Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[MaxManning]

Yes. I did watch the documentary.

I am talking about the fact that 2 voicemails were listened to before she was reported missing. Listened to....not deleted.

The judge asked Kratz if the State knew who had accessed the messages and Kratz said something like, "Er, er, er........we can investigate that if the defence wants us to". The judge decided it was irrelevant.

This is potentially a separate issue to who may have accessed & deleted messages after she was reported missing...the situation the ex and the brother were asked about.

Oh, I see what you mean. But we kind of assume that whoever had the phone listened to those messages. Anything normal, likely gets left obviously. But whoever did that, obviously didn't realize that the full mailbox situation would result in that being discovered. We also assume whoever listened to the voice messages wasn't teresa and was the killer.

I'm still unclear if those messages needed to be listened to from the actual phone or were accessible online. Because if it was from the phone, then we know that it's impossible for Brendan to have seen the phone and camera in the burn barrel.

As I said earlier, I think that it's likely to me that the ex-boyfriend or potentially anyone else who might have "guessed" her passcode, had already been in her voicemail and the guessing was a ruse. I think that was the obvious assertion that defense was making, without actually saying it - hey, ex-boyfriend, we think you were in her voicemail BEFORE this guessing party.

So, here's a question. Does anyone think that Teresa could have been alive beyond 10/31 ? What evidence is there that she was dead on 10/31 ? I know everyone is looking at timelines for that day,but is there any evidence that says she MUST be dead on 10/31 ?

 

[LemonMousse]

Oh, I see what you mean. But we kind of assume that whoever had the phone listened to those messages. Anything normal, likely gets left obviously. But whoever did that, obviously didn't realize that the full mailbox situation would result in that being discovered. We also assume whoever listened to the voice messages wasn't teresa and was the killer.

I'm still unclear if those messages needed to be listened to from the actual phone or were accessible online. Because if it was from the phone, then we know that it's impossible for Brendan to have seen the phone and camera in the burn barrel.

As I said earlier, I think that it's likely to me that the ex-boyfriend or potentially anyone else who might have "guessed" her passcode, had already been in her voicemail and the guessing was a ruse. I think that was the obvious assertion that defense was making, without actually saying it - hey, ex-boyfriend, we think you were in her voicemail BEFORE this guessing party.

So, here's a question. Does anyone think that Teresa could have been alive beyond 10/31 ? What evidence is there that she was dead on 10/31 ? I know everyone is looking at timelines for that day,but is there any evidence that says she MUST be dead on 10/31 ?

No....we already know that it's possible to remotely access messages. The brother and ex did that.

In their case, although I find the way they did it suspicious, it could be for genuine motives. If a member of my family went missing and I could find a way into their phone messages, I'd do it too.

Someone opened two messages before Theresa was reported missing. This is considably more suspicious.

Assuming it was the killer is wrong, IMO. It may well have been....but Theresa was being bothered by someone telephonically and that someone could be a full on stalker who, as well as ringing her relentlessly, had also found a way to listen to her messages. That they happened to do so before she was reported missing could be a coincidence. Or not, if the stalker happens to have been the killer too.

If the messages were accessed directly from the phone, then we know it had not been burnt by 8am Nov 2 - and Steven hadn't left to go camping or something by this point?

 

[MaxManning]

Following the theory that maybe she was alive beyond 10/31. From my understanding, Earl doesn't live on the property. Bobby and Scott went hunting.

A proper investigation would want to pinpoint locations where these individuals might go if they kidnapped someone.

Earl Avery and Robert Fabian were on the property shooting rabbits on the golfcart (cadaver dog hit). Fabian asked Chuck Avery if teresa had shown up yet. Which might be odd because if Steve was really trying to hide that teresa was there, why would he tell Chuck or Robert or Earl she was coming ? However that could be seen as a part of the plan, saying he was waiting for her and she never showed. Then he could say exactly that -- hey, I told people she was coming.

Ok, Bobby has a vehicle. Tadych has a vehicle. Chuck ? Earl ? Fabian? Do we know if they left the junkyard that day ? Is it impossible that they left in the Rav4 ?

Earl and Fabian both have access to plant the vehicle and based on Earl hiding under clothes upstairs in his house when police came to interview him, doesn't that fit the profile of a guy who'd hide a car of a murdered women such as it was found ?

