Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[Really?]

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.

 

[MaxManning]

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.

I am with you completely on this. I admit you can put some level of suspicion in so many places in this case, and I do believe you should investigate to exclude. I believe like you that there is just too much shiftiness and capability at the junk yard to overlook.

Plus if the murder happens say via the ex boyfriend, the planting of the vehicle and bones becomes a much tougher thing to pull off. The guy is a super villain at that point imo.

I agree about the brother. I am the one who mentioned it's being theorized on many sites. I honestly didn't get the creepy vibe from the guy at all. But google it and you will see what I mean. People suggesting that since she didn't mention him in that video about her life, that she had a bad relationship with him etc. that's just the tip of the iceberg too.

 

[LemonMousse]

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

Well, you said "not suspicious". That to me means "benign".

 

[LemonMousse]

Can someone help me with something?

On ConvolutedBrian's blog he says about the blood vial.....that it was interesting because the open end of the styrofoam container was facing away from the open end of it's container.

Now...looking at the footage, he's right. The end of the styrofoam container that's been opened is pushed into the cardboard box so that it's still sealed end is the bit that you see when you open the cardboard box.

How is this interesting? Is it significant? Given that this guy followed the trial as it was happening, I suspect this was talked about by the defence in a part of the trial that the documentary didn't show.

But I don't get it!

 

[Soulmagent]

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

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.

 

[MaxManning]

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.

 

[LemonMousse]

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?

 

[MaxManning]

I am not being "difficult" at all! How patronising!

Just leave it now, OK?

You were not not being difficult. I'll leave it at that. Thank you, please drive through.

 

[LemonMousse]

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!

 

[Soulmagent]

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 I was Steve Jobs I wouldnt put any on my car. But i could then ,afford the fine.

Also I will not except any examples of dispatch asking if plates were on the car from any part of western TN. They don't care there, and that would be a normal question from dispatch.

 

[MaxManning]

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.

Ok, i took a moment to verify it , here is the transcript for episode 1x05 : -- link is here -->http://transcripts.foreverdreaming....&t=24358&sid=2dc3d25268c820031fbdbfc6df2465ac

Well, my heart starting going, you know,"Oh, my goodness. Maybe this is it."
Because... OK. Sorry. Let me stop you right there, Pam. When you saw this, Ms. Sturm, what did you do?
I became very, very worried for our safety.
Because 90 percent, this was probably Teresa's car and we're in danger.

Now, this is BEFORE the phone call was made. So yes, the context is that she feared for her life BEFORE they even confirmed the car was teresa's.



I personally will say that the most important aspect is not what you or I say, but what someone who does that job would say. I am purely speculating on protocol and saying I think it makes sense. I could be wrong, I am not a dispatcher. But I am confident there is a protocol. We should research that for clarity.


I apologize if you think that I am whittling you down to nothing. I have indeed researched this alot, and I am very open to being wrong about just about anything and have been wrong on things and noted when that is the case and corrected them and/or admitted I was wrong.

But I respectfully am saying that I think the context of someone finding a car in a junkyard that she believes fits the description of a missing person is different than a car that is pulled over by a police officer where the dispatcher would ASSUME that the plates are on the car.

Again, I mean you no disrespect and I am not trying to be condescending. I don't think I am stretching the truth with anything I said, and I'm even admitting that someone who has that job would know far better than I, so that is where we should look for an opinion for that context.

 

[MaxManning]

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.

 

[LemonMousse]

Also....a strange thing I read somewhere.....the ONLY photos of the car in situ were taken by Mrs Sturm! The police didn't take any themselves before whisking it away to a depot somewhere.

Lucky that Ryan just happened to give her a camera, huh?

 

[SCHMAE]

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

What ? Wow !

ETA I'm only on episode 3 so suffice it to say by reading here I've spoiled it.. But did either take a polygraph ? I know they're not used in court but I'm always curious to know if they have. Seems some of the LE folks should take one too.

 

[KrazyKatLadi]

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

If you read through a few tweets you find this is a hoax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[canadianwhitedove]

I found this interesting/eerie that exactly 3 years (October 31 2002) before Teresa goes missing and around the same time she did the video, Ryan (the ex) is quoted saying in a school paper that what scares him most is "Women, because they're evil" Also there people on Twitter and other sites that noticed that in the media interview at the time of the search there were (human looking) scratches on his hand. Not saying he guilty but there are a few questions and the other strange incidences that make me wonder why he was not investigated.

https://t.co/mPRsaVy5Wb (page 3)

 

[Midge Montana]

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.

One of the investigative phrases I've heard time and time again is: "Figure out the WHY and that will lead you to the WHO." And yes, there were 36 million reasons WHY.

 

[Soulmagent]

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.

 

[MaxManning]

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, given you the link, and it says exactly what I told you it said.

Open to hearing how that's not something you'll accept as a fact. She was on the stand testifying to fear BEFORE she made the call. Is she lying ?

 

[Soulmagent]

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.

I am talking about the phone call made at around 10:25 on Nov, 5th 2005 by Pam Sturm.

Edit , I am not even debating what you present in your edited add on. Or even talking about that. I am completely open to accepting fact as fact but since I am not talking about the same part of this case as you , I will not agree to being proven wrong on my point when you have not done that.