Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

[proudfootz]

I voted Not Guilty as it would appear that no credible evidence has been brought forward which indicates conclusively that any crime against Teresa Halbach was committed where Steven Avery was known to be.

 

[Safeguard]

Couldn't agree more with this - LE showed their reluctance to investigate more than one suspect in his initial jailing - they went straight for SA then, what is to say it couldn't happen a second time. I am not stating this was a police set up - I think someone else had something to do this, took advantage of the situation SA was in by leaving evidence in close proximity to his trailer and allowed the police to come to a quick conclusion. My doubts have always been on ST and BoD, their behaviour was strange considering how close knit this family are - all living on one site in a 'community'. They relied on each other heavily for alibis, both saying they were hunting (were they at that point setting up an alibi as to why they were in possession of a firearm at the time TH was murdered?) and also ST's relationship with BT - and the link to her burn barrel.

I just find it so hard to believe a man who had just spent 10+ years incarcerated for a crime he didn't commit would readily commit a more drastic crime (basically going from 0 - 120mph... murder is a huge thing to jump to from not much) and leave evidence in plain sight - he had a new life, had a potential for a HUGE payout, a new relationship and was back with his family .... he has protested his innocence loudly for 10+ years. Surely if he was guilty in some element, he would have given up by now and just accepted, that was his life.

jmo but if I was tasked with making a decision with no doubt... I would be lying to myself if I didn't admit there is too many questions, too many challenges to the norm/common sense and also, too many other people who weren't (from what I have read online, not necessarily seen on MaM) investigated sufficiently and displayed some interesting behaviour and even had a stronger motive than SA.

bbm

Well said!! Talk about no MO! This like a major Anti-Motive imo!

Why would this guy want to even take the tiniest risk of going back to prison?

Popular counter is, "well he felt invincible, like he could get away with anything". Not buying that. That's just not realistic. Once you've had an Anvil dropped on your head, the LAST thing you feel is "invincible".

 

[JanIreland]

no doubt in my mind , guilty.

 

[Safeguard]

no doubt in my mind , guilty.

Thank you for weighing in. I appreciate your opinion and you do make a compelling argument!

 

[Abbiemal123]

I can't quite put my finger on him

 

[cfbLisa]

I voted undecided, needs new trial. From watching the documentary, I felt certain that he was not guilty. Then, when I went back over some more interviews with people, like his fiance, I started having doubts about him. To be in prison for so long over a crime that you didn't commit could make you come out hard. Like mean as hell and your going to show the world hard! But, because he'd been in prision, you would think if he really wanted to kill this young lady, he'd would have done a much better job at getting rid of evidence! I mean her car there, really? Her keys? That's where my distrust from law enforcement comes into play. There are just to many questions about all of it.
Yes, he could have bullied his poor nephew, who unless you are just blind, can see is not a high iq young man. He should have had his parents with him or an attorney. I question everything the cops said about him.
As for Steve, I just don't know. Once again, I go back to the plethora of evidence left right at his front door. I can't be the only one thinking about that am I?

 

[cfbLisa]

Yes, this is exactly my problem with the case from top to bottom! Why leave so much evidence in plain site? It doesn't make sense unless you are looking at it from a view of his being framed!

 

[dexter75]

I voted undecided, needs new trial. From watching the documentary, I felt certain that he was not guilty. Then, when I went back over some more interviews with people, like his fiance, I started having doubts about him. To be in prison for so long over a crime that you didn't commit could make you come out hard. Like mean as hell and your going to show the world hard! But, because he'd been in prision, you would think if he really wanted to kill this young lady, he'd would have done a much better job at getting rid of evidence! I mean her car there, really? Her keys? That's where my distrust from law enforcement comes into play. There are just to many questions about all of it.
Yes, he could have bullied his poor nephew, who unless you are just blind, can see is not a high iq young man. He should have had his parents with him or an attorney. I question everything the cops said about him.
As for Steve, I just don't know. Once again, I go back to the plethora of evidence left right at his front door. I can't be the only one thinking about that am I?

You are not alone, trust me😉 As far as Steve's ex..she's been looked into and discussed a little here and personally I feel she's an uncredited drunk!
JMO
Welcome to WS!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Welcome all Newbies to our Group!:welcome4:

When I first started following this case~~everyone will tell you and you will read on these threads~~I was pro-guilty, but somewhere around August after 8 months of following the evidence and researching~~I now lean toward SA being not-guilty.

I would say the majority of the people on this thread lean toward not-guilty, but really are still all undecided. I mean I lean toward not guilty based upon the research I've done~~but~~I could be wrong too~~I'm waiting for that final piece that tells me one way or the other.

