Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

[Boomstick]

They could do that. Or we can apply the knowledge we have now. There was at least one other rifle of the same model on the property.

Mr. Kratz wants to argue that there was proof that that bullet came from the .22 rifle that was found in Mr. Avery’s trailer, but that’s not really the case. It was similar, but they could not completely exclude any other gun.

‘Making a Murderer’: Steven Avery’s Lawyer on the Evidence Left Out – Rolling Stone



No bone, no blood, no human tissue. There is no evidence this fragment struck anything other than wood.



As I have already expressed my conclusion based on the evidence, we will simply have to disagree on this.



My thinking is that if the forensic laboratory technician could not prevent the contamination of a control sample, I have zero confidence that they could prevent the contamination of other evidence. For similar reasons I wouldn't feel safe eating food prepared in a kitchen infested with rats.



I was never lead astray.

The knowledge we have now? What knowledge states that that there was no blood on the bullet fragment?

WhT you seem to be doing is substituting claims by Avery’s attorneys as evidence. They aren’t. Zellner has repeatedly misled in her filings.

Those red drops could be almost anything, including blood. It was never tested for that. The reasoning Zellner states that it is unlikely to be blood is because it was previously tested for DNA. That’s it.

The bullet was matched to THAT rifle. Not a model. Not a similar rifle. That specific rifle that was hanging over Avery’s bed. It’s in the trial transcripts.

I would believe that your conclusions were based on actually evidence if you could provide some that is exculpatory for Avery, or inculpatory for someone else. Instead it seems you are dismissing the actual evidence piece by piece by piece, and substituting conjecture that it was all planted without therr being any actual proof of such.

 

[proudfootz]

This is the same time period where he said his mother came with his mail. That his brother had dropped by with a friend, and that he had gone to his sister’s house.

These are all things that didn’t happen that day. These are all things he has changed his tune on and no longer says happened.

(snipped by me)

Interestingly, Steven's brother Earl and Robert Fabian report that they did drop by that evening.

How is it you think you 'know' all three are lying about this?

 

[Boomstick]

There is no 'leap' required - I'm not arguing Culhane's DNA transformed into Teresa's DNA. I am pointing out that the lab is unreliable because it is abundantly evident they cannot keep samples from becoming contaminated.



The lab is fraught with problems, from sloppy work as exemplified in this case, to drunkenness on the job, to outright fraud. Maybe it's just me, but I can't trust important work like this to people who have no pride in their work and don't show that they care about how their incompetence impacts on others.



What I am demonstrating is that the so-called 'evidence' is dubious at best.



No one AFAIK has proposed any untenable theory (except Kratz).

Can’t disagree about the reliability of the lab. But the odds of 2 contaminations in one case is astounding. Let alone 2 contaminations on one test. Let aline 2 contaminations in 2 separate samples. Let alone contaminating a sample with the very dna of the person who’s murder is being investigated. Her DNA wasn’t part of the test. It was in a database. Again, I implore looking up the procedure before making these types of judgement calls.

Some evidence is less reliable than others. But ALL of it must be false and/or fabricated for Avery not to have committed the crime. And somehow, Avery’s own contributions need to be explained.

 

[Boomstick]

(snipped by me)

Interestingly, Steven's brother Earl and Robert Fabian report that they did drop by that evening.

How is it you think you 'know' all three are lying about this?

I think they did. As they said. As Avery said, when being investigated for murder.

He has since changed his story. Now he says it was the week prior.

That is the point. He keeps changing his story, over and over and over to try and meet the demands lf explaining the same facts that have never changed.

He lied about everything he did that day from the moment Teresa Halbach arrived onward into the night. His story has changed so many times that I can’t believe anyone could possibly believe give it any credibility. But somehow, they do.

 

[proudfootz]

The knowledge we have now? What knowledge states that that there was no blood on the bullet fragment?

No one reported finding any blood.

WhT you seem to be doing is substituting claims by Avery’s attorneys as evidence. They aren’t. Zellner has repeatedly misled in her filings.

Both defense and the prosecution present evidence. I am under no obligation to ignore evidence brought forth by the defense.

Those red drops could be almost anything, including blood. It was never tested for that. The reasoning Zellner states that it is unlikely to be blood is because it was previously tested for DNA. That’s it.

