Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

[pitprincess2000]

I don't for one moment believe he killed her any more then I believe his nephew had something to do with it.
He worked on the ladies auto= to how DNA was located there. His car was wedged into the back acreage which couldn't be seen while entering the gateway to the area, but a tow truck could have wedged it in to the area, from the street- another reason, I don't believe.
The man did not commit this murder, the local law enforcement did this and have messed up planting things to try and make this charge stick. One day, this will be over turned.
There will never been a full court of people, read all the statements, listen to all the testimony, and truly convict him or his nephew.
This man was framed by the local law enforcement.

 

[pitprincess2000]

I am sorry, I know he was convicted, but that conviction will one day be over turned. Its the local law enforcement, that has made it stick this far, but one day, someone will get this in the hands it needs to be infront of and these people will walk free in which they should be, its the ones out on streets and the people living in the area, that believe their law enforcement officers are protecting them, should be aware and scared of. It could be anyones child next at the hands of the PD. Trust me, I see many things everyday and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.
If it finds things, that wasn't there before, its planted. The end..

 

[DexterMorgan]

I don't understand how anyone could possibly think he did the first crime? You simply cannot have it both ways, i.e. DNA supporting cases , alibis confessions in some cases and not others. Yes there's a risk cross contamination when any DNA gets handled, but when you have a confession, and alibi and DNA I think pleading ignorance comes to mind.

What I want to know is how will they ever be satisfied if 3 separate elements (DNA, alibi, confession), that cannot be colluded must have magically collaborated in favour of someone who after all that is apparently still guilty. It boils down to one thing, you will never please everyone.

JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I don't understand why he didn't wait for his 15 million dollar lawsuit to happen before killing this young lady.

 

[IDK]

And I don't understand why he didn't wait for his 15 million dollar lawsuit to happen before killing this young lady.

Steven Avery is actually completely innocent of the attack on PB. And with Kathleen Zellner in charge, he may one day also be exonerated for the murder of TH.

 

[Safeguard]

I am sorry, I know he was convicted, but that conviction will one day be over turned. Its the local law enforcement, that has made it stick this far, but one day, someone will get this in the hands it needs to be infront of and these people will walk free in which they should be, its the ones out on streets and the people living in the area, that believe their law enforcement officers are protecting them, should be aware and scared of. It could be anyones child next at the hands of the PD. Trust me, I see many things everyday and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.
If it finds things, that wasn't there before, its planted. The end..

bbm

And there it is. It really is just that easy to see! Lenk and Colborn walk around Avery Salvage Yard and suddenly there's evidence all over the place, where before there was none.
Good post pitprincess, Welcome to the Webslueths! :wagon:

 

[dexter75]

bbm

And there it is. It really is just that easy to see! Lenk and Colborn walk around Avery Salvage Yard and suddenly there's evidence all over the place, where before there was none.
Good post pitprincess, Welcome to the Webslueths! :wagon:

I'll second this
No better way to put it IMO!
Duck analogy❤
WELCOME TO WS!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[vanay]

And I don't understand why he didn't wait for his 15 million dollar lawsuit to happen before killing this young lady.

From memory it was 36m.
More reason to frame SA then for him to kill. Pretty sure if he was clever enough to come up with a murder that has enough people convinced he's innocent then I'm sure he would have waited to collect his money then if he fancied it, killed her. The way the evidence was presented makes no sense, until it does I won't suspect him.

I appreciate you may think he did.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

I am sorry, I know he was convicted, but that conviction will one day be over turned. Its the local law enforcement, that has made it stick this far, but one day, someone will get this in the hands it needs to be infront of and these people will walk free in which they should be, its the ones out on streets and the people living in the area, that believe their law enforcement officers are protecting them, should be aware and scared of. It could be anyones child next at the hands of the PD. Trust me, I see many things everyday and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.
If it finds things, that wasn't there before, its planted. The end..