Earl and fabian likely have access to get blood from Avery if he was bleeding. Not that police planting blood couldn't have happened regardless.

Someone says Steve was using the crusher in days before the car was found, so why wouldn't he crush the car ? Maybe that was exactly what made it hard for earl and fabian to crush the car.

On the phone records, why does it say chicago for location ? I read somewhere that those 0000's in the LCELL column means the phone wasn't on the network, meaning it was off or destroyed at that point.

So reportedly Avery was the 4:35 call, possibly asking "where are you ? Are you going to come take the pictures ?" At that point the phone was not on the network, so either off or destroyed ?

The calls starting the next morning at 9:49am are likely from people who expected to see her at party, possibly her co-worker at her photography studio, roommate, ex boyfriend ? Phone not on the network.

So with all this in mind, nothing says that the phone was destroyed or that teresa was dead until the car was found on 11/5 and the phone/camera were discovered.

So we need to take a look back at chuck avery talking about seeing a vehicle coming onto the property. Also this woman named Tammy about telling steve police planted the car, and how she knew this.

 

[Brightbird]

Apologies if this had already been posted. I'm still trying to catch up what I missed over Christmas. Earl Avery was caught filming people, including kids, undressing at a pool party in 2011. He said he'd been having "sexual problems".

Earl's wife reported him to authorities. Have to say the Avery men seem dodgy as, but the women portray a better standard.

http://m.jsonline.com/news/crime/avery-brother-faces-his-own-charges-co3ot2u-137096723.html

 

[MaxManning]

No....we already know that it's possible to remotely access messages. The brother and ex did that.

In their case, although I find the way they did it suspicious, it could be for genuine motives. If a member of my family went missing and I could find a way into their phone messages, I'd do it too.

Someone opened two messages before Theresa was reported missing. This is considably more suspicious.

Assuming it was the killer is wrong, IMO. It may well have been....but Theresa was being bothered by someone telephonically and that someone could be a full on stalker who, as well as ringing her relentlessly, had also found a way to listen to her messages. That they happened to do so before she was reported missing could be a coincidence. Or not, if the stalker happens to have been the killer too.

If the messages were accessed directly from the phone, then we know it had not been burnt by 8am Nov 2 - and Steven hadn't left to go camping or something by this point?

Yes, I agree, but again that is why in the documentary they were trying to indirectly bring up that he magically was a part of guessing the passcode. They were asserting that he knew it all along. Of course whoever accessed her account after 10/31 is suspicious. It was either someone who knew the passcode all along or someone who got the passcode via teresa before she was killed.

I might be misunderstanding what you are saying, but it just seems obvious to me that it's suspicious, but theorizing who, is the relevant part and that's what the defense was angling at in the documentary.

They obviously believed that was ex boyfriend.

I have seen many posts online about people questioning the brother. Is it crazy ? I don't know at all. I know absolutely nothing about their relationship and where he was or any motive he might have. But if you search, you will see what I mean, people were saying that it gave them the creeps when he used the word "grieving" before they knew she was dead.

Roommate ? not crazy to think that if they use the same computer that her password/login is saved in the browser , right ? So there's a pretty reasonable example of how he could get in there or even be monitoring her all along and she doesn't even think about it or know. Of course if he deletes something , maybe at that point he clears the cache and passwords. Now the login must be re-entered.

Just some thoughts. But we know NOTHING about that guy or where he was except during the search, where he gave two ladies a camera when they went to the junkyard.

This case is so bizarre. So little investigation, that you can go in so many directions and it's somewhat feasible since you can't exclude anyone.

 

[MaxManning]

On the point of of the login for her cellphone website being saved in the browser.

I use Chrome as my browser and all the passwords are saved in my browser. I can even go into settings and choose to show a password for any given site where I have chosen to save the the password.


Chrome was not available back in 2005, but this functionality was I believe in firefox and internet explorer. Most people do save the password information on a home computer so they don't have to continuously log in each time. She would have only had to go to the website once for this to happen. If her ex-boyfriend was living with her at any point, seems likely he could have either known the password, possibly even by teresa telling him. Also her using his computer to login at some point might have saved the password on his computer. Him borrowing her computer could have led to him discovering the password.

