Where the Avery Conspiracy Theory Falls Apart

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Sleuther87 said:
I don't know what to tell you other than look more closely. There's Earl, Charles, Allan, Dolores, Barb, Bryan, Bobby, Brendan, Steven
Click to expand...

What does this even mean? Could you please provide your source?
 
Sleuther87 said:
Grrrrr I better get some clicks of the "Thanks" button from you 2 for this!

http://imgur.com/wWflegg

located in Exhibit 315

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2dfxmbm1i...-8''Exhibit 314 Culhane DNA analysis.PDF?dl=0
Click to expand...

thanks!!!! not only did I click it, I said it LOL I don't think I scrolled down that far on that document.

I wonder where all the swabs they tested were from. All the other reports seem to give some sort of description. I think I might have to print these out, might be easier to follow/read them.

Thanks again ;-)
 
Madeleine74 said:
I think the best way to proceed is to follow the evidence instead of assuming involvement by Party A, B, C. That's all anyone can do, be they a lay person or an investigator. Start with knowns, uncontested activities, who was with who, and see where the evidence leads.
Click to expand...

Well, not quite. Good investigators draw up a list of POIs, and proceed to rule them out, with the goal of identifying the real perp. Since the majority of murdered women are killed by someone close to them, that would mean the victim's ex, as well as her roommate, should have been thoroughly investigated. Why?

"Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner. In 2007, 24% of female homicide victims were killed by a spouse or ex-spouse; 21% were killed by a boyfriend or girlfriend; and 19% by another family member." (2009, Female Victims of Violence, USDOJ)​

Identifying POIs and ruling them out is called good police work. Or rather, investigative homicide techniques 101.

From what I can see, this was not done. They zeroed in on SA the day the received Ms. Halbach's missing person's report. And then, they proceeded to build a case around him.

Yes, he may very well be guilty. As I have stated before, I believe he is.

The big however is, there is so much questionable evidence, the blood sample tampering, the mysteriously appearing key, etcetera. The most questionable "evidence" (or rather, lack thereof) to my mind, is the coerced tale as told by a mentally challenged 16 year old. A tale that is missing supporting physical evidence.
 
shadowraiths said:
Well, not quite. Good investigators draw up a list of POIs, and proceed to rule them out, with the goal of identifying the real perp. Since the majority of murdered women are killed by someone close to them, that would mean the victim's ex, as well as her roommate, should have been thoroughly investigated. Why?
"Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner. In 2007, 24% of female homicide victims were killed by a spouse or ex-spouse; 21% were killed by a boyfriend or girlfriend; and 19% by another family member." (2009, Female Victims of Violence, USDOJ)​
Click to expand...
The issue I have with this is that LE was able to narrow it down pretty early to SA and for good reason. While 64% of the time it's the family, by the time it was a homicide investigation it was already easy to focus on the 36%.

90% of days it's nice and sunny, but if I hear thunder outside, damn right I'm bringing my umbrella.


The most questionable "evidence" (or rather, lack thereof) to my mind, is the coerced tale as told by a mentally challenged 16 year old. A tale that is missing supporting physical evidence.
Click to expand...

Questionable for Dassey's trial for sure, but wasn't even included in Avery's trial.
 
SCHMAE said:
I think SA likely did kill her. But call me old fashioned, I'd like to see actual proof. As for the bullet, the woman testifying about it admitted on the stand that once she had contaminated the only existing and very tiny sample of dna on it, the test should have been ruled inconclusive, by her own words and her own protocol. So, I don't really know what to make of the bullet. My belief is that likely a few people who live on the property do know what happened to her and were involved with the crime itself or at least the cleanup and cover up of the crime. I do not believe SA acted alone if he acted at all. I do not believe SA and his nephew could have cleaned up a scene so well. There are more averys and / or tadychs who know the truth. Is there one piece of conrete, physical evidence that does NOT have a murky, shady, planted type of angle to it ? If so, I cannot recall it.
Question for everyone ..........if SA had not been wrongfully convicted prior , would you feel as certain about his innocence this go around?
Polygraphy everyone who lived on the property in 2005 and you 'll see the truth ! Moooo
Click to expand...

ITA about the lie detector, seems almost a "duh" type of thing to me. Why wouldn't LE use that as a starting point BEFORE they started any type of "HE did it" search? If it came back with deception, they could have explained to him WHY they're doing searches on his property. Explain it's not admissible, but is just a starting point, along with the "last person to see the victim" theory.

LE was extra stupid by not explaining things clearly to Steve before they went full on ONLY suspect on him.

As far as the prior conviction/exoneration, this is God's honest truth, that fact has NOT even come into my mind, except for that I can't figure out, after being in prison so long, as an innocent man, would he even the thought of doing ANYTHING that would land him back in there?

I don't think I remember them bringing in scent dogs of any type to check the house. Foot prints by the truck? I think I saw a lack of finger print dusting. Not much about the 2nd burn barrel.

I believe he at least deserves a new trial.....maybe.

The thing that really gets me is the smallest piece of evidence of all....the metal button from her jeans. People don't think about those small almost negligible things if they're gonna plant evidence. I forget the case, but a family burnt their daughter in law over a custody battle. LE couldn't find anything at all, except for the metal button and rivets from the girls jeans in the fire pit.
 
Two words...sodium pentothal. Especially for Brendan. Sorry if that offends anyone.
 
missy1974 said:
thanks!!!! not only did I click it, I said it LOL I don't think I scrolled down that far on that document.

I wonder where all the swabs they tested were from. All the other reports seem to give some sort of description. I think I might have to print these out, might be easier to follow/read them.

Thanks again ;-)
Click to expand...

Mail me a copy! I refuse to buy ink.
 