When you say you see things like this every day.
I'm curious, are you in law enforcement? A lawyer?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Saul Vesalot]

From memory it was 36m.
More reason to frame SA then for him to kill. Pretty sure if he was clever enough to come up with a murder that has enough people convinced he's innocent then I'm sure he would have waited to collect his money then if he fancied it, killed her.

The police said it would have been easier to kill him than frame him.
Probably right. But it would have been easier for him to kill someone and get away with it if he had a huge payout first. Even the $400k he settled for probably could have bought him a rock solid alibi, a house, and his first pair of underwear.

The way the evidence was presented makes no sense, until it does I won't suspect him.

I appreciate you may think he did.

I agree with you, it doesn't make any sense.The crazy thing is...I have yet to see any possible story that explains all the things we know and doesn't rely on a frame-up. In other words, there is no coherent story as to how Avery did it and the police planted/tampered with nothing.

To me, the simplest explanations are:
1) Avery did it and police interfered (I'm about 51% sure that this is what happened),

2) someone else did it, and police interfered.

I mean, it is pretty telling that the police went to a crime scene...and had a babysitter to make sure nothing dubious was going on, the babysitter was well outnumbered by those he was supposed to watch, and was doing paperwork, if I remember correctly. It is almost as if the babysitter was meant to provide cover as opposed to ensure honesty...

 

[vanay]

The police said it would have been easier to kill him than frame him.
Probably right. But it would have been easier for him to kill someone and get away with it if he had a huge payout first. Even the $400k he settled for probably could have bought him a rock solid alibi, a house, and his first pair of underwear.




I agree with you, it doesn't make any sense.The crazy thing is...I have yet to see any possible story that explains all the things we know and doesn't rely on a frame-up. In other words, there is no coherent story as to how Avery did it and the police planted/tampered with nothing.

To me, the simplest explanations are:
1) Avery did it and police interfered (I'm about 51% sure that this is what happened),

2) someone else did it, and police interfered.

I mean, it is pretty telling that the police went to a crime scene...and had a babysitter to make sure nothing dubious was going on, the babysitter was well outnumbered by those he was supposed to watch, and was doing paperwork, if I remember correctly. It is almost as if the babysitter was meant to provide cover as opposed to ensure honesty...

I will never understand how they got away with telling different version of events in the separate trials and still conclude they did it, can't have it both ways. And then neither case presented by the prosecutor tied back to the crime scene so it's like a Double whammy. That's what gives me the most doubt.

That and the fact the car wasn't crushed (you would crush it if you were the perpetrator), the bones weren't placed elsewhere away from SA home and The way the bones were treated thereon after. The ex bf is just another bizarre element. It's a minefield of a case.

The lack of proper thorough investigation makes me think that it was a perfect opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, finally get rid of the 36 m burden and cover tracks for being equally as incompetence this time around as they were 20 odd years ago! No lessons learned clearly.

I'm not saying he definitely didn't do it, but far too many elements that don't fit correctly in this jigsaw puzzle. JMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[vanay]

The police said it would have been easier to kill him than frame him.
Probably right. But it would have been easier for him to kill someone and get away with it if he had a huge payout first. Even the $400k he settled for probably could have bought him a rock solid alibi, a house, and his first pair of underwear.




I agree with you, it doesn't make any sense.The crazy thing is...I have yet to see any possible story that explains all the things we know and doesn't rely on a frame-up. In other words, there is no coherent story as to how Avery did it and the police planted/tampered with nothing.

To me, the simplest explanations are:
1) Avery did it and police interfered (I'm about 51% sure that this is what happened),

2) someone else did it, and police interfered.

I mean, it is pretty telling that the police went to a crime scene...and had a babysitter to make sure nothing dubious was going on, the babysitter was well outnumbered by those he was supposed to watch, and was doing paperwork, if I remember correctly. It is almost as if the babysitter was meant to provide cover as opposed to ensure honesty...

