For Those Who Do Not Think Avery was Framed & Evidence Planted - Discuss

[Limaes]

I think that Zellner is counting on the radiocarbon testing to go her way. If it does then you have one type of test in conflict with another. Old blood that doesn't have EDTA in it. So where did it come from?

She either needs to prove that the FBI test for EDTA is wrong or somehow prove that LE had another source Avery's "old" blood to plant in the RAV4.

It doesn't end with a Radiocarbon test result in my opinion.

JMO

For arguments sake, lets just say that KZ somehow manages to receive the tests results she hopes. That is not going to free him because it doesn't void the EDTA test. It will only result in further testing. Add that to explaining the bullet fragment with Teresa's DNA and SA's DNA on the hood latch, she won't come anywhere near freeing him. Refusing to do interviews where she has to answer the hard questions, or any questions, reeks of a lack of confidence in the "tsunami" of evidence she claims to have JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

I can't believe Zellner passed on an opportunity to appear on Dateline, on a show devoted to her client's case. I've never seen Zellner shy away from the cameras, ever.

Instead she wrote a response, and sent that and refused to appear where she could advocate for her client to all the millions watching--a tactic she is known for and fond of using. Of course she would have been questioned by the show host too--not something she's been afraid of before.

Zellner has asserted multiple times that she "already has proof of evidence being planted, SA being framed..." yet she's allowed her client to marinate in prison all those additional months and now over a year. She's never shown anything, no evidence of planting, no evidence of framing, no conspiracy. Where exactly is this proof that she claims to already have?

 

[Madeleine74]

Zellner also has said she's "going to demonstrate how planting occurred." That's the word she used.

A demonstration is not what's needed. Anyone can "demonstrate" an act of planting evidence, but that doesn't prove a thing. What she needs to show is proof of planting.

 

[Karinna]

Zellner also has said she's "going to demonstrate how planting occurred." That's the word she used.

A demonstration is not what's needed. Anyone can "demonstrate" an act of planting evidence, but that doesn't prove a thing. What she needs to show is proof of planting.

: to show clearly <demonstrate a willingness to cooperate> <must demonstrate mastery of the subject matter in order to pass the class> <The police demonstrated calm restraint during the riot.>

2
a : to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence <crowded classrooms that demonstrate the need for more schools in the area>
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrate

 

[CoolJ]

I think that Zellner is counting on the radiocarbon testing to go her way. If it does then you have one type of test in conflict with another. Old blood that doesn't have EDTA in it. So where did it come from?

She either needs to prove that the FBI test for EDTA is wrong or somehow prove that LE had another source Avery's "old" blood to plant in the RAV4.

It doesn't end with a Radiocarbon test result in my opinion.

JMO

No you will not have one type of test in conflict with another. You will have two different tests testing for different things. There will be no conflict. If the blood is too old it is too old....That is evidence of planting and will be enough in itself to overturn the conviction. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

No you will not have one type of test in conflict with another. You will have two different tests testing for different things. There will be no conflict. If the blood is too old it is too old....That is evidence of planting and will be enough in itself to overturn the conviction. JMO

I disagree. If there's no EDTA in the blood it means it didn't come from the vial that LE had access to. Zellner will have to explain that. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

: to show clearly <demonstrate a willingness to cooperate> <must demonstrate mastery of the subject matter in order to pass the class> <The police demonstrated calm restraint during the riot.>

2
a : to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence <crowded classrooms that demonstrate the need for more schools in the area>
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrate

The part of the definition that say's "evidence" is what's relevant to a court of law. Zellner has to provide "proof" by way of "evidence" that LE planted evidence in this case. JMO

 

[CoolJ]

I disagree. If there's no EDTA in the blood it means it didn't come from the vial that LE had access to. Zellner will have to explain that. JMO

No, those in the chain of custody will have to explain that.

They will have to explain why the blood they collected from a crime scene in 2005 was drawn from SA in say the late 1980's

 

[Deleted member 39678]

No, those in the chain of custody will have to explain that.

