Where the Avery Conspiracy Theory Falls Apart

[missy1974]

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.

That vial of blood was NOT stored in a lab. It was stored at the bottom of a cardboard box that was sitting in the County Clerks office. The woman that testified said as much in her testimony. And that box was tampered with, the evidence tape was cut and it was closed back up using scotch tape. There was no record of who opened that box and no one came forward to say "oh hey, I did that, so sorry, my bad"

 

[Tawny]

That vial of blood was NOT stored in a lab. It was stored at the bottom of a cardboard box that was sitting in the County Clerks office. The woman that testified said as much in her testimony. And that box was tampered with, the evidence tape was cut and it was closed back up using scotch tape. There was no record or who opened that box and no one came forward to say "oh hey, I did that, so sorry, my bad"

LE's reaction to that box:

 

[Soulmagent]

What blood sample tampering? How do we know there was any tampering in the first place?

The correct question is this case is .. How do we know there was not blood sample tampering. ?

The unsealed evidence container in the clerks office is why we even get to the correct question.

To ask the question you asked is to assume the evidence tampering in the first place unimportant .If it was unimportant then there would be no need to seal the evidence in the first place .

 

[Madeleine74]

So then the logical inference jumps immediately to: so someone must have taken blood from that very vial and used it to plant SA's blood in TH's SUV because they were hellbent on framing him. They of course would have had absolutely no idea whose DNA might have been in that SUV already -- could have been someone else entirely and that would have looked quite odd to have SA's in there, but never mind that. They had to have done it because...well because everyone is out to get SA because he was wrongfully accused and convicted of a rape 20 years before and then sued the county. So their egos were hurt and they had to make this happen.

Let me ask you this: what is the risk/reward of framing SA? Massive risks, including prosecution and jail time. What is the reward, exactly?

 

[Soulmagent]

So then the logical inference jumps immediately to: so someone must have taken blood from that very vial and used it to plant SA's blood in TH's SUV because they were hellbent on framing him. They of course would have had absolutely no idea whose DNA might have been in that SUV already -- could have been someone else entirely and that would have looked quite odd to have SA's in there, but never mind that. They had to have done it because...well because everyone is out to get SA because he was wrongfully accused and convicted of a rape 20 years before and then sued the county. So their egos were hurt and they had to make this happen.

Let me ask you this: what is the risk/reward of framing SA? Massive risks, including prosecution and jail time. What is the reward, exactly?

The dismissal of the 35 million dollar lawsuit? The risk of jail time for misconduct is about nil.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Something I've been wondering about:

--How close was SA to actually getting a check for all that money? Were appeals possible?

--Why did another unrelated conviction invalidate the restitution for his prior false conviction?

--If he was paid that money, would it directly affect the cops who were supposed to have framed him? Like, come out of their paycheck somehow? And if he didn't get paid after all, would those same cops benefit financially?

I understand that "follow the money" seems obvious, I just wonder if it's really that black and white. Would crooked law enforcement officers essentially murder a woman to save the *government* money?

 

[Soulmagent]

Something I've been wondering about:

--How close was SA to actually getting a check for all that money? Were appeals possible?

--Why did another unrelated conviction invalidate the restitution for his prior false conviction?

--If he was paid that money, would it directly affect the cops who were supposed to have framed him? Like, come out of their paycheck somehow? And if he didn't get paid after all, would those same cops benefit financially?

I understand that "follow the money" seems obvious, I just wonder if it's really that black and white. Would crooked law enforcement officers essentially murder a woman to save the *government* money?

It would effect county budgets , not the LE officers directly . Programs like head start ,raises of county employee's benefit packages ,funding to additional programs at a county level. The whole overall county budget would be affected by any payout. No matter if it was 400,000 or 35 million.

It could trickle down to say ,bus drivers for example..

 

[Madeleine74]

The dismissal of the 35 million dollar lawsuit? The risk of jail time for misconduct is about nil.

Planting evidence in a capital murder case is not just "misconduct." It is a felony!

The lawsuit was settled and neither of the 2 officers who are alleged to be possibly involved in framing SA would have had to pay one dime out of their pockets. They were called as witnesses, among many other people.

 

[Tawny]

Planting evidence in a capital murder case is not just "misconduct." It is a felony!

The lawsuit was settled and neither of the 2 officers who are alleged to be possibly involved in framing SA would have had to pay one dime out of their pockets. They were called as witnesses, among many other people.

Everyone's jobs were at stake, their friends and colleagues' lives and livelihood were threatened. I'd say there was plenty of reason to drop a key in a bedroom.