Sleuther87 said:
The issue I have with this is that LE was able to narrow it down pretty early to SA and for good reason. While 64% of the time it's the family, by the time it was a homicide investigation it was already easy to focus on the 36%.

90% of days it's nice and sunny, but if I hear thunder outside, damn right I'm bringing my umbrella.




Questionable for Dassey's trial for sure, but wasn't even included in Avery's trial.
Click to expand...

What was their good reason for narrowing it down immediately? They found the car and immediately, before ever finding a body, dispatch was asked "Do we have SA in custody"? How did they investigate enough immediately upon finding the car to rule anybody else out?
 
For a conspiracy theory to fall apart one must prove some element to the crime that had to happen in real terms as was claimed,as well as the conspiracy could not have happened based in factual evidence. We do not have proof of a death here. We have no proof of a murder .

We do have some DNA but in light of the clerks office bandit we also have very good evidence leading us to believe that planning on the part of who ever wanted SA to be found guilty ,is to be considered.

The leap most people make when considering is SA was set up is that they are either the murder themselves or letting a murder go free .

There is another option and that is TH is still alive . While it may seem it is the least likely, it makes the most sense when the evidence is presented on both sides of this case.

I am not "all in " for this theory but I think it should be considered.
Things to keep in mind about what was found are..

Steven Avery was questioned on Nov 3 at his home. The questions asked would have revealed that he
1. had a bonfire
2 used the golf cart
3 Called TH
4. Brendan was at his home.

Probably much more.

Search warrant issued reveal a .22
Later , after TH's DNA was collected from a tooth brush and a pap smear DNA was collected from a bullet recovered much later then the first warrants.
Steven Avery was given a soda can in his police interview which is on camera . What we are looking for in this case is evidence that LE could not have had access to in anyway shape or form in this case.

I have not found that evidence yet. Have you?
 
CD82 said:
There are factors that sway me in both directions, but I really feel strongly about LE doing a very shoddy investigation, therefore I believe he and Brendan should be granted a new trial.

I personally feel all these efforts to pardon him are a little silly. There's absolutely not enough evidence (even in the docu) that can convince me he's innocent. At first, while watching it, I was very angry for him, hoping he was innocent, believing he might be, but as the evidence is presented, I just can't be convinced of it. There are way too many factors.
Click to expand...
Yes ! My sentiments exactly . I feel he likely is guilty but prove it in court before you throw away a man for life !
 
SCHMAE said:
Yes ! My sentiments exactly . I feel he likely is guilty but prove it in court before you throw away a man for life !
Click to expand...

I, having grown up with people in LE and on the other side , have a hard time with just seeing that he is guilty. What makes you feel he is guilty ? Is that feeling backed up with undisputed facts?

I have not considered if he is or isn't . I have not really gotten past is TH dead.
 
shadowraiths said:
The big however is, there is so much questionable evidence, the blood sample tampering, the mysteriously appearing key, etcetera. The most questionable "evidence" (or rather, lack thereof) to my mind, is the coerced tale as told by a mentally challenged 16 year old. A tale that is missing supporting physical evidence.
Click to expand...


What blood sample tampering? How do we know there was any tampering in the first place?
 
Madeleine74 said:
What blood sample tampering? How do we know there was any tampering in the first place?
Click to expand...

We don't know that there was necessarily tampering with the vial itself (it's suspicious) but the fact that the box holding it was cut open and then scotch taped back together is extremely upsetting, IMO. The chain of custody of ALL evidence relating to SA is so bad as to be laughable.
 
As for the bullet, the woman testifying about it admitted on the stand that once she had contaminated the only existing and very tiny sample of dna on it, the test should have been ruled inconclusive
Click to expand...

She didn't contaminate the actual DNA sample, her test showed that she had gotten her own DNA on the *control* sample and she believes that happened in the lab as she opened the control and was talking/teaching. That's different. That's why controls are used, as safeguards for the analyst doing the testing in the lab.

Now, according to their normal protocol, they would not report on the DNA result if there wasn't a control that had passed, but since they found TH DNA on the bullet and could plainly see the forensic analyst had gotten some of her own DNA on the control, they felt it was still important to report it. The report states the analyst found some of her own DNA on the control sample. BTW, there was no *un*identified DNA on the bullet sample, no one else's DNA found, nor was the forensic analyst's DNA on the actual bullet swabs themselves. You can totally disregard the result if you want, but one person's DNA does not magically change into someone else's.
 
Tawny said:
We don't know that there was necessarily tampering with the vial itself (it's suspicious) but the fact that the box holding it was cut open and then scotch taped back together is extremely upsetting, IMO. The chain of custody of ALL evidence relating to SA is so bad as to be laughable.
Click to expand...

Chain of custody of all evidence related to SA is not bad. There are questions about the key and how it got there (but no issue with the key once it was collected and sent to the lab -- that's the "chain of custody"). As for the vial of blood, that blood is stored in a locked lab, so one needs to show who could have gotten access to it. Saying someone did and that their use was nefarious is not evidence.

Had SA gotten no cut on that finger on his right hand, his blood in the SUV would look suspicious. But here we have a person of interest, who was known to be with the victim immediately before she went missing, who had a very clear cut on the middle finger of his right hand, and that guy's blood is found in 6 places in the victim's SUV -- an SUV he had access to because he was with the victim and her SUV was at his house. Her blood and hair is found in the SUV and his as well. That's circumstantial evidence that shouldn't be ignored. Questioned, sure. Discarded, not so fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 79 more.
Total: 256 (members: 80, guests: 176)

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
176
Total visitors
256
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,901
Messages
18,247,463
Members
234,496
Latest member
Alex03
Back
Top