Possibly when they broke up he wanted to keep tabs on her and see who is the "other guy" she might be seeing at any point ? ya know ?

With teresa no longer here, she can't say yes or no on that. However we can ask questions about which computers Teresa used to access accounts of this nature and who had access to those computers. So the roommate and ex-boyfriend seem the most likely. Brother also is possible. If she goes to his house or parents house and logs into the site, and saves password, then brother has access.

So this is an area of investigation that should have been done. No doubt that the person likely clears the passwords after she goes missing, but if you look on the computer and find evidence of any kind that Teresa used the computer, then you can't rule out that possibility.

Lastly, I'll say that even all this doesn't prove they were involved in the murder. I can imagine a guy who is voicemailing his ex might say things that could be seen as reason to suspect him, and rightfully so. But if the guy had all along been doing this, even when she wasn't missing, that obviously doesn't mean he killed her. Incredibly suspicious yes, but proof, no. I guarantee you there are people likely doing this kind of thing on the regular with their ex, and I'm sure many do it with their current significant other if they suspect infidelity.

 

[LemonMousse]

Yes, I agree, but again that is why in the documentary they were trying to indirectly bring up that he magically was a part of guessing the passcode. They were asserting that he knew it all along. Of course whoever accessed her account after 10/31 is suspicious. It was either someone who knew the passcode all along or someone who got the passcode via teresa before she was killed.

I might be misunderstanding what you are saying, but it just seems obvious to me that it's suspicious, but theorizing who, is the relevant part and that's what the defense was angling at in the documentary.

They obviously believed that was ex boyfriend.

I have seen many posts online about people questioning the brother. Is it crazy ? I don't know at all. I know absolutely nothing about their relationship and where he was or any motive he might have. But if you search, you will see what I mean, people were saying that it gave them the creeps when he used the word "grieving" before they knew she was dead.

Roommate ? not crazy to think that if they use the same computer that her password/login is saved in the browser , right ? So there's a pretty reasonable example of how he could get in there or even be monitoring her all along and she doesn't even think about it or know. Of course if he deletes something , maybe at that point he clears the cache and passwords. Now the login must be re-entered.

Just some thoughts. But we know NOTHING about that guy or where he was except during the search, where he gave two ladies a camera when they went to the junkyard.

This case is so bizarre. So little investigation, that you can go in so many directions and it's somewhat feasible since you can't exclude anyone.

Assuming Theresa did not have a PIN on the actual handset, there are two ways into the phone messages.....

By dialling a number on the handset
By dialling the number of the phone from a different one, entering a code and listening

Before Theresa was EVEN REPORTED MISSING someone listened to two of her messages. It is unlikely to be her.

Yes, we know that the ex and brother listened AFTER she was reported missing, but what possible reason could they have to do this before?

Therefore....we have two separate incidents of listening to messages and because of the timing it could easily be entirely separate instigators for separate reasons.

I'm not sure of the point of this back and forth is. Of course, it's suspicious....I was not under the impression that I had chanced upon a stunning fact that everyone else had missed. I was just highlighting, in the interests of conversation, an oddity that I cannot square in my mind:

Who wanted to listen to Theresa's messages before she was reported missing?

Was it the murderer? If yes, then it could only be an Avery if there was no PIN on the phone. If there was a PIN on the phone, then it couldn't have been an Avery.

And if there was no PIN and an Avery listened to the messages, then they hadn't burnt the phone on the night of 31st when Steven had his bonfire as the State contended.

If it was the telephone stalker, then he is doing more than just bothering her, he is invading her privacy and has to be a very, very strong suspect in her murder.

If it was the brother &/or room mate, then did they know she was missing before they reported it?

Those two listened to messages raise far more questions than the ones listened to, and possibly deleted later. So it is much, much more suspicious IMO.

If Kratz's response is anything to go by, neither he or the state have the least idea who may have done that because they didn't investigate....supporting the defence's insistence that there was never any suspect but Avery, when, really, there should have been.

 

[MaxManning]

Yes, we know that the ex and brother listened AFTER she was reported missing, but what possible reason could they have to do this before?

I said in the post above the reason an ex-boyfriend might do something like that is to KNOW who she is talking with -ie a new love interest. Yes, very suspicious to have it happen before she is known to be missing.

