Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

[Boomstick]

"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.

According to Bryan, Bobby told him that he saw Teresa leave. Bobby has never said that. It coukd be a case of one or the other being wrong. But based on Bobby’s consistent account, and all the evidence that supports what he said, I see no reason to doubt his account.

Bobby said he left and went hunting before Teresa left, as her vehicle was still there when he left.

Steven intially said Bobby had left, only now to say, years later, that Bobby left after her. It’s a ridiculous and consistent pattern of changing his account to meet his momentary needs. Also it comes surrounded by a series of other lies abot that day, so I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t doubt his account.

Bobby was seen on the road on the way there by Scott Tadych.

 

[proudfootz]

"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.

This is from Blaine's sworn affidavit.

It is apparent from the information only now coming out that Bobby lied on the stand about being asleep all that day - the facts indicate he was all over the computer where disturbing and violent images were sought out and saved.

 

[proudfootz]

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.

I can't say it because the forensic test was botched in Culhane's problem-laden lab.

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.

What test conducted by the state would result in wood becoming embedded in the bullet?

Why would the state contaminate the bullet fragment with red paint?

I am curious where you get this 'information'.

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.

It just shows that the state was prepared to submit dubious 'evidence' to mislead the jury.

The bullet fragment is most likely completely unrelated to this case.

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?

If the state is trying to claim Teresa was the victim inside the house or garage, I would expect there to be some evidence of it. Since they could not provide a scintilla of evidence of their claim, I am persuaded that they did not prove their case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

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.

Since no one claims Teresa was never outside of her vehicle when she was there, it is probative of nothing that dogs might have signalled that she was in the yard where the vehicles were being photographed.

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.

You do not seem to understand that the defense is not required to prove anything. Nothing requires me to dismiss arguments or facts brought forth from the defense, or to ignore evidence and arguments which have come after the trial.

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.

As I have demonstrated, your claim is overstated.

 

[leslievernon]

reg. avery stating theories:
i heard at one point avery started reading all the case files in his cell. if you're innocent, then you'd think of any possibility as to how and especially who really murdered the victim. anything better than just rotting away.

 

[leslievernon]

reg. (the contaminated) DNA test result of the bullet fragment:
i read what mrs. culhan said about it at the trial, but contamination would normally mean "inconclusive", at least the way i heard it in other trials before..

 

[proudfootz]

With regard to the stories about the alleged fires at ASY the night of Teresa's disappearance, a poster on Reddit has helpfully catalogued some of the statements recorded by law enforcement. Various witnesses either fail to mention a fire, state they observed no fire, or state there was no fire:

Steven Avery, Bobby Dassey, Chuck Avery, Scott Tadych, Earl Avery, and Blaine Dassey.

r/TickTockManitowoc - The Bonfire timeline

It would appear that "The only people who claimed there was no fire that night, and later changed are, not-so-coincidentally Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey" is a mistaken belief.

 

[proudfootz]

I mean, like any science, it isn’t exact, can be misinterpreted and abused.

Nonetheless, a ballistics expert, someone certified as an expert in the application determined that the bullet was fired from that one particular firearm, to the exclusion of all other firearm in the world.

The defense could counter that with an expert. Then and now.

Just to revisit the trial testimony of William Newhouse, the technician who claims to have matched the bullet fragment to the weapon found in Steven's home...

Newhouse readily admits his work is subjective:

8 Q. I'm going to read for you a statement from the
9 AFTE, A-F-T-E, Journal, the organization that you
10 belong with. And you tell me if you agree or
11 disagree with this particular statement. Quote,
12 "Currently the interpretation of
13 individualization/identification is subjective in
14 nature, founded on scientific principles and
15 based on examiner's training and experience."
16 A. That's correct.
(Page 146)

Newhouse cannot deny that there is a great deal of difference between the bullet fragment and the test bullet fired from the weapon found in Steven's home:

1 Q. In any event, the test fired bullet on the right
2 shows quite a bit of differences in the land area
3 from the one on the left, does it not? It seems
4 to have some extra ridges or bulges sticking out
5 of some sort?
6 A. There are differences on -- between both bullets.
7 I don't know what you're referring to
8 specifically. There's a great deal of
9 differences on the bullet on the left side of the
10 photograph when you compare it to the bullet on
11 the right side of the photograph.
12 Q. A great deal of difference, right?
13 A. Absolutely, yes.
(Page 155)

[Note - the left and right portion of the photograph designates an exhibit that shows a side-by-side comparison between the bullet in evidence versus the test bullet known to have been fired from the weapon seized by police.]

Newhouse did not compare the bullet in evidence to any other weapons of the same make and model even though it is one of the most popular and hence common weapons of this caliber.