I would think that the State could argue that the test was invalid if it doesn't fit with the EDTA test. If it's proven the chain of custody is broken then anything tested from it would be invalid. Add that to evidence that Zellner would need to present to the court. She can't just tweet her way through this, she needs evidence. JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

On October 31 2005 at 2:30pm there would have been no evidence of SA or his blood inside TH's SUV as she had not yet arrived at the salvage yard and SA had never before been in TH's SUV. And there was no blood and bloody hair evidence of TH in her own SUV as she was still alive and well.

On the day the SUV was found in the Avery yard, partially hidden by debris, a hood, tree branches, and 1 or more boards, blood was in the SUV--that from the victim herself, and some blood spots and a smear from SA.

The SUV had been left locked, testimony was no one opened the SUV, Brutus the K9 signaled he detected the scent of human remains/decomp, and that SUV was loaded up on a transport trailer and transported directly to the state crime lab for processing, with no one opening the SUV. This is all in detailed testimony.

The blood in the SUV contained no EDTA, so that blood did not come from the test tube stored years earlier in a vial that contained EDTA and used to exonerate SA from his prior incarceration.

After his conviction SA claimed his brothers set him up and framed him. He explained how: he said (one of) his brothers must have gotten a hold of a rag that he (SA) bled onto and then used that rag to plant blood in TH's SUV. In that explanation SA inadvertently provided a 'tell' of how he managed not to get fingerprints inside the SUV--he used a rag to absorb some (but not all) of his blood. That comes straight from the mouth of SA. SA's blood on rag explanation doesn't explain the blood drops, just the blood swipe near the ignition. SA coincidentally had cut the side of his middle finger and it was a fairly deep cut that had just started to scab over (that would explain dripping blood). So SA has put himself bleeding at the time of TH's disappearance, into a rag, that somehow his brothers obtained and used to frame him. SA implicated himself by connecting bleeding finger, rag and SUV.

There is no known chain of custody issue for the SUV. There is no known chain of custody issue for the biological samples obtained from the SUV.

- TH's blood was not planted.
- There has been no proof provided that SA's blood was planted.

The blood aging test will not erase all the other evidence, nor will it prove LE planted or framed SA.

 

[Limaes]

I can't believe Zellner passed on an opportunity to appear on Dateline, on a show devoted to her client's case. I've never seen Zellner shy away from the cameras, ever.

Instead she wrote a response, and sent that and refused to appear where she could advocate for her client to all the millions watching--a tactic she is known for and fond of using. Of course she would have been questioned by the show host too--not something she's been afraid of before.

Zellner has asserted multiple times that she "already has proof of evidence being planted, SA being framed..." yet she's allowed her client to marinate in prison all those additional months and now over a year. She's never shown anything, no evidence of planting, no evidence of framing, no conspiracy. Where exactly is this proof that she claims to already have?

And none of her supporters question it, however, they claim RH not going on the show is because he has something to hide. They've had 14 months to show what it is he is apparently hiding but have failed. Why would RH need to go on the show? SA's appeal has nothing to do with him. KZ on the other hand chose to publically deal with this case on Twitter and used it to muddy the waters and make outrageous claims. In my opinion, it is long past due that she step out from behind her keyboard and put herself in the same hot seat she puts others in. The time is Tick Tocking away until the inevitable moment of truth arrives and she has no choice but put up or shut up. JMO

 

[Limaes]

Zellner also has said she's "going to demonstrate how planting occurred." That's the word she used.

A demonstration is not what's needed. Anyone can "demonstrate" an act of planting evidence, but that doesn't prove a thing. What she needs to show is proof of planting.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Since December 2015 it has been a constant "could have" "maybe" or "police are corrupt...can't prove it though". It might keep the conversation going amongst case enthusiasts. It's not going to fly in court. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Since December 2015 it has been a constant "could have" "maybe" or "police are corrupt...can't prove it though". It might keep the conversation going amongst case enthusiasts. It's not going to fly in court. JMO

One of my favorites is "Isn't that suspicious?". For one thing that can be very subjective and number two it's not evidence. JMO

 

[Limaes]

Or..."how many coincidences" while expecting people to believe that someone coincidentally found out she was at his house that day and used that knowledge to murder her. JMO

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Or..."how many coincidences" while expecting people to believe that someone coincidentally found out she was at his house that day and used that knowledge to murder her. JMO

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

There are a few words and phrases that I see used frequently in the defense of Avery. The problem I have is they are either very ambiguous or carry little weight on there own.