However, if they broke up say 10 months ago and he's been doing that all along, then it's no less creepy or no less wrong, but it is plausible that he didn't know she was missing at that point.

Now if he DELETED messages before she was known to be missing, that is far more suspicious. Because if he knew she was alive still, he'd not be deleting voice messages because she would notice that.

If a voice message from him was deleted and she saw that, she would obviously think that was him and confront him.

Given this context, him viewing messages could have been going on all along. Just a jealous ex boyfriend who is willing to break the law to keep tabs on his ex girlfriend.

But if he DELETED them before she was reported as missing, now you have to believe that he KNEW she was dead.

But if he DELETED them after it was reported as missing, you have to at least consider he believed her voicemails were likely going to be read by police and if he said something unsavory, he'd be prime suspect. That doesn't rule out that he is still suspicious , but not as suspicious as if he had DELETED them AFTER she was reported missing.


Does this make sense. Maybe my logic is flawed, but I think the idea of him or roommate doing this previously for many months can't be excluded.

Also.... We don't know if there is another potential person who could have shared a computer with her. That's why you have investigations!

 

[Kensie]

Very interesting. Based on the documentary, I am not sure he was guilty-- at least by the defense presented.

 

[LemonMousse]

I said in the post above the reason an ex-boyfriend might do something like that is to KNOW who she is talking with -ie a new love interest. Yes, very suspicious to have it happen before she is known to be missing.

However, if they broke up say 10 months ago and he's been doing that all along, then it's no less creepy or no less wrong, but it is plausible that he didn't know she was missing at that point.

Now if he DELETED messages before she was known to be missing, that is far more suspicious. Because if he knew she was alive still, he'd not be deleting voice messages because she would notice that.

If a voice message from him was deleted and she saw that, she would obviously think that was him and confront him.

Given this context, him viewing messages could have been going on all along. Just a jealous ex boyfriend who is willing to break the law to keep tabs on his ex girlfriend.

But if he DELETED them before she was reported as missing, now you have to believe that he KNEW she was dead.

But if he DELETED them after it was reported as missing, you have to at least consider he believed her voicemails were likely going to be read by police and if he said something unsavory, he'd be prime suspect. That doesn't rule out that he is still suspicious , but not as suspicious as if he had DELETED them AFTER she was reported missing.


Does this make sense. Maybe my logic is flawed, but I think the idea of him or roommate doing this previously for many months can't be excluded.

Also.... We don't know if there is another potential person who could have shared a computer with her. That's why you have investigations!

Far, far too much speculation for me to comment on.

It's quite simple....I can understand why the ex and brother would want in to her messages once she was reported missing. I would do exactly the same in their boat.

It is a very, very, very different thing if they (or someone known to Theresa) did this before they suspected she'd come to harm. A VERY different thing.

You are equating the two incidents because they both involve listening to messages...but their timing makes them extremely different. One scenario is probably not suspicious, the other absolutely is.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Soulmagent]

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 ??

I snipped this and it is still long ,I will do better snipping next time. Anyway I just want to point out that in that messy trailer it seems really odd that that bill of sale is placed perfectly on the table.

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 they must have known it was a key piece of evidence otherwise Steven wouldn't have made sure it was so beautiful looking there.

Just can't get past Colburn's call to run Teresa's plate number. At the time he made the call, had she been reported missing? That's why I'd like to know what time her folks actually called/went in to make the report and what time Colburn made his call. If she had been reported missing prior to his call, wouldn't all of that information (motor vehicle registration/ltag number for any registered vehicles...) come up when her name was entered into the database?

So about the Rav 4 call.

In E2 at around the 36:00 minute mark they start talking about this..

She calls and ask something ,and his first question is "are there plates on the car?''

Which is odd because they have no reason to believe at this point plates would not be on the car ,and as it turns out, there were not so then there is a "oh where are you ?" Which is an odd waste or resources when they could really confirm with the vin in the dash ,which is able to be seen from the outside of the car.

Also I read though the WS thread on her missing person case and it revealed a helicopter search over the area.. Days before. So there is that.

 

[MaxManning]

Far, far too much speculation for me to comment on.

It's quite simple....I can understand why the ex and brother would want in to her messages once she was reported missing. I would do exactly the same in their boat.

It is a very, very, very different thing if they (or someone known to Theresa) did this before they suspected she'd come to harm. A VERY different thing.