5 Q. Did you examine any other Marlin 60 firearms for
6 this case?
7 A. I did not.
(page 146)

And in a very long section of the examination of the state's expert witness, he admits that while ordinarily this sort of subjective analysis is confirmed by another expert, in the case of this bullet no peer review was done.

20 Q. Well, how do you ever have anybody review your
21 work?
22 A. I do that using the photographs. And one of the
23 examiners in the Milwaukee laboratory, another of
24 the Wisconsin State Laboratories, of course,
25 reviews my photographs. And on occasion, I will
1 take cases over to him where I believe it's
2 warranted, or where he does. And that's how we
3 conduct our peer review of the examinations.
4 Q. That's how you comply with that part of your
5 protocol that says you always have an examiner --
6 two examiners look at the same thing, right?
7 A. Exactly.
(Pages 160 and 161)

To be valid, scientific work must be subjected to peer review to help eliminate error.

7 Q. Do you see Mr. Templin's initials anywhere on
8 here?
9 A. They are not there.
10 Q. Do you see any other firearm tool examiner's
11 initials anywhere on here?
12 A. No. Mr. Templin is the one who reviewed that
13 one, there wouldn't be anyone else.
14 Q. Do you see Item 428?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Also another one for Item FL; do you see your
17 initials on there?
18 A. Yes, they are.
19 Q. Do you see Mr. Templin's initials on there?
20 A. No, they are not.
21 Q. So, we have, in your documentation that you must
22 keep in order to maintain your profile --
23 protocol, no record that any other examiner,
24 besides yourself, looked at Item FL to confirm
25 whether your opinion that this bullet was fired
1 from the gun that was before you earlier, were
2 one in the same, came from the same gun, right?
(Pages 163 and 164)

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-14-2007Mar01.pdf

It is my considered opinion that Buting did us a service by demonstrating that Newhouse's subjective opinion deviates from the accepted norms of his specialty and cannot be taken as probative.

 

[CoolJ]

.

 

[leslievernon]

i'm relatively new to the case.. i think this is a good thread to discuss various topics, as long as we do it in a comprehensible manner.

one of the more outrageous claims actually came from det. wiegert during avery's final nov. 9 police interview:
"how do you explain your bloody palmprint?"
avery's reaction is priceless, because it is just absolute nonsense.

it is important, besides looking and examining evidence, to see how a person is behaving, and reacting to such accusations. and as i wrote in another thread, avery is genuinley surprised when being confronted with all that by the cops.
even a few days earlier when he was being asked the 2nd time, averys lawyer is advising him not to talk with the police, yet he decided to talk to the detective. no sign of deception or unwillingness to cooperate. (avery not being a master of deception by all means) if anybody, next to the halbach family of course, wanted teresa to show up alive and healthy, it's avery. out of very good reasons.

 

[proudfootz]

i'm relatively new to the case.. i think this is a good thread to discuss various topics, as long as we do it in a comprehensible manner.

one of the more outrageous claims actually came from det. wiegert during avery's final nov. 9 police interview:
"how do you explain your bloody palmprint?"
avery's reaction is priceless, because it is just absolute nonsense.

it is important, besides looking and examining evidence, to see how a person is behaving, and reacting to such accusations. and as i wrote in another thread, avery is genuinley surprised when being confronted with all that by the cops.

even a few days earlier when he was being asked the 2nd time, averys lawyer is advising him not to talk with the police, yet he decided to talk to the detective. no sign of deception or unwillingness to cooperate. (avery not being a master of deception by all means) if anybody, next to the halbach family of course, wanted teresa to show up alive and healthy, it's avery. out of very good reasons.

I'm often told police can lie when interviewing witnesses, so they accused Steven using a lie about a palm print to see if they could make him upset and say something they could use in framing their case.

I agree that from my perspective Steven could have reacted badly to this - that he continued to answer their questions and even left the vicinity so the police could take over his home indicates he was more cooperative than he could be expected to be (considering how he has undeniable reason to be suspicious of cops framing him in the past).

I don't think Steven was aware at first of the forces working to target him.

 

[leslievernon]

yes, i heard that too. saying false things just to get a reaction.. i know. but these are techniques, that may work backwards with people who are not that bright, and who see LE generally as someone who can't be wrong, who can only tell you the truth, who is the authority. that is why false confessions happen. brandon, with all due respect, fell exactly into that category.

steven, i guess, was slowly but surely getting the fear and those old feelings came back as soon as the cop told him that THs car was found at their property... i mean.
he could have said stop right there, but, he continued to cooperate.

 

[proudfootz]

Yes, the technique of trying to change what witnesses state by lying to them can have unfortunate results. Obtaining testimony by fraud seems to me to be very ripe for abuse. That is exactly what I observe in reviewing the extensive coaching Brendan was subjected to.

