same blog! thanks for the reddit.

I guess i'm skeptical because it sounds like a great story and no one in media wants to talk to this lady ? or find out more about this guy ?

Yet, for some reason people are more willing to entertain this, than what was said in a trial by family members of Avery?

I've heard people call Barb a liar for telling police brendan had bleach on his pants and said he helped clean up avery's garage floor the night of the murder. Yet they are all ready to hear about a story that has no name listed and embrace it with little to no scrutiny. haha

I am calling bs on the alternate theory until there's a bit more than a story win no names. I'll email the guy, but I'm gonna say I'm 99.9% sure I can smell the BS already.

 

[MaxManning]

I hate it when imbeciles can only respond to people they disagree with with death threats and spiteful comments about cancer. How disgusting.

My understanding is that Katz and the prosecution team were asked to take part and refused. That's what the makers have said.

Some of the evidence not shown in the doc is apparently:

Sweat DNA from Avery found under Theresa's car hood.

Three calls that were made from Avery's phone to Theresa's that day:

Two before she arrived using #67 to disguise the number (in the UK it would be 141).

And one at around 4.30 where the number was not disguised.

This is important evidence and I would like to know what Avery's explanation for that last call.

How about :

Avery was convicted for 6 years for running that women off the road, pulling a gun on her ? --- documentary never mentions that was 6 of the 18 years. why ??
That Earl has been quoted as saying that Steven told a 14/15 year old earl to have sex with his wife while he was in jail ?
Comments brendan made to mother in phone calls about avery sexually assaulting him and others ?
Comments reportedly that Barb said on the night of the murder brendan had bleach on his pants and when questioned by her he said he and steven were cleaning the garage floor ?
That luminol testing showed a suspicious 3x3 spot on the floor that might have been human blood ?
That all of teresa's prior stops were interviewed and they had a filled out bill of sale that indicated she had been paid for the photos/ad ? But at avery's that was on inside his house but not filled out ?
That Teresa was uncomfortable going to the junkyard and had told people about him answering the door in just a towel ?
That tadych knew of "blood" on brendan's pants and that it supposedly got mixed in with his laundry ? -- Avery put that in his appeal. Not important ?



Yes, I get it and totally agree that chuckie, earl, scott tadych, robert fabian, ex boyfriend and roommate all deserved to be at minimum investigated with a little more integrity.

I get the point of the documentary, because the police did ignore the right guy in the 1985 case. But lets get real here, there was alot of reasons to at least investigate more than a few of the characters at that junkyard, if we are honest with ourselves.

The doc did have a point of "what if this happened to you ?"

but how many of us have burnt a live cat ?

how many of us have ran someone off the road and pulled a gun on them and threatened them ?

It's not like this story just starts with the common everyday average joe.

I want the right guy to be caught if it's not avery, so if avery has to be let go for a real investigation - that could even end up pointing to him - I'm all for it.

But can't say I get any warm fuzzies about the documentary trying to paint Avery as this complete victim of the system for no reason.

Punish cops for wrongdoing and get a new investigation and fair trial for both avery and brendan.

 

[LemonMousse]

How about :

Avery was convicted for 6 years for running that women off the road, pulling a gun on her ? --- documentary never mentions that was 6 of the 18 years. why ??
That Earl has been quoted as saying that Steven told a 14/15 year old earl to have sex with his wife while he was in jail ?
Comments brendan made to mother in phone calls about avery sexually assaulting him and others ?
Comments reportedly that Barb said on the night of the murder brendan had bleach on his pants and when questioned by her he said he and steven were cleaning the garage floor ?
That luminol testing showed a suspicious 3x3 spot on the floor that might have been human blood ?
That all of teresa's prior stops were interviewed and they had a filled out bill of sale that indicated she had been paid for the photos/ad ? But at avery's that was on inside his house but not filled out ?
That Teresa was uncomfortable going to the junkyard and had told people about him answering the door in just a towel ?
That tadych knew of "blood" on brendan's pants and that it supposedly got mixed in with his laundry ? -- Avery put that in his appeal. Not important ?



Yes, I get it and totally agree that chuckie, earl, scott tadych, robert fabian, ex boyfriend and roommate all deserved to be at minimum investigated with a little more integrity.

I get the point of the documentary, because the police did ignore the right guy in the 1985 case. But lets get real here, there was alot of reasons to at least investigate more than a few of the characters at that junkyard, if we are honest with ourselves.

The doc did have a point of "what if this happened to you ?"

but how many of us have burnt a live cat ?

how many of us have ran someone off the road and pulled a gun on them and threatened them ?

It's not like this story just starts with the common everyday average joe.

I want the right guy to be caught if it's not avery, so if avery has to be let go for a real investigation - that could even end up pointing to him - I'm all for it.