You are equating the two incidents because they both involve listening to messages...but their timing makes them extremely different. One scenario is probably not suspicious, the other absolutely is.

It's as simple as that.

I'm not suggesting any of it is not suspicious to some degree. Yes, it could be innocent, and it might not. That's why you investigate.

Do I believe it was the brother. No. But if you are ruling that out, are you investigating ? no. Simple as that.

It's only a VERY different thing if you don't accept that a guy/girl would spy on a lover or ex lover.

Is it that you don't believe guys/girls do this kind of thing ? Google it. People even install spyware on spouses and significant other's devices. How would you know unless you investigated ?

You exclude it, I don't. I would investigate theories to exclude them. Maybe that's the core of our differences, in all things regarding this case.


Anyone that listens to messages before the date she is known to be missing, is going to be seen as suspicious to some degree. Simply because they have somehow gotten access to her cellphone account!

How suspicious is based on who they are and what reason you believe they had to do this.


Context : if he is not the killer

-Is it possible ex boyfriend had been monitoring her voice mail previously - this happens all the time nowadays. plausible.

-what does he do when she is now missing and he knows he has messages that are aggressive in nature on her voicmail --- he would delete them. Highly plausible.

-what does he do before it is confirmed she is missing - same thing he could have been doing for last 10 months or whatever -- listening to them to keep tabs on her love interests etc
- if #1 is plausible, this is plausible, because this is WHY he is listening to them from the start.


Context : If he is the killer
-He has the phone and likely the login information
-what does he do before she is reported missing ? -- He may listen to the messages, maybe to discover who she has been seeing etc - Plausible if the motive is jealousy etc.
-- He believes that they will think it could be her checking the messages. She is not proven to be dead yet.
-What does he do AFTER she is reported missing ? -- He removes voicemail messages from him that are likely threatening. HIGHLY PLAUSIBLE


If you are going to follow the theory that the ex-boyfriend did it, you have to then accept that she possibly wasn't even dead at this point.

The reason why I entertain this idea is because it's plausible that he would maybe monitor in this way if jealous and it's very plausible he had the means to do so.


In this scenario we also have to accept that the police likely found the vehicle and then planted it at the junkyard. Don't believe ex-boyfriend could have pulled that off easily.

But anyways, yeah, I think it's possible and should have been investigated. Defense indirectly suggested this scenario via their questioning. But just the same as avery evidence, just because the guy is monitoring his ex's voicemail doesn't mean he is a murderer. There's alot to suggest that Avery was being deceptive as well, so if we are unbiased with him, we need to be with other suspects as well.

If we believe avery can burn a cat and not be an obvious murderer, we need to also allow that a guy who is monitoring his ex's voicemail is not obviously a murderer - but suspicious.

Either way, I get what you are saying and it's plausible. I just think it's too narrow an investigation, if you exclude things I have mentioned.

We can leave it at that, I respect your opinion.

 

[LemonMousse]

I'm not suggesting any of it is not suspicious to some degree. Yes, it could be innocent, and it might not. That's why you investigate.

Do I believe it was the brother. No. But if you are ruling that out, are you investigating ? no. Simple as that.

It's only a VERY different thing if you don't accept that a guy/girl would spy on a lover or ex lover.

Is it that you don't believe guys/girls do this kind of thing ? Google it. People even install spyware on spouses and significant other's devices. How would you know unless you investigated ?

You exclude it, I don't. I would investigate theories to exclude them. Maybe that's the core of our differences, in all things regarding this case.


Anyone that listens to messages before the date she is known to be missing, is going to be seen as suspicious to some degree. Simply because they have somehow gotten access to her cellphone account!

How suspicious is based on who they are and what reason you believe they had to do this.


Context : if he is not the killer

-Is it possible ex boyfriend had been monitoring her voice mail previously - this happens all the time nowadays. plausible.

-what does he do when she is now missing and he knows he has messages that are aggressive in nature on her voicmail --- he would delete them. Highly plausible.

-what does he do before it is confirmed she is missing - same thing he could have been doing for last 10 months or whatever -- listening to them to keep tabs on her love interests etc
- if #1 is plausible, this is plausible, because this is WHY he is listening to them from the start.