 

[leslievernon]

but what i wasn't expecting.. was brandon actually taking the witness stand during his trial and telling everybody that he made it up...
still, they couldn't believe it anymore (that it was a lie) cause his uncle was already sentenced.

telling the world a recanted confession (kratz press conference) and then not making the person who said it confront the actual person who should have done it accord. to the story (which was avery in this case), is also a violation of some rights, am i right? .. any person who says about someone else that that person did horrible things, has to sit in front of that person in a court of law and look him/her in the eye while he is making those claims.

really, i don't know wisconsin law but that's the way we, as humans, should do it, when we talk about due process.
imagine a total stranger made those statements, and not his nephew...

 

[CoolJ]

but what i wasn't expecting.. was brandon actually taking the witness stand during his trial and telling everybody that he made it up...
still, they couldn't believe it anymore (that it was a lie) cause his uncle was already sentenced.

telling the world a recanted confession (kratz press conference) and then not making the person who said it confront the actual person who should have done it accord. to the story (which was avery in this case), is also a violation of some rights, am i right? .. any person who says about someone else that that person did horrible things, has to sit in front of that person in a court of law and look him/her in the eye while he is making those claims.

really, i don't know wisconsin law but that's the way we, as humans, should do it, when we talk about due process.
imagine a total stranger made those statements, and not his nephew...

Yes, you are supposed to have the right to face your accuser. Problem is, that wasn't what the case against Avery was about. It was about the planted evidence, some of which was "found" after Brendan was coerced. Everything Kratz did was unethical and borderline illegal. It really is insane that it is allowed to happen. In any other civilised country the entire case would have been thrown out after Kratz' sex fantasy press conference, Kratz himself would have been disbarred.

The American Justice system only works if it is made up of professionals operating with honesty and integrity. But it is not, it is made up of crooked liars and manipulators.

With what was presented at his trial, Brendan Dassey wouldn't have been convicted of anything in any other civilised country on the planet.

If this had happened in North Korea, American officials would have been screaming from the rooftops that what happened to these two men (one a boy at the time) was inhumane. American humanitarian rights groups would have been up in arms.

 

[leslievernon]

i know what you mean.. austria is currently infected with political parties who have a long list of corruption, really with a capital C.. who's one and only goal is staying in power, at all costs. i can't tell you how i despise them. complete and utterly useless morons get to be ministers cause everybody knows everybody..

well, anyway.

if have a quick question:
was teresas cell phone ever found? could they determine that it was melted in the burn barrel, or in the pit?

 

[Boomstick]

This is from Blaine's sworn affidavit.

It is apparent from the information only now coming out that Bobby lied on the stand about being asleep all that day - the facts indicate he was all over the computer where disturbing and violent images were sought out and saved.

What are you quoting from Blaine's affidavit?

That he said B0bby said he saw her walk to Avery's trailer, showered then left?

 

[Boomstick]

I can't say it because the forensic test was botched in Culhane's problem-laden lab.

What test conducted by the state would result in wood becoming embedded in the bullet?

Why would the state contaminate the bullet fragment with red paint?

I am curious where you get this 'information'.]

The negative control sample was botched. Not the testable material. There is a tremendous distinction between the two, correct?

Contaminate with red paint? What, other than the rudimentary assertion of someone with a clear bent on drawing the bullet into question, that it might be red paint on the bullet?

Same with the 'embedded wood particles'. You get ambiguous words like "appear", and "suggest", and "unlikely".

Read what the affidavit says about both:

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

This is called throwing something at the wall to see if it sticks. It didn't, which is why it was summarily dismissed.

None of those things support that Avery didn't kill Teresa Halbach. Even if it turned out that the bullet had hit some sort of wood product.

There is a reason those terms are used. There is a reason it is "unlikely" to be blood, and with a flimsy reason, as opposed to something definitive.


[It just shows that the state was prepared to submit dubious 'evidence' to mislead the jury.]

It shows no such thing. If anything, and this should be rather clear at this point, it shows that Zellner is willing to do or say anything to try to mislead the court.

The evidence of this is overwhelming. Just look at her claims from early 2016 through her motion for scientific testing, where she makes all sorts of claims and demands, only to up and "decide" not to test the blood? Please.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...st-Conviction-Scientific-Testing_redacted.pdf



[The bullet fragment is most likely completely unrelated to this case.]

Need I provide all the tie-ins again?



{If the state is trying to claim Teresa was the victim inside the house or garage, I would expect there to be some evidence of it. Since they could not provide a scintilla of evidence of their claim, I am persuaded that they did not prove their case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.]