The examination of the bullet fragment in question strongly indicates that it struck something made of wood. That no bone, blood, or flesh was shown to have come in contact with the bullet indicates to me that it was not used to harm anyone.

The red droplets appear to have adhered to the bullet fragment after it came to rest.

The bullet was matched to THAT rifle. Not a model. Not a similar rifle. That specific rifle that was hanging over Avery’s bed. It’s in the trial transcripts.

Even if it were true that this bullet fragment had been fired from that particular weapon, there is no compelling evidence it has anything to do with any crime against Teresa.

I would believe that your conclusions were based on actually evidence if you could provide some that is exculpatory for Avery, or inculpatory for someone else. Instead it seems you are dismissing the actual evidence piece by piece by piece, and substituting conjecture that it was all planted without therr being any actual proof of such.

I have no control over what you choose to believe.

I am demonstrating that the so-called 'evidence' presented as dispositive in this case is dubious at best.

A chain of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link.

The prosecution case contains many weak links.

 

[proudfootz]

I think they did.

If your 'evidence' that three people independently lied about a casual meeting on a particular night is simply because you 'think' they did I have nothing to counter that kind of 'evidence'.

As they said. As Avery said, when being investigated for murder.

It's a lucky thing that Steven had witnesses who were able to confirm his memory.

He has since changed his story. Now he says it was the week prior.

That's an interesting story. Is there an authoritative link to Steven's memory of an unremarkable night 13 years ago?

That is the point. He keeps changing his story, over and over and over to try and meet the demands lf explaining the same facts that have never changed.

AFAICT Steven's memory of the encounter was that Teresa arrived, took photos, accepted payment, and left. Other witnesses have verified that she left ASY (including Bobby, it turns out!). Has this changed?

He lied about everything he did that day from the moment Teresa Halbach arrived onward into the night. His story has changed so many times that I can’t believe anyone could possibly believe give it any credibility. But somehow, they do.

Even if we chose to dismiss everything Steven has said about this uneventful evening, we have plenty of testimony from a lot of people who came and went that evening (some even chatting with Steven while he was allegedly committing these heinous acts!) without noticing anything about a gang rape, torture, murder, dismemberment, and destroying a human body by fire.

 

[proudfootz]

Can’t disagree about the reliability of the lab. But the odds of 2 contaminations in one case is astounding. Let alone 2 contaminations on one test. Let aline 2 contaminations in 2 separate samples. Let alone contaminating a sample with the very dna of the person who’s murder is being investigated. Her DNA wasn’t part of the test. It was in a database. Again, I implore looking up the procedure before making these types of judgement calls.

Whose DNA was not part of the test? Culhane's? Of course not. Somehow it got in there, no one is sure how.

I would suggest you consider whether someone who is so sloppy in their work as to unknowingly contaminate one sample is more likely to contaminate more than one. It is not a matter of trying to talk about 'odds' as if it were a random occurrence. It is a matter of accepting that incompetent people are more likely to make mistakes whatever the 'average' might be for all forensic lab technicians.

Some evidence is less reliable than others.

Indeed it is. The way I consider a case is to set aside the dubious 'evidence' and examine the remainder (if any).

But ALL of it must be false and/or fabricated for Avery not to have committed the crime.

It's hardly an airtight case, even at best there are some rather large gaps in the narrative. We don't know how Teresa was killed, or when, or where.

We have a pretty good indication where it didn't happen - at Steven's residence. They turned the place upside down looking and not one speck of blood, no DNA, no hair, no fiber. Zero evidence Teresa was ever in the house or the garage, let alone that any crime against her was committed there.

And somehow, Avery’s own contributions need to be explained.

Based on what I can tell, it appears Steven has been cooperative with law enforcement. The best explanation for that, it seems to me, is that he has no idea what became of Teresa after she left ASY.

All MOO, obviously.

 

[Boomstick]

No one reported finding any blood.



Both defense and the prosecution present evidence. I am under no obligation to ignore evidence brought forth by the defense.



The examination of the bullet fragment in question strongly indicates that it struck something made of wood. That no bone, blood, or flesh was shown to have come in contact with the bullet indicates to me that it was not used to harm anyone.

The red droplets appear to have adhered to the bullet fragment after it came to rest.



