Bones

[missy1974]

This is the skull I thought? the circular mark at the top is the bullet wound

ohhh it could be!

but there was still more than 1 found in the quarry lol

 

[MysticJynx]

ohhh it could be!

but there was still more than 1 found in the quarry lol

2 pieces of hip bone IIRC.

 

[MysticJynx]

I just am curious to where exactly in the burn pit these bones were actually found. By description of the Bones being mixed in the tire belts and the seat that was burned, they make it sound like this was all found in the burn pit. However all the pictures I have seen of this burn pit not once do they point out where the bones actually were. The one tool they did. No idea why they Flagged that rubber hammer so very close to the bench that was the accelerant of the fire. the tire belts too. I think there was reason they didn't want the coroner or anthropologist on the scene. It seem to me as one seeing these pictures that it is hard to explain one way or another how these items they mentioned being used in this horrific crime like the state would have me believe. This is just another example of a protocol they elected to deviate from for the good of the case against Avery. Not for the good of the case to find the truth of what happened to TH.

Gonna post some burn pit pictures here since this is where these bones are said to have been found...

 

[MysticJynx]

This is a pretty good map of the quarry and the yard you can zoom in and read the labels.
http://i.imgur.com/dh4F2yw.png

 

[missy1974]

I thought they had already removed a bunch of ashes/debris by the time they took the pictures. In the arson investigator testimony he talks about the area already being "dug" up before he got there.
I have to go to bed (pffft work LOL) but find the arson investigator testimony, try to figure out what he is talking about with the pics open ;-)

 

[MysticJynx]

I thought they had already removed a bunch of ashes/debris by the time they took the pictures. In the arson investigator testimony he talks about the area already being "dug" up before he got there.
I have to go to bed (pffft work LOL) but find the arson investigator testimony, try to figure out what he is talking about with the pics open ;-)

Oh but you see the dog picture. I thought he was to aggressive to get near? How did they pull out those ashes and tire belts and bench with the aggressive guard dog? Who really knows if they had pulled it from the pit by the time they got there. Because it was off to the side and they could have been digging in the black pit by the time he got there and it gave them reason to believe those too were moved. And why the heck are they placing cases of water on the evidence of tire belts.

 

[Amber29]

Well the testimony about gathering the bones says it took all day and into the evening/dark. Said they even set up lights because they wanted all the collection done then. It's really too bad the photos aren't time stamped so we know when exactly and at what point they were taken.

 

[MysticJynx]

Well the testimony about gathering the bones says it took all day and into the evening/dark. Said they even set up lights because they wanted all the collection done then. It's really too bad the photos aren't time stamped so we know when exactly and at what point they were taken.

YEAH TO BAD for SA right? They deviated from that protocol too including calling in a coroner. The fact that the dog is in the one. we can assume it was before they removed him on what was it the 3rd day of searching the property? The 8th of November? They did not find the first bone till when. The 8th also?

 

[missy1974]

nope, those pics were taken the first day.... terrible pics if they are from before the bones were recovered IMO

SPECIAL AGENT TOM STURDIVANT
Day 13, just read his testimony quickly. This was Nov 8th.
There is another guy that comes back on the 10th, can't remember his name

ETA: I know there is nothing funny about this, but when reading his testimony, I actually laughed when he was talking about the dog. My guess is he's a cat person LOL and it didn't seem to be a big deal to get the dog away.

 

[shadowraiths]

The problem I have with the cremains is the fact that they're not only in the pit but in the quarry as well.

Even if SA killed TA and burned her remains at the quarry, there is no reason on earth he would then move them to the burn pit. And if he burned them in the burn pit, why oh why would he take a couple of fragments and dump them in the quarry? Makes no sense whatsoever.

For this reason, I do think her cremains were planted in the pit. That is, that her remains were burned in the quarry, and then moved to the burn pit. And, whoever moved them, missed the fragments that were later found in the investigation.

If anything, this strongly indicates SA was, in fact, framed for Ms. Halbach's murder. Though it does not indicate who, precisely, moved her cremains.

With regard to the "whodunnit and how," I may post something in the alternate theories thread at some later point. No promises!

 

[Madeleine74]

What bones were found in the quarry? I thought I read it was her pelvis. Is that true?

 

[Amber29]

What bones were found in the quarry? I thought I read it was her pelvis. Is that true?

Yes the pelvis was in the quarry. I think the bone specialist testified that some fragments were found there, some that she couldn't confirm as human.

 

[Madeleine74]

Then to me that says the pelvic bone was moved there from the original burn site. Maybe the hope was that it would not be found. Most of the bones were found in the burn pit, where there just so happened to be a bonfire the very day TH went missing, mere hours after TH arrived there. SA was home, around his property, and nearby all day and evening. Coinky-dink?

 

[Amber29]

I still believe that the body was burned in the fire pit and SA removed bones that were identifiable and put them elsewhere. After reading the testimony of the bone specialist I'm even more convinced of that. Considering no larger bones were found in the fire pit, small pieces of almost every bone neck down was found. Yet the shoulder bone, parts of her spine, and part of a long bone were found in the burn barrel. The pelvis and some other fragments were in the quarry. She even testified that photographing the collection process in the pit wouldn't have been helpful due to the coloring of the burned bones. Like you wouldn't be able to differentiate the bones in pictures. They clearly weren't just real evident because they weren't noticed for days and I know I wouldn't be able to tell they are bones for sure.