Well, unfortunately, criminals often try to dispose of evidence that links them to the crime. Which is what you see in this case. Avery was doing things exactly related to the disposal of evidence that night, and lied about everything he was doing. It's really very straight forward, unless you are willing to bend over backwards time and again to indulge Avery's wholly baseless claims.

He acted odd and inappropriate toward the victim beforehand. Showed the victim increased attention.

Took measures to ensure the victim wasn't aware she was coming to see him.

Teresa was last in his presence. No sightings, no calls, no messages.

Avery lies about his activities.

Evidence turns up. Her vehicle, her blood, his blood.

Evidence turns up that begins to prove his lies. Dog tracked her to his house and garage. Cadaver dogs indicate on a burn barrel where the victim's remains are found.

Turns out Avery was actually doing things where evidence would later be found, and, in fact, was doing things related to disposing of evidence, and lied about it, of course.

As said, I don't know exactly what happened in the trailer or garage. But she was there. He was there that night, but lied about everything he was doing.



[Since no one claims Teresa was never outside of her vehicle when she was there, it is probative of nothing that dogs might have signalled that she was in the yard where the vehicles were being photographed.]

The dog tracked her directly to his trailer and garage, then away from his trailer and garage, toward the Kuss Road cul-de-sac.

[You do not seem to understand that the defense is not required to prove anything. Nothing requires me to dismiss arguments or facts brought forth from the defense, or to ignore evidence and arguments which have come after the trial.]

Lol, this is code for 'I'm going to believe what I want, so there'.

I understand exactly what is required of the defense. I know, at trial, they did the best they could, and could only present disjointed evidence to make it appear that Avery was the victim of some conspiracy.



[As I have demonstrated, your claim is overstated.

Demonstrated? All you've done is allude to a rainbow of different reasons, a series of unconnected, and completely unsupported claims, brought by numerous defense teams, based entirely on innuendo and conjecture, while ignoring all the actual evidence.

There is a reason none of these claims have ever panned out, that not one has ever borne out the claims upon which they are made. There is a reason that the defense needs to keep changing it's theory, and cycle through suspects like a roulette wheel, only, stepping on the pedal when it keeps landing on Avery's number.

There is a reason Avery's story keeps changing, and with it, the "explanations" of his supporters.

 

[Boomstick]

reg. avery stating theories:
i heard at one point avery started reading all the case files in his cell. if you're innocent, then you'd think of any possibility as to how and especially who really murdered the victim. anything better than just rotting away.

Come on. This is getting just a bit extreme, no?

His own words destroy his credibility.

Avery was claiming he was being framed before any evidence had even been found linking him to the crime. It's in news videos.

He changes his stories- who knows how many times.

He is convicted, tries to blame his brothers, nephews, sister-in-law, and other people. Even writes a letter to Ken Kratz after his scandal, to try and represent him and get him to blame someone else.

He then goes on record claiming no one in his family did it.

His new lawyer cycles through a series of suspects, changing everything time and again, to try and point the blame at anyone else she can come up with.

Avery's story is still changing. In 2018.

Think of that. He is trying to convince people he remembers minutia that he never mentioned from many years ago to implicate someone else, when he wouldn't tell a straight story when he was deeply under suspicion for murder, and claiming he was be framed for something he didn't do.

You buying that?

 

[Boomstick]

reg. (the contaminated) DNA test result of the bullet fragment:
i read what mrs. culhan said about it at the trial, but contamination would normally mean "inconclusive", at least the way i heard it in other trials before..

Again, the negative control is a blank run through used to calibrate the machine. There is supposed to be no DNA in it. It is supposed to provide a baseline.

Culhane introduced her own dna into it. It was sloppy work, for sure. But it had no impact on the results or testability of the actual test sample.

There is a reason that a request for an exception is part of the protocol and was granted.

If it had the chance of compromising the testable material, it would not have been admissible.

 

[Boomstick]

With regard to the stories about the alleged fires at ASY the night of Teresa's disappearance, a poster on Reddit has helpfully catalogued some of the statements recorded by law enforcement. Various witnesses either fail to mention a fire, state they observed no fire, or state there was no fire:

Steven Avery, Bobby Dassey, Chuck Avery, Scott Tadych, Earl Avery, and Blaine Dassey.

r/TickTockManitowoc - The Bonfire timeline

It would appear that "The only people who claimed there was no fire that night, and later changed are, not-so-coincidentally Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey" is a mistaken belief.

Can't follow the link.

You're talking about a fire that no one questions. Not even the defense, the defendants themselves, nor the numerous attorneys who rep them. It has become fodder for internet conspiracy theories.

No one had connected the fire to the crime until after the remains were found in the firepit.