I need evidence not suspicions. JMO

 

[Saul Vesalot]

I disagree. If there's no EDTA in the blood it means it didn't come from the vial that LE had access to. Zellner will have to explain that. JMO

Incorrect. The state is the one making the claim that the blood got there fresh from the tap on one particular night. If the blood is too old for that, then that is something the state will have to explain. Zellner does not need to know where it came from, if it is older than the murder then it could not have gotten there during the murder and unless the state can come up with some way Steven's blood got there before the murder occurred, then that would be a good a very strong case for planting.

The vial is the most obvious source , but if it is older than that, that hypothesis is wrong, but in no way does it support the state's case- it absolutely refutes it- if it is too old to belong to come from the vial it is too old to have gotten there on the night of the murder. If it is too old to come from the vial, Zellner is incorrect on that guess, but it is a big hole in the prosecution's case they will have one heck of a time explaining. If Zellner can explain it (who knows maybe there is another vial out there :shrugs), then that would be a cherry on the icing on the cake, but there is no onus on her to explain it.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Incorrect. The state is the one making the claim that the blood got there fresh from the tap on one particular night. If the blood is too old for that, then that is something the state will have to explain. Zellner does not need to know where it came from, if it is older than the murder then it could not have gotten there during the murder and unless the state can come up with some way Steven's blood got there before the murder occurred, then that would be a good a very strong case for planting.

The vial is the most obvious source , but if it is older than that, that hypothesis is wrong, but in no way does it support the state's case- it absolutely refutes it- if it is too old to belong to come from the vial it is too old to have gotten there on the night of the murder. If it is too old to come from the vial, Zellner is incorrect on that guess, but it is a big hole in the prosecution's case they will have one heck of a time explaining. If Zellner can explain it (who knows maybe there is another vial out there :shrugs), then that would be a cherry on the icing on the cake, but there is no onus on her to explain it.

My post is not incorrect. Yours doesn't belong on this thread. Read the title.

I've made my points clear and have backed them up with links. I have no problem with other members not agreeing with me but I'm tired of defending myself over and over against people who believe LE planted evidence in this case. I'm done.

 

[Madeleine74]

My post is not incorrect. Yours doesn't belong on this thread. Read the title.

I've made my points clear and have backed them up with links. I have no problem with other members not agreeing with me but I'm tired of defending myself over and over against people who believe LE planted evidence in this case. I'm done.

:goodpost:

Ranch,

You are correct!

And of course we know after conviction the burden of proof shifted to the convicted killer. Since Avery already had 1 appeal fail and the WI State Supreme Court refused to hear his case, his options are limited.

The state doesn't have to prove SA's guilt as that was done in the trial and reaffirmed by the appeals court. Zellner earlier declared she was going for full exoneration, not a new trial. Zellner said it was LE who 'planted' evidence. She needs to prove evidence was planted and it was LE who did it and she has to convince a panel of judges her client is innocent.

 

[Madeleine74]

And none of her supporters question it, however, they claim RH not going on the show is because he has something to hide. They've had 14 months to show what it is he is apparently hiding but have failed. Why would RH need to go on the show? SA's appeal has nothing to do with him. KZ on the other hand chose to publically deal with this case on Twitter and used it to muddy the waters and make outrageous claims. In my opinion, it is long past due that she step out from behind her keyboard and put herself in the same hot seat she puts others in. The time is Tick Tocking away until the inevitable moment of truth arrives and she has no choice but put up or shut up. JMO

Amen! Allegations, speculation, and finger pointing will not help Avery. Agree it's time to put up or shut up.

 

[CoolJ]

If i am to believe that SA was "not framed or evidence planted" and the testing on the blood comes back too old then I would also have to believe that Steven Avery has access to time travel. Lets say the blood comes back as being drawn in lets just say 1989.
Please explain to me how blood from 1989 would end up on a crime scene in 2005??

If that is the results of this one test out of many, and the testing is scientifically valid, Avery is a free man without a new trial. And an investigation into the chain of custody of that evidence will be opened. Simple as that.

Chain of custody is going to be big here. If the premise here in this thread is wrong and there was framing and planting, someone in that chain of custody is going to be shown to have access to SA's blood.

This is what Zellner means when she says she will demonstrate how the blood was planted.