Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We don't know she died and burnt on his property. Where is her blood, behinds the back of the RAV4? Nowhere.
She could of been burnt somewhere else, and the remains moved. I believe the "move" occurred on Nov3; the same day the plates were called in.
Please know that I am just recently gaining interest in the case. I thought Teresa's blood was found in SA's yard and a drop in the garage, as well. I don't mind being corrected. It's a learning process for me.
Welcome to the very confusing jungle! LOL
None of Teresa's DNA was found in or on SA's property, except for a teensy bit of nucleated cells on a bullet fragment in the garage, which turned out to be not enough DNA for a second sample when the first sample's control was destroyed in the lab. Other than that, and her bones, there is no trace of her anywhere other than the Rav4. Very troubling :/
If Avery gets off on a "technicality" he seriously needs to look into a career of crime scene cleaning. Once he's cleaned the place up there will only be a few spots of deer blood and his DNA all over the place.
Please know that I am just recently gaining interest in the case. I thought Teresa's blood was found in SA's yard and a drop in the garage, as well. I don't mind being corrected. It's a learning process for me.
That's actually not the way jurors are instructed to hear and decide a case. They are not supposed to do their own investigations at all. They are instructed to listen to the evidence/witnesses presented, with an open mind, not form any conclusions, and then all 12 jurors together in deliberations are to discuss and determine if the state met its burden for each of the charges or not. Jurors can choose the weight to put on any evidence or witness, in whole, in part, or not at all.
Most of the time tin foil hat wearing conspiratorists get themselves disqualified during voir dire, perhaps because it's hard to hide that mindset.
In this case the jury had many pieces of evidence to consider. A 25 yr old woman arrives on Avery property, interacts in person with the man who called her phone 3 times that day, is never seen or heard from again, her phone stops pinging, her body and items she had with her are found on the property, burned, her car is found on the property, partially concealed, with blood inside. That male blood happens to match the man she was with and that same man happens to have a deep cut (photographed) on his finger. That's compelling circumstantial evidence.
Seen the series and thought it favored the defense and of course being a "Reality" type show a lot of things were left out due to editing, this of course is MOO!With that said I voted guilty at this point. He has a history of crime and violence which raises red flags to me. I haven't read the transcripts posted here and I'm just basing my verdict on the series along with my gut feeling.
I think it confuses people when a crime unfolds and the perp doesn't do things someone else might expect them to do (or not do). There is also the element of dumb luck that can sometimes come into play.
If no DNA is found of the victim in SA's bedroom, then she must either have not been in there or didn't leave any of her DNA on items that were tested. What happened to those sheets that were on SA's bed? (were they burned too?).
TH was with SA, TH did most likely die that day, and her body was burned and her personal items were burned and her SUV was parked on the property and obscured with items from that property.
There's no evidence pointing elsewhere except in people's imaginations. I'm open to seeing any verified evidence that leads to a different perp. Not imagined evidence from fantasy scenarios, but actual evidence.
That's actually not the way jurors are instructed to hear and decide a case. They are not supposed to do their own investigations at all. They are instructed to listen to the evidence/witnesses presented, with an open mind, not form any conclusions, and then all 12 jurors together in deliberations are to discuss and determine if the state met its burden for each of the charges or not. Jurors can choose the weight to put on any evidence or witness, in whole, in part, or not at all.
Most of the time tin foil hat wearing conspiratorists get themselves disqualified during voir dire, perhaps because it's hard to hide that mindset.
In this case the jury had many pieces of evidence to consider. A 25 yr old woman arrives on Avery property, interacts in person with the man who called her phone 3 times that day, is never seen or heard from again, her phone stops pinging, her body and items she had with her are found on the property, burned, her car is found on the property, partially concealed, with blood inside. That male blood happens to match the man she was with and that same man happens to have a deep cut (photographed) on his finger. That's compelling circumstantial evidence.