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.
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 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 murder.
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![]()
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
Well, you said "not suspicious". That to me means "benign".
This sentence :
I'm not suggesting any of it is not suspicious to some degree.
meant that anyone involved in dealing with her voicemail other than herself , is suspicious to some degree.
had I said this :
I'm not suggesting any of it is suspicious at all.
That would mean that I didn't think any of the voicemail reading was suspicious at all. indeed benign if I had said that.
I am open to you just not understanding what I am saying, and that you are not being difficult on purpose. But having already been witness to insulting comments, I'm a bit skeptical
Either way, if you thought I said anything was benign, you were not reading it correctly. If my grammar of multiple nots was the issue I apologize.
I am not being "difficult" at all! How patronising!
Just leave it now, OK?
If she was in fear she would not have opened the car, but she did.
Your debating context but not showing it and then skipping part to get to the fear part of her testimony .
It is odd that he asked her about the plates being on the car.
Research it and change my mind but don't try to whittle me down with nothing.
I agree with you re: the plates. I thought exactly the same when I heard that.
In the UK, I don't think anyone would ask if there were plates, because the assumption would be that there were. It would be like asking, "Are there wheels?"
I wasn't sure if the US is the same. I always think of Steve Jobs driving around without any!
If she was in fear she would not have opened the car, but she did.
Your debating context but not showing it and then skipping part to get to the fear part of her testimony .
It is odd that he asked her about the plates being on the car.
Research it and change my mind but don't try to whittle me down with nothing.
Anonymous just got involved. Say what you will, but if there's info to be found, they'll find it. OPAVERYDASSEY is the twitter handle. They're already releasing lots of interesting info with proof to back it up.
Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk
Anonymous just got involved. Say what you will, but if there's info to be found, they'll find it. OPAVERYDASSEY is the twitter handle. They're already releasing lots of interesting info with proof to back it up.
Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk
Motive...
I look for a motive. Money is a motive. 36 million dollars is a lot of money. Thirty six million dollars is a lot of motive.
I think it's incredibly important to point out that the documentary is not in chronological order in some areas. That might be part of the confusion with me and soulmagent.
I am even open to the idea that maybe the transcript portion that I posted above, which is from the trial, is her describing AFTER the call. However, I don't believe that to be the case.
Continue reading the transcript and you'll see that she then describes after that how her daughter Nikole had a phone and Ryan had earlier gave her a direct line to the sheriff. So I believe my understanding of the ordering is correct.
Let me know if you agree or not. Again, no disrespect here.
I am not confused.
I am also talking about the dispatcher and What he says on a recorded call.
I also did not say you were whittling me down. I said not to try to whittle me down WITH nothing. In other words don't try to change my mind without facts.
Also I will point out again , I was talking about the phone call and what the dispatch asked her, that is the context of the conversation we need to compare my observation with. Nice derail though.
I posted the transcript, and it says exactly what I said. She says she felt she was in danger, and that was BEFORE the call to the police.
Am I missing something ?
Are you saying that there is no context difference between a typical situation where police might call for them to run a plate and a situation where someone calls to report that they believe they have located a vehicle belonging to a missing person ?
Please explain, because you have completely lost me at this point.
Maybe you can post what you are talking about, because I have posted directly from the transcript and it says exactly what I told you it said.