But can't say I get any warm fuzzies about the documentary trying to paint Avery as this complete victim of the system for no reason.

Punish cops for wrongdoing and get a new investigation and fair trial for both avery and brendan.

Do your posts to me have to be so long?

Who said Steven was an angel? He clearly wasn't - those letters to his kids regarding his wife while he was in jail show that he could be extremely nasty.

And?

Is your logic that if he's done all the heinous things you're claiming this is proof that he killed Theresa? I am assuming not...so what is your point?

Jails the world over are full of nasty people who have broken the law ... few of them are murderers. Ergo, while all murderers are nasties, not all nasties are murderers.

Therefore there is no logical link between anything Steven may or may not have done in the past and this case. It says a lot to me that you are struggling to confine yourself to the evidence of this trial.

Again with the jeans? I don't care. I've said that already.

Luminol? Well, how very odd. The defence in Steven's trial repeatedly stated...uncontested....that not the tiniest drop of blood was found anywhere in the garage. If you're saying it was accepted that it was in Brendan's trial, then we have a contradiction. A massive one. This should have you very suspicious not clutching at it, confirmation bias fashion, in order to support your pet theory!

If Theresa was so nervous of Steven and uncomfortable with regard to his towel hi-jinks, why was she so willing to head out there on her own after leaving a cheery message making an appointment? Different telephone number, different name is irrelevant - she would have recognised the address.

Steven, and his brothers, do not seem to have been very nice people at all. Although I think you should be careful when you raise the "pulling a gun on someone and forcing them off the road" business. There was stuff in that woman's statement that she did not say.

In any event, devil or angel, Steve was royally stitched up for the rape. No one...absolutely no one...deserves that.

And he should never have been convicted of Theresa's murder...how unpleasant a character you think he is is irrelevant to that. The police planted evidence. This makes his conviction unsound - whether he was factually guilty or not (which none of us knows).

I think, on balance, he's probably innocent. But I think the killer is someone close to him who moved the bones to his burn pit to deflect suspicion from themselves. The police were completely convinced of his guilt but knew the forensic evidence they had was not enough, so they planted some. They figured they were doing the community a favour. But the fact is, they didn't know he was guilty anymore than you do...they just assumed. And that is shocking.

 

[chaleigh26]

The gun was empty. I'm not saying that he did the right thing, but his cousin was the catalyst for him being charged for the false rape charges against him. I thought it mentions in the Documentary that the first 6 years were for the gun?
If I'm personally to believe ANYTHING Brendan said in his "confessions" then that means I would have to believe that Steven Avery is guilty, and nothing I've read or seen so far makes me believe that.Jmo

 

[MaxManning]

This is annoying frankly.

I don't explain to you how Avery had the bill of sale?? You never asked me! I've never addressed that.

Everything I have said to you so far is in relation to Brendan's possible involvement and possible blood in the garage. That's it. I am quite happy to talk about other aspects, but give me a chance, for goodness sake.

As far as Brendan is concerned, is it so blindingly obvious to me that he is entirely innocent that I am slightly astonished anyone feels differently.

His entire "confession" was fed to him by those officers. He volunteered NOTHING. His responses were monosyllabic and most of the time he was just agreeing with suggestions they made. And yes, I have read the transcripts. Couple this with zero supporting evidence (of his involvement) and his eventual testimony coinciding with his very first story I have no option but to disregard Brendan's testimony entirely with regard to whether or not Steven was involved. And, therefore, the jeans too.

There clearly was little likelihood that Theresa was murdered in either the trailer or the garage. But this does not mean that Steven did not kill her.....because who says if he did that it had to be in either the garage or the trailer? If she was driven in her car offsite to be raped and murdered, then this could have been as easily done by Steven as anyone else.

Her not being killed in the trailer or garage exonerates Brendan - unless we assume he "confessed" with a pack of lies - but it does not exonerate Steven.

It is entirely possible, you know, for Steven to be guilty AND for the police to plant evidence.

Regarding the bill of sale, since it is apparently beholden to me to explain it (dunno why) there are two scenarios off the top of my head:

Theresa comes into the trailer to fill out the bill of sale, but Steven attacks her before she can so it's left blank.

Theresa gets in the car to retrieve a bill of sale in order to fill it out. She does so, but she's chatting to Steven and not quite concentrating. She offers him (or he asks for) a magazine and accidentally hands over the bill of sale at the same time without realising. She then slips another one out of her folder to fill in. Sort of thing that can happen easily when people aren't paying much attention.

Seems rather odd that a cold blooded killer who takes great steps to destroy a body and hide a car is quite happy to leave evidence sitting in full view on his desk that he knows got there when his victim came into his trailer.

I don't want to argue with you or anyone, i just disagree with those of your many posts that I've read. I'm sorry if that is a problem for you.