Context : If he is the killer
-He has the phone and likely the login information
-what does he do before she is reported missing ? -- He may listen to the messages, maybe to discover who she has been seeing etc - Plausible if the motive is jealousy etc.
-- He believes that they will think it could be her checking the messages. She is not proven to be dead yet.
-What does he do AFTER she is reported missing ? -- He removes voicemail messages from him that are likely threatening. HIGHLY PLAUSIBLE


If you are going to follow the theory that the ex-boyfriend did it, you have to then accept that she possibly wasn't even dead at this point.

The reason why I entertain this idea is because it's plausible that he would maybe monitor in this way if jealous and it's very plausible he had the means to do so.


In this scenario we also have to accept that the police likely found the vehicle and then planted it at the junkyard. Don't believe ex-boyfriend could have pulled that off easily.

But anyways, yeah, I think it's possible and should have been investigated. Defense indirectly suggested this scenario via their questioning. But just the same as avery evidence, just because the guy is monitoring his ex's voicemail doesn't mean he is a murderer. There's alot to suggest that Avery was being deceptive as well, so if we are unbiased with him, we need to be with other suspects as well.

If we believe avery can burn a cat and not be an obvious murderer, we need to also allow that a guy who is monitoring his ex's voicemail is not obviously a murderer - but suspicious.

Either way, I get what you are saying and it's plausible. I just think it's too narrow an investigation, if you exclude things I have mentioned.

We can leave it at that, I respect your opinion.

I have not the slightest idea what you're on about. Honestly.

All I am actually saying is that is that it is profoundly shocking that the police did not take the trouble to investigate who could have listened to those messages on Nov 2. There are no benign explanations for that...whoever did it, it is suspicious.

Investigating something is not the same as writing fan fiction novellas. Just saying.

 

[MaxManning]

I
Which is odd because they have no reason to believe at this point plates would not be on the car ,and as it turns out, there were not so then there is a "oh where are you ?" Which is an odd waste or resources when they could really confirm with the vin in the dash ,which is able to be seen from the outside of the car.

I'm kind of confused why you think it would be odd to ask if there were plates on the car, that would be the first and easiest method of determining the owner of the car, and keep the person as far from the car as possible.

If someone is missing , obviously kidnapping is high on the list and people that don't want a car to easily be identified, remove the plates.

I am assuming that is a dispatcher or someone of that nature. Likely even a standard question.

I can also see the logic of getting someone heading to the location while they are trying to identify the car. If it ends up not the car, just radio that it's not the one.

But if the lady for whatever reason gets disconnected, now you have no idea where she is without tracing the call somehow.

I'm going to say that this is also likely standard protocol.

Almost more surprised they don't ask where she is first after she describes that she believes she found the car.

Also, I could see it being protocol to not just tell someone who owns the car.

But maybe someone who is a dispatcher of this sort can speak to whether this is non standard or suspicious. That's just my impression.

If it's not standard protocol, then I think that's where you investigate why protocol wasn't followed.









I can find a VIN number. Is it OK if I go in the car?

 

[MaxManning]

I have not the slightest idea what you're on about. Honestly.

All I am actually saying is that is that it is profoundly shocking that the police did not take the trouble to investigate who could have listened to those messages on Nov 2. There are no benign explanations for that...whoever did it, it is suspicious.

Investigating something is not the same as writing fan fiction novellas. Just saying.

You state the obvious and then someone theorizes beyond the obvious, and then you say that? :/

I replied to this "Yes, we know that the ex and brother listened AFTER she was reported missing, but what possible reason could they have to do this before?"

Did you really mean to ask for a possible reason or just for someone to give one and you suggest it's not plausible - when it obviously is.

We can stop here.

I'll let you have another snarky novella followup or whatever. If you don't want to hear an opinion other than yours, simply don't ask.

 

[Soulmagent]

I'm kind of confused why you think it would be odd to ask if there were plates on the car, that would be the first and easiest method of determining the owner of the car, and keep the person as far from the car as possible.

If someone is missing , obviously kidnapping is high on the list and people that don't want a car to easily be identified, remove the plates.

I am assuming that is a dispatcher or someone of that nature. Likely even a standard question.

I can also see the logic of getting someone heading to the location while they are trying to identify the car. If it ends up not the car, just radio that it's not the one.