Even if it were true that this bullet fragment had been fired from that particular weapon, there is no compelling evidence it has anything to do with any crime against Teresa.



I have no control over what you choose to believe.

I am demonstrating that the so-called 'evidence' presented as dispositive in this case is dubious at best.

A chain of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link.

The prosecution case contains many weak links.

At the time it was examined, no one rported finding anything of note. It wasnt examined for microscopic particles. There is nothing that would indicate the bullet struck wood when fired.

It is a claim made by a defense attorney unsupported by testimony or subject to cross examination. A claim. Not evidence. The wood like particles could have been from anything, including paper.

The red droplets “appear” to have come onto it after it came to rest? You base that on........?

The idea that the fragment had no blood, flesh pr bone and that it was never tested for thise things should be noted. And that it was was only found and tested months later as well.

Some evidence has questions. Nonetheless, none of it has ever been proven to have been planted. It is far more likely that the questions surrounding some ofthe evidence os based on the challenges of an extensive investigation being conducted by a conglomeration of agencies.

Thr prosecution’s case does have plenty of weak links. Lots of sloppy errors and poor judgement.

Avery’s isn’t even a chain. It is a series of scattered links that change based on the moment.

If one subjects Avery to even a fraction of the same scrutiny, his case is non-existent,

 

[proudfootz]

At the time it was examined, no one rported finding anything of note. It wasnt examined for microscopic particles. There is nothing that would indicate the bullet struck wood when fired.

This is what I mean by applying information we have now - the bullet fragment has since been examined microscopically. No bone embedded in the lead. Wood.

It is a claim made by a defense attorney unsupported by testimony or subject to cross examination. A claim. Not evidence. The wood like particles could have been from anything, including paper.

I'm just quoting an expert's opinion. So what if the bullet struck paper? That is not evidence it was ever used to harm any living thing, let alone a human.

The red droplets “appear” to have come onto it after it came to rest? You base that on........?

The sworn statement of an expert in the relevant field.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/048-Affidavit-of-Dr-Palenik.pdf

Some evidence has questions. Nonetheless, none of it has ever been proven to have been planted. It is far more likely that the questions surrounding some ofthe evidence os based on the challenges of an extensive investigation being conducted by a conglomeration of agencies.

Yes, the prosecution and its defenders have chosen to present questionable evidence.

Thr prosecution’s case does have plenty of weak links. Lots of sloppy errors and poor judgement.

I agree. As a juror I would have to vote 'not guilty' because the prosecution was unable to present a scenario supported by reliable evidence that I could accept 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Avery’s isn’t even a chain. It is a series of scattered links that change based on the moment.

The burden of proof is on the state. If they can't prove their case, that is all that is required for a 'not guilty' verdict.

In the United States, the accused is not supposed to be required to prove their innocence.

If one subjects Avery to rven a fraction of the same scrutiny, his case is non-existent,

Steven did not bring this case. It was up to them to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. I think they failed.

Still, the fact remains that while the evidence indicates Steven stayed put at his home, Teresa was never there.

MOO, as always.

 

[Boomstick]

If your 'evidence' that three people independently lied about a casual meeting on a particular night is simply because you 'think' they did I have nothing to counter that kind of 'evidence'.



It's a lucky thing that Steven had witnesses who were able to confirm his memory.



That's an interesting story. Is there an authoritative link to Steven's memory of an unremarkable night 13 years ago?



AFAICT Steven's memory of the encounter was that Teresa arrived, took photos, accepted payment, and left. Other witnesses have verified that she left ASY (including Bobby, it turns out!). Has this changed?



Even if we chose to dismiss everything Steven has said about this uneventful evening, we have plenty of testimony from a lot of people who came and went that evening (some even chatting with Steven while he was allegedly committing these heinous acts!) without noticing anything about a gang rape, torture, murder, dismemberment, and destroying a human body by fire.

No, I’m saying only Avery lied when he changed his story again a dozen years later. The story the other 2 told hasn’t.

Avery continues to contradict himself and others, and for some reason people keep belieiving his new versions of things as they come.

What are you talking about with an authoritative link from 13 years ago? Would you consider his own words from an interview on 11/9/05 as such?

To make it as clear as I can:

At the time Avery, Earl and Fabian all said Earl and Fabian had come by, and that they had talked. This was one of Avery’s attempts at an alibi as he was being questioned for his involvement in a murder.