 

[Sustained]

Then to me that says the pelvic bone was moved there from the original burn site. Maybe the hope was that it would not be found. Most of the bones were found in the burn pit, where there just so happened to be a bonfire the very day TH went missing, mere hours after TH arrived there. SA was home, around his property, and nearby all day and evening. Coinky-dink?

Why would he have moved the pelvic bone(s) anywhere near the Avery property ? According to the Avery guilty crew, he had a lot of time to clean up the crime scene. Why not just put them in a bag and take them up to Crivitz ?

 

[Madeleine74]

I have no insight into why SA did or didn't do what people wonder about. Kidnapping and killing a person makes no sense, so expecting them to operate in the way someone else would might be futile.

 

[Sustained]

I have no insight into why SA did or didn't do what people wonder about. Kidnapping and killing a person makes no sense, so expecting them to operate in the way someone else would might be futile.

Agreed, but when someone has 4+ days to clean up a crime scene, all of the evidence used against SA at trial could have been disposed of quite easily, including the RAV4. Even a man with an IQ of 70 would know to rid the scene of evidence ... unless of course he didn't know it was there.

 

[missy1974]

The problem I have with the cremains is the fact that they're not only in the pit but in the quarry as well.

Even if SA killed TA and burned her remains at the quarry, there is no reason on earth he would then move them to the burn pit. And if he burned them in the burn pit, why oh why would he take a couple of fragments and dump them in the quarry? Makes no sense whatsoever.

For this reason, I do think her cremains were planted in the pit. That is, that her remains were burned in the quarry, and then moved to the burn pit. And, whoever moved them, missed the fragments that were later found in the investigation.

If anything, this strongly indicates SA was, in fact, framed for Ms. Halbach's murder. Though it does not indicate who, precisely, moved her cremains.

With regard to the "whodunnit and how," I may post something in the alternate theories thread at some later point. No promises!

That is the part that doesn't make sense. Fine... he burns her in the pit.... goes through the burned remains, picks out some to take to the burn barrel, and then some to the quarry??? This is the same guy that the prosecution claims was sooooo smart to clean up DNA in the garage/trailer/SUV, yet he picks through the bones to move a few here and few there.

The part that nags at me is... Blaine in his very first statement said that he was burning garbage in the barrels, thought it might have been November 3rd, the Thursday, the same day TH was reported missing. If this is true.... the bones in that burn barrel would have to be put in there after November 3rd, by SA or whoever, because the anthropologist testified that all the bones (from all 3 locations) had the same burning/charring consistency (which means to me they were burned at the same time and were moved, whether you believe he moved a few out of the burn pit, or someone moved the majority to the burn pit). If the bones were there when he was burning garbage on November 3rd, I would think that they would have been burned further, or destroyed further (not sure of the right wording LOL) What I didn't find in the testimony was.... were those bones in the barrel at the bottom? the top? were they mixed in? that is pretty important information, and I think that is why an expert should have been on scene IMO

 

[Amber29]

That is the part that doesn't make sense. Fine... he burns her in the pit.... goes through the burned remains, picks out some to take to the burn barrel, and then some to the quarry??? This is the same guy that the prosecution claims was sooooo smart to clean up DNA in the garage/trailer/SUV, yet he picks through the bones to move a few here and few there.

The part that nags at me is... Blaine in his very first statement said that he was burning garbage in the barrels, thought it might have been November 3rd, the Thursday, the same day TH was reported missing. If this is true.... the bones in that burn barrel would have to be put in there after November 3rd, by SA or whoever, because the anthropologist testified that all the bones (from all 3 locations) had the same burning/charring consistency (which means to me they were burned at the same time and were moved, whether you believe he moved a few out of the burn pit, or someone moved the majority to the burn pit). If the bones were there when he was burning garbage on November 3rd, I would think that they would have been burned further, or destroyed further (not sure of the right wording LOL) What I didn't find in the testimony was.... were those bones in the barrel at the bottom? the top? were they mixed in? that is pretty important information, and I think that is why an expert should have been on scene IMO

So that works both ways. If there was someone else moving bones, the same thing is said for them. The point is someone had the opportunity to move bones around no matter what you believe, or who you believe did it. It was done so the opportunity to do so was there.

There was also no DNA from anyone else in her vehicle. So the real killer and the "planter" were able to move about stealthily planting and moving evidence about while leaving no trace of themselves and no one seeing them. It's all absurd to me the same way some think it's crazy SA would leave bones in his burn pit.

 

[1bratmom]

This is my 1st hobby investigation 😊 I'm fairly uneducated in forensics.

I'm can't get over the lack of blood, like a lot of people.

Which brings me to... IF SA only shot TH (just ignoring the throat slashing) but the LE time line TH would have still had blood in her body. She has a gunshot wound to the head. So TH would still be bleeding, I would think, when the body is burned.

If TH was dismembered, there would be blood as well.

I found this article about still being able to detect blood in soil 8 years later.
I thought it was interesting. It maybe easy disproved since it been so long--either way. I think it would have been very helpful to SA during trial.

I can't attach the .PDF it the 1st .PDF on the page. The articles relate as well.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...&q=related:4rzi4LeonPwqCM:scholar.google.com/

http://www.academia.edu/1785361/Chemical_enhancements_for_detection_of_bloodstains
http://www.academia.edu/1785361/Chemical_enhancements_for_detection_of_bloodstains