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

its for environmental reasons.
Yes, that too. However batteries, the AC compressor, and the pressurized gas tank, when put under extreme pressure, can most certainly explode.
 
Why do you think, in your opinion, if you have thought about this

did LE keep the coroner away,
nearly all photo's of bones and/or the " pit " are non existent,
why no EXPERT examination of crime scene and bones before they were moved? Even first responders ( so to speak ) wouldn't photograph. When asked why, they responded with something like the crime scene had been altered.

I DO value your opinion & knowledge when it comes to such things =) I am asking because of you saying the cremains were a big deal for you. Wondering what your take is on this? Thanks!

I have thought about it, especially after reading Mr. Ertl's testimony (page 115 of Day 6). But not in any meaningful way. That is, my knowledge of crime scene processing is basically, zero.

So, the sorts of thoughts that came to mind when reading that, it seemed like they totally swarmed the place and bumbled the crime scene left and right.

You know, something like, "Hey, Billy Joe Bob, bring that back hoe over here, I think we got something. Oh and, while you're at it, grab me a cold one, woudja!."

Btw, and aside, another thing I found odd, was the "pinkish" substance the found in the Quarry (across from where the school bus stops) that tested positive for blood (page 34 of Day 6). Yet, it does not appear to be mentioned again.
 
Yes, that too. However batteries, the AC compressor, and the pressurized gas tank, when put under extreme pressure, can most certainly explode.

I suppose that could happen.
These parts contain toxic substances that could leak into the soil, air and waterways. They're removed because of EPA laws.
Like someone else posted once before, if someone's just commited murder, theyre sure not going to be concerned about saving the environment, so that car would have been crushed in no time.
 
IMO,

Makes no sense..

Let me stick a glove on my left hand and be "so" careful and just wrap the other cuz it's seeping blood/wounded??

I get the glove probably wouldn't fit over a rag, however to think " I need gloves " wouldn't he do a better job than a rag?

But then of course this makes sense for the DNA but no print theory, IMO

Nope - as a scenario, that really doesn't make any sense to me either.
Not that it necessarily has to. SA doesn't strike me as the most intelligent or organised, so if he's responsible the pertinent question is whether it made sense in his mind, not ours . . . It still seems a ludicrous thought process for anyone though LOL

IMO there are other more rational possibilities.
If we look at this logically, we have :

- A recreation of the blood smear from the outer part of a right hand, which does look incredibly similar to the original.
- The blood smear in a location that feasibly could be touched by that part of the hand if somebody was fumbling with a key in the ignition.
- Insufficient blood elsewhere in the car to support an exposed free flowing cut on the finger (i.e. If it was bleeding heavily enough to drip over the palm to that part of the hand, I can't see how there wouldn't be blood smears all over the steering wheel and in far more places on the vehicle than were discovered)
- An absence of corresponding finger prints.

That leads me to believe that the fingers and part of the palm of the affected hand were covered up - wrapped in a rag/cloth is still my best guess.

As for the left hand? Complete speculation here and I don't think we'll ever have evidence to support any of this, but the scenarios I was envisaging were :
(In order of what I consider most plausible)

> Originally wearing gloves on both hands and injures finger on right hand while gloves are in place. Tears glove off to inspect the cut and grabs something to wrap around his hand to stem the bleeding. Doesn't bother replacing glove or removing glove from left hand.

> No gloves involved. Has something wrapped around right hand to stem the bleeding from the cut, hence no fingerprints and limited blood from that hand. Being right handed, contact from the left hand is limited anyway, but being somewhat concerned about fingerprints he pulls a sleeve down over that hand before touching essential bits of the car.

> No gloves involved and no attempt to cover up or prevent bleeding. He does a cursory clean up of the car, but it's dark and he's not overly worried because he intends to crush it. What we see are the bits left behind.

EDIT: BTW with gloves, I'm picturing something like those plastic disposable things that they put by the pumps in petrol stations (in the UK anyway) or that you sometimes see mechanics wear. Not strong enough to offer protection from cutting yourself, disappear in seconds if burnt but enough to prevent fingerprints and I'd guess in plentiful supply at a salvage yard.
 
In the various options considered (regarding gloves), I'm least inclined to believe he was wearing gloves. Holding something in his hand(s), like a rag, would be my top belief. That allows both the leaving of blood from a cut on the top/side of a finger but not leave fingerprints.
 
In the various options considered (regarding gloves), I'm least inclined to believe he was wearing gloves. Holding something in his hand(s), like a rag, would be my top belief. That allows both the leaving of blood from a cut on the top/side of a finger but not leave fingerprints.

You could well be right or there could be yet another explanation that hasn't been proposed yet.
Short of a full confession I don't think we'll ever know the details of this. The important thing to me though is that SA leaving that bloodstain isn't incompatible with the known evidence and there are reasonable scenarios for how that could have occurred.
 