In fact, all the things Avery initially tried to convince the incestigators that he had been doing and therefore could not have been responsible, all turned out to be false. This is just one on the list.

Bobby didn’t say that. His brother said he told him that.

Avery’s story of everything he did has been proven to be false. Simply by using his own words, and of course, evidence. Have you read his interviews?

Nobody was with Avery from 2:40- 5pm. (There is one account of him being overheard at 4:30 or so saying that she had never shown up).

He was with Brendan building and tending to a fire sometime after 5pm until 9-10pm. He was seen alone at the fire as late as 11:30-12.

His accounts at the time when a suspect in the victim’s disappearance and murder never mentioned this. In fact, he denied it.

There is nothing other than Brendan Dassey’s highly questionable accounts that would suggest there was any gangrape. No one has ever said she was dismembered other than in the fire.

Then it was alibi after he was forced to admit it happened. I mean, really.

 

[Boomstick]

Whose DNA was not part of the test? Culhane's? Of course not. Somehow it got in there, no one is sure how.

I would suggest you consider whether someone who is so sloppy in their work as to unknowingly contaminate one sample is more likely to contaminate more than one. It is not a matter of trying to talk about 'odds' as if it were a random occurrence. It is a matter of accepting that incompetent people are more likely to make mistakes whatever the 'average' might be for all forensic lab technicians.



Indeed it is. The way I consider a case is to set aside the dubious 'evidence' and examine the remainder (if any).



It's hardly an airtight case, even at best there are some rather large gaps in the narrative. We don't know how Teresa was killed, or when, or where.

We have a pretty good indication where it didn't happen - at Steven's residence. They turned the place upside down looking and not one speck of blood, no DNA, no hair, no fiber. Zero evidence Teresa was ever in the house or the garage, let alone that any crime against her was committed there.



Based on what I can tell, it appears Steven has been cooperative with law enforcement. The best explanation for that, it seems to me, is that he has no idea what became of Teresa after she left ASY.

All MOO, obviously.

Cooperative? Are you kidding? Someone who continuously and consistently lied, by definition, is not cooperating. He was trying to give the appearance of cooperating.

Again, you are make a judgement without considering the contexts. Please read up on the dna testing process. Sure, there is always a chance *anything* could happen. But if the odds of something happening are like getting hit by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket, I’ll go with those odds.

There is extensive evidence that Avery committed the crime that isnmt dubious. Not the least of which is his blood and dna in her vehicle, with a gash on his finger, and no explanation.

They never tested the hairs in the trailer.

Who knows what happened there.

But there is evidence that she was there. The tracking dogs tracked her there. As well as the garage. Avery, in yet another inconsistency, says she never came to either that day. In fact, the whole transaction took place between the van and her vehicle, which was parked near the van by the road.

Again, so no evidence that a crime was committed there other that she was never seen or heard from again after being there, all activity on her phone ceased, despite being consistently active on it all day. Avery’s series of lies about his activities from that same exact time onward. The dog tracking her to both places, the bullet that matched his rifle, with her dna on it, a few feet away from a spot that had reacted with a blood detecting agent, a few more feet away from where her burnt bones, teeth and clothing were found in a burnpit where he had a large fire in that night, but lied about it?

Also a few more feet to where her electronics were found burned in a barrel he was seen burning things in that same day he claimed he hadn’t burned anything?

Not to mention her vehicle with his blood and dna in it, her blood in it found on the property.

If that is all dubious, who is responsible, and is it a big coincidence that Avery lied about everything he did?

 

[proudfootz]

???

You're suggesting that Avery remembered being visited by Earl and Robert that evening, and that both independently remembered the same thing, and that subsequent to that Steven denied they were there? That seems odd, if true.

Or that it has been 'proven' false that Earl & Robert dropped by? Who was there to prove it false? Anyone?

Yes, Bobby apparently told his brother ‘Steven could not have killed her because I saw her leave the property'. Another witness corroborates Steven's memory of that day.

You suggest no one was with Avery between 2:40 and 5:00, yet someone allegedly 'overheard' Steve saying something at 4:30?

Plenty of the witnesses did not mention any kind of fire that night when initially interviewed. Are you claiming they are unreliable because they changed their testimony from 'no fire' to 'fire' to 'huge fire'?