First pair of underwear made me lol [emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

First pair of underwear made me lol [emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Same😉😀

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

The police said it would have been easier to kill him than frame him.
Probably right. But it would have been easier for him to kill someone and get away with it if he had a huge payout first. Even the $400k he settled for probably could have bought him a rock solid alibi, a house, and his first pair of underwear.




I agree with you, it doesn't make any sense.The crazy thing is...I have yet to see any possible story that explains all the things we know and doesn't rely on a frame-up. In other words, there is no coherent story as to how Avery did it and the police planted/tampered with nothing.

To me, the simplest explanations are:
1) Avery did it and police interfered (I'm about 51% sure that this is what happened),

2) someone else did it, and police interfered.

I mean, it is pretty telling that the police went to a crime scene...and had a babysitter to make sure nothing dubious was going on, the babysitter was well outnumbered by those he was supposed to watch, and was doing paperwork, if I remember correctly. It is almost as if the babysitter was meant to provide cover as opposed to ensure honesty...

BBM, If the police said that that doesn't make sense at all. What are they thinking with such a comment? If they had of killed SA that would of been very obvious IMO and cast even more suspicion on MC and the way they conduct themselves.

 

[missy1974]

First pair of underwear made me lol [emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I read it early this morning and it made me lol too :laughing:

 

[proudfootz]

Speaking of underwear, will all of the panties seized by cops from Teresa's home as 'evidence' turn up or did some go to the private collections of investigators?

 

[dexter75]

Speaking of underwear, will all of the panties seized by cops from Teresa's home as 'evidence' turn up or did some go to the private collections of investigators?

I often wonder what became of such things. ( evidence)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Saul Vesalot]

I often wonder what became of such things. ( evidence)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

It gets accessed by someone unknown and the access isn't logged or recorded and the evidence is improperly resealed with scotch tape. But only the police department is as on-the-ball as the Manitowoc police.

 

[dexter75]

It gets accessed by someone unknown and the access isn't logged or recorded and the evidence is improperly resealed with scotch tape. But only the police department is as on-the-ball as the Manitowoc police.

Something like that, Saul...yep😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Saul Vesalot]

I will never understand how they got away with telling different version of events in the separate trials and still conclude they did it, can't have it both ways. And then neither case presented by the prosecutor tied back to the crime scene so it's like a Double whammy. That's what gives me the most doubt.

That and the fact the car wasn't crushed (you would crush it if you were the perpetrator),

According to Jim Clemente (former FBI Agent and was a prosecutor as well), it is legal for prosecutors to argue two different timelines of events in a case with 2 defendants IF those defendants are being tried separately. From what I remember, he says he thinks this is sketchy and is not the sort of thing other prosecutors read about and walk away impressed by. It is legal, but makes you look like a skunk and can seriously undermine the public's trust in the case and I think the defense IS NOT allowed to argue that the 2 different timelines undermines your case, just further adding to its sketchiness.


I don't know if I buy the car crusher thing at all. In any way. It might just be a really good sounding defense argument.

This is pretty firmly in the AVERY IS GUILTY CAMP, but I feel it makes a solid case why using the car crusher is a bad idea. Basically it is hard to do and crazy loud. Everyone would know he was doing it, and he was not the normal guy to do it, so it would stand out.

The crusher discussion is buried in a lot of other stuff, the crusher talk starts right before the embedded youtube video and continues until a little after that.

http://stevenaverycase.com/was-evidence-planted/


Also, just my 2 cents, the police when they searched the property, searched about 50 crushed cars, so not only would he have had to crush the car, he would have had to dispose of a now undrive-able car...which just altogether seems harder than driving the car into a river or leaving it on a back road with the doors hanging wide open.

That said, if he wasn't going to crush the car, what was it doing sitting there? Then again, maybe he was dumb enough to plan on crushing it (if he was in fact guilty)?

 

[proudfootz]

In my opinion there was no intention to crush the RAV4.

The location was chosen, I think, simply because it was as far from the residences as possible.

This makes it appear to me the idea was to hide the vehicle from everyone on the property while keeping it on the property.