I love that you answer my post with a bunch of stuff I have mentioned before and agree with. kudos, rock on.

"Theresa gets in the car to retrieve a bill of sale in order to fill it out. She does so, but she's chatting to Steven and not quite concentrating. She offers him (or he asks for) a magazine and accidentally hands over the bill of sale at the same time without realising. She then slips another one out of her folder to fill in. Sort of thing that can happen easily when people aren't paying much attention."

So she gave him a blank bill of sale at that time ? that's your theory ? Do you see a problem with steven's account not corroborating with yours ? And you are giving an explanation for him ?

The bill of sale is meant to stay with the customer. It would have the cost and she collects money. Not saying it couldn't happen the way you say, but it's kind of not what Steve says happened. In the documentary , they don't even say how Steven says it happens. Why ?

But go ahead and find what Steven says about that day, if you care about what he has to say. Personally, I think they didn't even comment on it in the documentary because it ain't all that convincing. They didn't even bother to explain why it was so important to at least ask the question.

you seem to think teresa can make simple mistakes, but a killer is perfect ? we have prisons with many criminals who did dumb things that got them caught. I am not sure what the truth is on that. But do I want to hear why it happened that way ? sure.

 

[MaxManning]

The gun was empty. I'm not saying that he did the right thing, but his cousin was the catalyst for him being charged for the false rape charges against him. I thought it mentions in the Documentary that the first 6 years were for the gun?
If I'm personally to believe ANYTHING Brendan said in his "confessions" then that means I would have to believe that Steven Avery is guilty, and nothing I've read or seen so far makes me believe that.Jmo

I don't know if brendan is guilty of anything at all. My gut at the moment says no. -- even if he helped clean up, it's very likely he didn't understand what he was doing at that point.

So what if the gun was empty ? He ran her off the road and pulled the gun on her to threaten her -- she didn't know it was unloaded. Are you now blaming the cousin ?

maybe she was a gossiper or whatever. But those who choose to do what he did, are dangerous imo. So it wouldn't surprise me if he did more dangerous things at some point.

Doesn't mean he did or will. but my point is maybe they could mention it ???


I'm not offering it as evidence for murder. I'm offering it as evidence of the type of person he is. He can make irrational decisions that could potentially be very dangerous. Yes... running someone off the road and then threatening someone is not something we should defend. He got 6 years for it. That doesn't even get mentioned in the doc.

Yet here you are making excuses for it with "well she was the catalyst....."


Imagine if someone ran you off the road and pulled a gun on you with your child in the car. Do you think you just might think that person is dangerous and have reason to be paranoid ??

seriously.

 

[MaxManning]

Do your posts to me have to be so long?

Who said Steven was an angel? He clearly wasn't - those letters to his kids regarding his wife while he was in jail show that he could be extremely nasty.

And?

Is your logic that if he's done all the heinous things you're claiming this is proof that he killed Theresa? I am assuming not...so what is your point?

Jails the world over are full of nasty people who have broken the law ... few of them are murderers. Ergo, while all murderers are nasties, not all nasties are murderers.

Therefore there is no logical link between anything Steven may or may not have done in the past and this case. It says a lot to me that you are struggling to confine yourself to the evidence of this trial.

Again with the jeans? I don't care. I've said that already.

Luminol? Well, how very odd. The defence in Steven's trial repeatedly stated...uncontested....that not the tiniest drop of blood was found anywhere in the garage. If you're saying it was accepted that it was in Brendan's trial, then we have a contradiction. A massive one. This should have you very suspicious not clutching at it, confirmation bias fashion, in order to support your pet theory!

If Theresa was so nervous of Steven and uncomfortable with regard to his towel hi-jinks, why was she so willing to head out there on her own after leaving a cheery message making an appointment? Different telephone number, different name is irrelevant - she would have recognised the address.

Steven, and his brothers, do not seem to have been very nice people at all. Although I think you should be careful when you raise the "pulling a gun on someone and forcing them off the road" business. There was stuff in that woman's statement that she did not say.

In any event, devil or angel, Steve was royally stitched up for the rape. No one...absolutely no one...deserves that.

And he should never have been convicted of Theresa's murder...how unpleasant a character you think he is is irrelevant to that. The police planted evidence. This makes his conviction unsound - whether he was factually guilty or not (which none of us knows).

I think, on balance, he's probably innocent. But I think the killer is someone close to him who moved the bones to his burn pit to deflect suspicion from themselves. The police were completely convinced of his guilt but knew the forensic evidence they had was not enough, so they planted some. They figured they were doing the community a favour. But the fact is, they didn't know he was guilty anymore than you do...they just assumed. And that is shocking.

Is that what you are going to say ? do my posts have to be so long ? real simple solution