I agree the so-called 'confession' the prosecutor cobbled together from the statements coerced from Brendan are totally unreliable. Yet this kind of questionable 'evidence' was used to convict him.

Similarly, I have trouble with questionable 'evidence' being used to destroy Steven's life.

 

[leslievernon]

good... moving away from the zipperer topic. let's just say we agree to disagree on who was the last person to see teresa alive.

reg. avery "lured" her onto the property:
when srgt. colborn spoke to avery on nov.3rd, avery told him that yeah, she was there, for 5-10 minutes.
what did ken kratz say in a tv interview.. "his (meaning avery) first reaction is gonna be - she wasn't there...". talking about how avery would behave after he committed the heinous crime.

come on... there is nothing there to support those claims. avery said he gave them (auto trader) his number and her sisters number cause the car was hers. he probably had THs number (unless she didn't change it at one point) cause of her earlier visits.

"For his part, Avery had a conveniently corresponding period of inactivity. He made no calls until 4:35, when, for some reason, he called Teresa Halbach. Only, this one time, he called her with no block on his caller ID."
and the call from avery to her phone at 4:35pm is because he forgot to tell her that there would be another car that he wanted to sell.
i think the defense could already establish that it is unlikely that she then, around 4:35ish, actually drove back to avery to look at that other car... i doubt it.

"So in a time period where he said he had intended to go back to work, but instead he stayed home to make calls, he made zero calls."
he made 2 calls, didn't he? after that 4:35 call (that most probably went to THs voicemail)

 

[proudfootz]

Cooperative? Are you kidding? Someone who continuously and consistently lied, by definition, is not cooperating. He was trying to give the appearance of cooperating.

Yes, Steven gave the appearance of cooperating. I'll have to go by what can be observed instead of assuming something sinister was behind it all.

Again, you are make a judgement without considering the contexts. Please read up on the dna testing process. Sure, there is always a chance *anything* could happen. But if the odds of something happening are like getting hit by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket, I’ll go with those odds.

Can you show how someone whose lab is so dirty and sloppy she contaminates more than one sample is in any way comparable to winning a lottery or being struck by lightening?

There is extensive evidence that Avery committed the crime that isnmt dubious. Not the least of which is his blood and dna in her vehicle, with a gash on his finger, and no explanation.

The cut on Steven's finger has been explained.

The blood someone smeared inside the RAV4 appears to be Steven's. How the blood got there without fingerprints has no rational explanation.

The so-called 'sweat DNA' on the hoodlatch appears to be unlikely to have been put there by Steven, according to scientific analysis.

They never tested the hairs in the trailer.

So it is as I wrote - no evidence Teresa was there.

Who knows what happened there.

Whatever happened, it apparently did not involve Teresa Halbach.

But there is evidence that she was there. The tracking dogs tracked her there. As well as the garage. Avery, in yet another inconsistency, says she never came to either that day. In fact, the whole transaction took place between the van and her vehicle, which was parked near the van by the road.

How would it be 'inconsistent' if Steven said she didn't go to those areas? Did he say at one time she did?

Again, so no evidence that a crime was committed there other that she was never seen or heard from again after being there, all activity on her phone ceased, despite being consistently active on it all day. Avery’s series of lies about his activities from that same exact time onward. The dog tracking her to both places, the bullet that matched his rifle, with her dna on it, a few feet away from a spot that had reacted with a blood detecting agent, a few more feet away from where her burnt bones, teeth and clothing were found in a burnpit where he had a large fire in that night, but lied about it?

Yes, no evidence Teresa was inside the house or garage. Yet that is where Steven was.

Hard to commit a crime without being at the scene of the crime.

Also a few more feet to where her electronics were found burned in a barrel he was seen burning things in that same day he claimed he hadn’t burned anything?

We both know that ashes in a container is not proof of something being burned in the container.

Not to mention her vehicle with his blood and dna in it, her blood in it found on the property.

Funny thing about cars - they have wheels and can be moved from one location to another.

If you think for a moment, you'll realize blood is mobile too. Some of my blood has been in testing labs that I was never in.

I'll leave it to you to figure out how DNA can be in places where the donors never went.

If that is all dubious, who is responsible, and is it a big coincidence that Avery lied about everything he did?

I don't know that Steven lied.