 

[Madeleine74]

It would effect county budgets , not the LE officers directly . Programs like head start ,raises of county employee's benefit packages ,funding to additional programs at a county level. The whole overall county budget would be affected by any payout. No matter if it was 400,000 or 35 million.

It could trickle down to say ,bus drivers for example..

So the logic goes that a couple of cops, trying to 'save' the county budget and future programs, risked their own jobs, freedom, and reputations to frame an innocent guy of murder, all to try and stop his pending lawsuit on the county? And that sounds reasonable? Not to me.

 

[Madeleine74]

Everyone's jobs were at stake, their friends and colleagues' lives and livelihood were threatened. I'd say there was plenty of reason to drop a key in a bedroom.

How does planting a key ensure that a county won't be held liable for a lawsuit in which the very thing that is being sued about happened in the past (and not in the present)? Do you see the leaps of logic that have to be taken?

Show the evidence of it happening and then it can be believed. Not "coulda if someone really wanted to," but in fact did happen and it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Soulmagent]

Planting evidence in a capital murder case is not just "misconduct." It is a felony!

The lawsuit was settled and neither of the 2 officers who are alleged to be possibly involved in framing SA would have had to pay one dime out of their pockets. They were called as witnesses, among many other people.

You do understand that the lawsuit did not just Affect those officers right?

 

[Mendara]

Have to admit usually Websleuths is my "go too" on all cases but the theories being thrown out here have me scratching my head at the moment , I also see people that in my eyes are bringing up some great points being completely slammed down.
The amount of juggling people are doing to clear Avery is mental to me. I've even seen comments actually blaming the murder on the LE ...whatever about the planting but the murder ?! People actually believe the LE murdered this girl to lock lil Stevie up .....It's all getting a lil too silly too me . MOO

I haven't really participated in this talk, but I have to comment on the terror people feel about LE actually being the ones to have killed her. It may be that I come from a neighborhood (East New York Brooklyn) where police were not friendly, nice, honest or law abiding, so I have a very open mind and I know first more than anything that LE are HUMAN BEINGS, with anger, fear and evil inside of them.

When I watched this and thought about LE I didn't think the entire LE all the way to the top killed her, I thought of a lone police officer who shall remain nameless, who happened to come upon her as she drove off the property. Tailed her car pulled her over and then thought real hard. These officers were about to be shamed, the insurance that cover the county decided they were not going to cover the monitory damage, they were all deposed and about to be in the hole for $36 million, what would that mean? loss of your pension? Your job? your home? loss of respect? To THE AVERY's?

This kind of pressure could have absolutely put pressure on one officer to do this and work on getting him framed. To say this is ridiculous because they are LE is just not thinking with the mind of a human pushed in a corner. It wasn't just to frame him so he goes to jail, but to save themselves the future of the department.

From the physical evidence it sounds like she was shot in the head and then placed in her trunk (the bloody hair mark in the trunk) is telling this story, so to me it is really easy to imagine this all happened off property once she left and then she was taken back.

Now is this s stretch? Maybe, but possible.

 

[Madeleine74]

These leaps of imagination never take into consideration any of the following:

- Evidence found that might point to someone else
- Forensic evidence found that points to someone else altogether
- A confession or the 'real' perp implicating themselves to someone else
- Accounting for the evidence that was found where it was and not disputed by anyone, even the defense

Whoever was 'planting' evidence would have had to know, before ANY of the evidence came back from the lab, what other evidence there was and what it showed. Imagine planting a piece of evidence and the entire case ends up proving someone else's involvement. Doh! And you'd be willing to put your freedom on the line, harm the community, the victim's family, the trust of everyone all to 'save the county from losing a lawsuit' and 'get vengeance on this dude who was wrongfully convicted for a crime 20 years before?'

The logic often goes like this: well...it's happened before. Some bad cop did something somewhere. So it must have happened here too.

 

[Soulmagent]

These leaps of imagination never take into consideration any of the following:

- Evidence found that might point to someone else
- Forensic evidence found that points to someone else altogether
- A confession or the 'real' perp implicating themselves to someone else
- Accounting for the evidence that was found where it was and not disputed by anyone, even the defense

Whoever was 'planting' evidence would have had to know, before ANY of the evidence came back from the lab, what other evidence there was and what it showed. Imagine planting a piece of evidence and the entire case ends up proving someone else's involvement. Doh!

Whoever was planting the evidence would know where to direct the investigation... the Doh! ,,part of your post is really pointless.As if there is no murder they would know there is no other evidence.Even if there was a murder and is was'nt SA nor on his property or the property of Avery's salvage yard.