With that said, I think I started out trying to prove he was guilty and the more I dug in~~the more things just didn't add up. Thus, the switch from guilty to not guilty. He may very well be guilty, but the fact that MCSO bungled the investigation, I could not sincerely and honestly say I believe he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The more I dug in~~the more reasonable doubt I have.

 

[lex8396]

I live within 30 miles of the Avery property and I can tell you that most people in the area believe he is guilty. Many people also believe he is guilty of the crime he was freed from. DNA evidence is only as good as the people collecting it and the procedures. It is should not be relied on 100% because of contamination and 2ndary dña. Then there are the bones and Theresa's vehicle........and him saying that ,"my brothers could have done it". Who says that?? If he is freed AGAIN, do you want him as a neighbor?? It could happen!

 

[Safeguard]

I live within 30 miles of the Avery property and I can tell you that most people in the area believe he is guilty. Many people also believe he is guilty of the crime he was freed from. DNA evidence is only as good as the people collecting it and the procedures. It is should not be relied on 100% because of contamination and 2ndary dña. Then there are the bones and Theresa's vehicle........and him saying that ,"my brothers could have done it". Who says that?? If he is freed AGAIN, do you want him as a neighbor?? It could happen!

bbm
Ummm.... do you really believe Penny B just carried around Greg Allens public hair in her crotch area? And that Steven Avery donned, for the first time and only time, a pair of underwear just for that occasion?

It boggles my mind that their are those that will just ignore the fact that SA had a rock solid alibi and Greg Allen confessed to the crime and left his DNA on the vic!

I guess DNA is only "not reliable" unless it's planted to frame someone people dislike.

 

[dexter75]

bbm
Ummm.... do you really believe Penny B just carried around Greg Allens public hair in her crotch area? And that Steven Avery donned, for the first time and only time, a pair of underwear just for that occasion?

It boggles my mind that their are those that will just ignore the fact that SA had a rock solid alibi and Greg Allen confessed to the crime and left his DNA on the vic!

I guess DNA is only "not reliable" unless it's planted to frame someone people dislike.

Exactly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[vanay]

I live within 30 miles of the Avery property and I can tell you that most people in the area believe he is guilty. Many people also believe he is guilty of the crime he was freed from. DNA evidence is only as good as the people collecting it and the procedures. It is should not be relied on 100% because of contamination and 2ndary dña. Then there are the bones and Theresa's vehicle........and him saying that ,"my brothers could have done it". Who says that?? If he is freed AGAIN, do you want him as a neighbor?? It could happen!

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

 

[dexter75]

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

Indeed..you can't please everyone.
FWIW. ..I don't know of ANY TIME Allen has professed his innocence, RELENTESSLY...you know, like Steven Avery has in BOTH instances😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[IDK]

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

This is so interesting to me. The pre-judgement and narrrow minded focus is exactly the way LE conducted their investigation. (not to mention the the likelihood of outright tampering, IMO) I ask myself why? Do people resent that SA was found innocent of PB's assault? Are they jealous of the pay out he was about to receive? I just don't get it.

 

[dexter75]

This is so interesting to me. The pre-judgement and narrrow minded focus is exactly the way LE conducted their investigation. (not to mention the the likelihood of outright tampering, IMO) I ask myself why? Do people resent that SA was found innocent of PB's assault? Are they jealous of the pay out he was about to receive? I just don't get it.

Great question & very valid point!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[vanay]

This is so interesting to me. The pre-judgement and narrrow minded focus is exactly the way LE conducted their investigation. (not to mention the the likelihood of outright tampering, IMO) I ask myself why? Do people resent that SA was found innocent of PB's assault? Are they jealous of the pay out he was about to receive? I just don't get it.

I genuinely believe that those same people could bare witness to the crime happening and insist it was the innocent party [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[proudfootz]

That people can even at this late date still believe Steven had anything to do with the attack on Beerntsen in 1985 is a distressing testament to the ability of people to persist in believing what they want to believe no matter what.

 

[cujenn81]

This is so interesting to me. The pre-judgement and narrrow minded focus is exactly the way LE conducted their investigation. (not to mention the the likelihood of outright tampering, IMO) I ask myself why? Do people resent that SA was found innocent of PB's assault? Are they jealous of the pay out he was about to receive? I just don't get it.

It does seem hard to believe at times. The lengths people go to in order to convince their conscience that they're right is astounding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Flatbush]

My opinion only here. Based on what I have read, and what I recall, I am sad to say I do not believe a fair trial would be possible. If the crime scene was not being handled properly. I would want anyone to have a fair trial, but it seems murky. Very sad really.