But if the lady for whatever reason gets disconnected, now you have no idea where she is without tracing the call somehow.

I'm going to say that this is also likely standard protocol.

Almost more surprised they don't ask where she is first after she describes that she believes she found the car.

Also, I could see it being protocol to not just tell someone who owns the car.

But maybe someone who is a dispatcher of this sort can speak to whether this is non standard or suspicious. That's just my impression.

If it's not standard protocol, then I think that's where you investigate why protocol wasn't followed.









I can find a VIN number. Is it OK if I go in the car?

Quoting your post is not fun for a fast thinking person with ADD.

The reason why the wording is odd from the officer is because he did not ask her to read the plates, which is normal .Maybe he could have said can you see the plates , that would have been normalish . He asked'' Are the plates on the car.''
Go listen. It reads better I am sure. They school us that way.

 

[LemonMousse]

You state the obvious and then someone theorizes beyond the obvious, and then you say that? :/

I replied to this "Yes, we know that the ex and brother listened AFTER she was reported missing, but what possible reason could they have to do this before?"

Did you really mean to ask for a possible reason or just for someone to give one and you suggest it's not plausible - when it obviously is.

We can stop here.

I'll let you have another snarky novella followup or whatever. If you don't want to hear an opinion other than yours, simply don't ask.

It's called a "rhetorical question". The answer is implied. I was saying that there are, in fact, no benign reasons why anyone would be listening to Theresa's voice mails under those circumstances.

If you think there are, then I'm afraid I disagree with you.

 

[MaxManning]

Quoting you post is not fun for a fast thinking person with ADD.

The reason why the wording is odd from the officer is because he did not ask her to read the plates, which is normal .Maybe he could have said can you see the plates , that would have been normalish . He asked'' Are the plates on the car.''
Go listen. It reads better I am sure. They school us they way.

I have me some of that ADD too! Sorry.

Man : Is there any plates on it ?

Sturm : there's no plates on it, it's covered up



I am asking why is it odd that they would first ask if plates were on the car , given the context ?

Like I said, I think a dispatcher would know what the protocol is and if this was odd. I am just assuming that if someone calls and says that they believe they have found car of a missing person, they might first ask if there were plates on the car and then ask for the plate number if so.

Now, if it was a traffic stop and the dispatcher was talking to a cop who pulled someone over, then yeah, I see your point.

A dispatcher would be able to answer that better, while we are both speculating.

I'm just saying, it doesn't seem odd to me. Just the same that it doesn't seem odd to me that Sturm fears for her life in the presence of the car, as she understands the context.

If she called in just any car that was maybe on her street outside her house with no one in it, would she be in fear ?

Context is everything imo

 

[MaxManning]

It's called a "rhetorical question". The answer is implied. I was saying that there are, in fact, no benign reasons why anyone would be listening to Theresa's voice mails under those circumstances.

If you think there are, then I'm afraid I disagree with you.

Well there you go again. Who ever said it was benign ?

When someone says something saying "it doesn't mean they murdered someone". It doesn't mean it's benign. It means exactly what I said.

It's possible for someone to be breaking the law and listening to her voicemails without her consent BEFORE OR AFTER she was known to be missing and not be the killer.

You don't have to accept that. However, it doesn't mean that I have stated it's benign.


this is benign :

I don't believe it matters at all, not suspicious in the least. -- never got said.


However numerous times this kind of thing got said :

I'm not suggesting any of it is not suspicious to some degree.



you puzzle me

 

[stephsb]

I'm not buying that anyone associated w. Teresa killed her, although like any other option, it's obviously possible. I believe someone on the Avery property killed Teresa, my first guess would be Steve, my second would be Chuck, although, as someone points out in an earlier post, the males on the Avery property where all pretty questionable characters. So, if evidence comes out show someone else on the Avery murdered Teresa, I won't be all that surprised.

I would like to point out all the people who find the word choice of Teresa's brother concerning and/or suspicious (when he says he was grieving before body was found) there is nothing concerning about this at all. His sister was missing and as each hour passed, he knows the chances of her being found alive less and less. It's reasonable to think she's going to be found dead and prepare yourself for it. It's kind of like the "she never sheds a tear when we tell her that her husband is dead, she's calm and collected" behavior that is so often criticized and seen as suspicious. No one knows how they will act until they are in the situation themselves.