But even if he did sometimes contradict himself, that hardly makes the state's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[leslievernon]

i agree with proudfootz on cooperation... i listend repeated times to all 3 interviews - nov. 5,6, and 9th, and i think boomstick mistakes cooperation with lying.
how many times did they ask him the same *advertiser censored* questions, until he actually erupted, just a little bit, on nov. 9th. i saw it.
he was, by all means, cooperative when they questioned him. and patient.

 

[proudfootz]

good... moving away from the zipperer topic. let's just say we agree to disagree on who was the last person to see teresa alive.

If, as Bobby told Blaine, he saw her leave ASY which is why he knows Steven didn't kill her it's clear Bobby would be one of the last to see her.

reg. avery "lured" her onto the property:
when srgt. colborn spoke to avery on nov.3rd, avery told him that yeah, she was there, for 5-10 minutes.
what did ken kratz say in a tv interview.. "his (meaning avery) first reaction is gonna be - she wasn't there...". talking about how avery would behave after he committed the heinous crime.

come on... there is nothing there to support those claims. avery said he gave them (auto trader) his number and her sisters number cause the car was hers. he probably had THs number (unless she didn't change it at one point) cause of her earlier visits.

The 'luring' theory is absurd, IMO. Steven AFAICT never denied she was there. What would be the point? Everyone knew she was coming.

"For his part, Avery had a conveniently corresponding period of inactivity. He made no calls until 4:35, when, for some reason, he called Teresa Halbach. Only, this one time, he called her with no block on his caller ID."

and the call from avery to her phone at 4:35pm is because he forgot to tell her that there would be another car that he wanted to sell.
i think the defense could already establish that it is unlikely that she then, around 4:35ish, actually drove back to avery to look at that other car... i doubt it.

"So in a time period where he said he had intended to go back to work, but instead he stayed home to make calls, he made zero calls."
he made 2 calls, didn't he? after that 4:35 call (that most probably went to THs voicemail)

Steven also received calls, meaning he had to be waiting by the phone to take those calls. Picking up the phone would seem to indicate he wasn't busy doing something else (like kidnapping, raping, torturing, murdering, dragging bodies all over the property, driving cars all over the property, cutting up bodies, or destroying them in fires, or cleaning up a crime scene so thoroughly that it was undetectable by modern forensics, etc). All the while making sure his alleged 'accomplice' was always home just in time to take random calls and meet the people who came by the Dassey home.

The prosecution narrative makes no sense.

 

[leslievernon]

"If, as Bobby told Blaine, he saw her leave ASY which is why he knows Steven didn't kill her it's clear Bobby would be one of the last to see her."
this is what bobby told blaine...? i just read bobbys trial statements last night, he said he just saw her going towards averys trailer, and then he got in the shower..
IIRC bobby left the same time as teresa left. for hunting.

 

[Boomstick]

This is what I mean by applying information we have now - the bullet fragment has since been examined microscopically. No bone embedded in the lead. Wood.



I'm just quoting an expert's opinion. So what if the bullet struck paper? That is not evidence it was ever used to harm any living thing, let alone a human.



The sworn statement of an expert in the relevant field.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/048-Affidavit-of-Dr-Palenik.pdf



Yes, the prosecution and its defenders have chosen to present questionable evidence.



I agree. As a juror I would have to vote 'not guilty' because the prosecution was unable to present a scenario supported by reliable evidence that I could accept 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.



The burden of proof is on the state. If they can't prove their case, that is all that is required for a 'not guilty' verdict.

In the United States, the accused is not supposed to be required to prove their innocence.



Steven did not bring this case. It was up to them to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. I think they failed.

Still, the fact remains that while the evidence indicates Steven stayed put at his home, Teresa was never there.

MOO, as always.

No bone is required. No skin cells. No blood. As none of that was or could be tested for at the time, all we can day is that the bullet came into contact with Teresa Halbach.

12 years later we have an expert who said he saw microscopic particles of wood, a waxy substance and microscopic red droplets. All of which the bullet could have come into contact with during the recovery and testing the process.

None of it is exculpatory for Steven Avery, nor explain any of the web pf evidence that ties the bullet to Avery and the crime.