 

[Tawny]

These leaps of imagination never take into consideration any of the following:

- Evidence found that might point to someone else
- Forensic evidence found that points to someone else altogether
- A confession or the 'real' perp implicating themselves to someone else
- Accounting for the evidence that was found where it was and not disputed by anyone, even the defense

Whoever was 'planting' evidence would have had to know, before ANY of the evidence came back from the lab, what other evidence there was and what it showed. Imagine planting a piece of evidence and the entire case ends up proving someone else's involvement. Doh! And you'd be willing to put your freedom on the line, harm the community, the victim's family, the trust of everyone all to 'save the county from losing a lawsuit' and 'get vengeance on this dude who was wrongfully convicted for a crime 20 years before?'

The logic often goes like this: well...it's happened before. Some bad cop did something somewhere. So it must have happened here too.

If'n ya don't investigate anyone else further than "speaking to" them, ya don't really have to worry about anyone else becoming implicated!

 

[MaxManning]

These leaps of imagination never take into consideration any of the following:

- Evidence found that might point to someone else
- Forensic evidence found that points to someone else altogether
- A confession or the 'real' perp implicating themselves to someone else
- Accounting for the evidence that was found where it was and not disputed by anyone, even the defense

Whoever was 'planting' evidence would have had to know, before ANY of the evidence came back from the lab, what other evidence there was and what it showed. Imagine planting a piece of evidence and the entire case ends up proving someone else's involvement. Doh! And you'd be willing to put your freedom on the line, harm the community, the victim's family, the trust of everyone all to 'save the county from losing a lawsuit' and 'get vengeance on this dude who was wrongfully convicted for a crime 20 years before?'

The logic often goes like this: well...it's happened before. Some bad cop did something somewhere. So it must have happened here too.

How would that happen if you are in charge of the investigation ?

Why did avery go to prison for rape, even though other law enforcement said they believed they had the wrong guy and a simple inclusion in a lineup might prove that ?

doh!

Yes, they had egg on their face when the DNA evidence cleared him.

It wasn't just egg because it showed he wasn't the rapist, it was egg because it later showed they actually discarded reasonable evidence from another law enforcement body.

You seem to keep forgetting that many of us believe avery did it, and that planting of evidence was still possible. It's called ENHANCING the evidence.

Of course a bullet found in the garage 6 months later is suspicious when it's a key piece of evidence.
Of course a key found where another officer says he checked and found nothing is suspicious.
Of course a tube of blood where the evidence box has signs of tampering looks suspicious.

Yet, with those 3 things, you have everything you need to do everything people are talking about.

So if something is suspicious, why not look further ?

Maybe Avery is ultimately guilty, but why does that even mean that you shouldn't look further ?

Is ENHANCING the evidence right, even if Avery is guilty ?

You seem to think it's impossible. I don't.

I think it's improbable, but law enforcement shouldn't be above scrutiny if there is suspicious circumstances surrounding key evidence.

Just the fact that they didn't find the bullet(s) in initial searches has me scratching my head as to how competent they are. you ??

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't have the information to make determinations of competence or not. If there is evidence that will help prove the assertion that SA was framed or railroaded or whatever adjective, then it should be explored and fully vetted, yes. I'm all for thorough investigations, an honest exploration of the evidence and not making assumptions on either side.

 

[MaxManning]

How does planting a key ensure that a county won't be held liable for a lawsuit in which the very thing that is being sued about happened in the past (and not in the present)? Do you see the leaps of logic that have to be taken?

Show the evidence of it happening and then it can be believed. Not "coulda if someone really wanted to," but in fact did happen and it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, lets say the murder itself never occurs.

Would the county have gone to court and potentially lost 36 million and looked corrupt for not considering credible evidence back then ?


Avery got charged with murder.

Where is that lawsuit now ? It got SETTLED for 400k I believe -- Avery did that to hire lawyers.
Did Avery getting charged with murder had no effect on that lawsuit ?



So, suppose there was no key evidence, no bullet evidence, no blood evidence.

Avery goes free.
Then what happens ? Now he's got another potential lawsuit where they targeted him without solid evidence


I think anyone that can't objectively see the logic of all that, is not being honest with themselves about the plausible motivations for planting evidence.

 

[SCHMAE]

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.

I think it's more likely than not that he's guilty but that is not how the criminal courts are supposed to work. Last person to see them alive is where they start looking for a reason. So last one to see her alive, had an appt. with her, remains found on his property all point to him. I am not considering the key or bullet in this because I have no idea if those are real or fabricated. It also points to anyone living on the property, who apparently all got free passes on any real investigation. I don't know if he's guilty or not. I guess at this point, I'm 55/ 45 guilty/ innocent. I just wish he'd get another trial . I do think finding anyone to serve on a jury NOW without an opinion about the case will be very , very hard. Maybe they should just take it to a judge now. mooo