The evidence does not support that she was *in* his house . Nor does it support that she was not there. The absence of evidence is not evidencd of absence. It supports that she was there and never left. We don’t really know what happened in there, so what type of evidence would you feel comfortablr expecting?

The dogs tracked her to his trailer and his garage. Cadaver dogs also indicated that decayed remains or blood were present. What befell her at that point. Whether in the trailer, garage, or elsewhere, the prosecution is not require to prove a narrative. They are required to prove a case, which they did.

You may disagree, and that is your right, but you don’t have all the facts the jury did, and you seem to reflexively dismiss all the evidence against Steven Avery, and require none to believe what he or his defense claim, even if that changes again and again.

The fact remains that all the evidence points to no one but Steven Avery, and that all of it, with no exception, points to him.

 

[Boomstick]

???

You're suggesting that Avery remembered being visited by Earl and Robert that evening, and that both independently remembered the same thing, and that subsequent to that Steven denied they were there? That seems odd, if true.

Or that it has been 'proven' false that Earl & Robert dropped by? Who was there to prove it false? Anyone?

Yes, Bobby apparently told his brother ‘Steven could not have killed her because I saw her leave the property'. Another witness corroborates Steven's memory of that day.

You suggest no one was with Avery between 2:40 and 5:00, yet someone allegedly 'overheard' Steve saying something at 4:30?

Plenty of the witnesses did not mention any kind of fire that night when initially interviewed. Are you claiming they are unreliable because they changed their testimony from 'no fire' to 'fire' to 'huge fire'?

I agree the so-called 'confession' the prosecutor cobbled together from the statements coerced from Brendan are totally unreliable. Yet this kind of questionable 'evidence' was used to convict him.

Similarly, I have trouble with questionable 'evidence' being used to destroy Steven's life.

Again, Avery changed his tune *this year* on that. He now says they didn’t come that day, but another day. Avery is the one who is now saying it didn’t happen.

Think about that. Having *already* made statements that evidence was being planted to frame him, in desperate need of an alibi, he proceeds to lay claim that these 2 guys could provide him an alibi. 12 years later, in an attempt to refute the claim that his burn barrel was burning, he changes that. It couldn’t be more obvious it is nonsense. THe fact that he has done the same thing many times in this case, to the point that his 3 interviews have rendered him abject liar, is an indication of pattern. Have you kept up on the case? (Not an insult or a slight. )


Bobby did not say he said that. It’s a case of he said/he said, with his brother. Being that Bobby’s account on the matter had been consistent, and considering the context provided by well, everything, there is no reason to doubt it.

The only people who claiked there was no fire that night, and later changed are, not-so-coincidentally Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey,

In the beginning of the investigation, the relevance of the fire was still unknown. When people were asked about it, prople began to recall it. (Please do not go down the slope of mass inception of the fire. The fact that there was a fire that night is not in dispute, and never was. Not by any of the multiple defense teams of either defendant.)

Both questionable and unquestionable evidence was used to convict Avery.

Steven Avery destroyed his own life. We’ll never know if his previous wrongful conviction played a role in that or not, nor is it an excuse. That is what Making a Murderer *should* have been about. THat and Brendan Dassey.

Dassey’s confessions were not coerced. They were contradictory, they were possibly false. He was definitely led and fed information at times. Despite that, he was there that night, and lied about it. He told the same lies as Steven Avery early on. He also made multiple admissions to his mother in multiple conversations which were neither lesding nor coerced. He may or may not have raped her and may or may not have been in on the murder, but at the very least he was there and helped with the aftermath of the crime. Steven Avery ruined his life as well.

 

[Boomstick]

i agree with proudfootz on cooperation... i listend repeated times to all 3 interviews - nov. 5,6, and 9th, and i think boomstick mistakes cooperation with lying.
how many times did they ask him the same *advertiser censored* questions, until he actually erupted, just a little bit, on nov. 9th. i saw it.
he was, by all means, cooperative when they questioned him. and patient.

Lol. He lied.

NONE of the things he claimed he was doing then were true.

That is certainly a curious means of “cooperating.”

He had already accused police of planting evidence against him.

He was “cooperating” because he was trying to get away with murder. Which is why he lied about shat he was doing just acte she left, shst he was doing the rest of the afternoon, what he was doing late into that night.

You believe it just so happens that someone planted evidence that corresponds with all the things he lied about??

I mean, really?