For those of us who do believe in SA's guilt, there's one thing that I'm curious about and would love to hear your thoughts on it.

> Do you think that events actually unfolded as laid out in BD's confession?
> And if not, how much involvement (if any) do you think BD had in the murder?

It's the thing that really disturbs me about this case . . .
 
I think some things transpired the way BD said it. Not all. But it was various things BD said in which investigators went back and looked that led them to find more evidence: SA DNA on the hood latch and the bullet fragment in the garage that had some TH DNA on it. Also, BD mentioned his bleach-stained plants from that evening of Oct 31, something investigators could not have known about. They went to the Janda trailer and BD went inside and retrieved his pants and handed them over to LE.

BD also knew (and apparently saw) a fire in the burn barrel(s) that night as well as the bonfire that evening. SA corroborated the bonfire in his phone call to Barb.

There were things that BD did tell that made me think he saw things that fateful day/night. Further, his behaviors that so upset his cousin that she went to her school guidance counselor office to talk was another thing that made an impression on me. And that cousin mentioning a body on the property, put it in context.
 
i have a question for those who think SA is guilty.. No sure which thread t ask in, so I picked this one :)

What do u think of the prosecution saying she died in the garage in SA case THEN also stating she died in the trailer in BD case only a few months later? sAme prosecutor...
 
The state's premise, or story, if you will, is not considered evidence. Their theory can be believed, not believed, or discarded altogether by the jurors. The state presents evidence through witnesses. The witnesses' answers are the evidence, not the questions asked by either side and not the narrative the state or defense tells in opening or closing arguments. And just as the state's narrative isn't evidence, neither is the defense's narrative. The judge carefully instructs the jurors on what to consider, and specifically reminds jurors that neither opening nor closing by any attorney is evidence.

So, with that understanding, it's also important to remember in SA's trial BD's interrogation was not included, and BD's statements were not included, so it would not make any sense to include statements about the trailer and what happened inside the trailer--there would not be any statements testified about that. In BD's trial, totally different situation where BD's statements did come in and did include what BD said he saw in the trailer.
 
The state's premise, or story, if you will, is not considered evidence. Their theory can be believed, not believed, or discarded altogether by the jurors. The state presents evidence through witnesses. The witnesses' answers are the evidence, not the questions asked by either side and not the narrative the state or defense tells in opening or closing arguments. And just as the state's narrative isn't evidence, neither is the defense's narrative. The judge carefully instructs the jurors on what to consider, and specifically reminds jurors that neither opening nor closing by any attorney is evidence.

Additionally, in SA's trial BD's interrogation was not included, so it would not make any sense to include BD's statements about the trailer and what happened inside the trailer--there would not be any evidence submitted about that. In BD's trial, totally different situation where BD's statements did come in and did include what BD said he saw in the trailer.

Yes, I understand how it works and what happened in both trials ....

i am asking what u think of the two separate places of death laid out by prosecution ... If they ar 100% certain Sa killed her in the garage why change the story for BD case... i am asking what u think now about that, not from the perspective of a jury member might have had at the time.... What do u think know knowing this took place?
 
The state's premise, or story, if you will, is not considered evidence. Their theory can be believed, not believed, or discarded altogether by the jurors. The state presents evidence through witnesses. The witnesses' answers are the evidence, not the questions asked by either side and not the narrative the state or defense tells in opening or closing arguments. And just as the state's narrative isn't evidence, neither is the defense's narrative. The judge carefully instructs the jurors on what to consider, and specifically reminds jurors that neither opening nor closing by any attorney is evidence.

So, with that understanding, it's also important to remember in SA's trial BD's interrogation was not included, and BD's statements were not included, so it would not make any sense to include statements about the trailer and what happened inside the trailer--there would not be any statements testified about that. In BD's trial, totally different situation where BD's statements did come in and did include what BD said he saw in the trailer.

Well said.

Zellner's tweet's aren't evidence either.
 
I don't think the state is exactly sure where TH took her last breath. BD's story had her being attacked both in the trailer AND in the garage. BD said she actually died in the garage after being shot. No one can know this except for TH's killer. There wasn't any blood of TH found in the trailer, so if she was stabbed or slashed, it's not showing up there. There is an area in the garage that was suspiciously cleaned with bleach (and possibly 2 other chemicals according to BD), and there was a bullet fragment with TH DNA on it, so it makes sense the garage is likely connected to the crime.

What I think: it almost doesn't matter which version the state tells, as the evidence and the witness statements are what is important.
 
For those of us who do believe in SA's guilt, there's one thing that I'm curious about and would love to hear your thoughts on it.

> Do you think that events actually unfolded as laid out in BD's confession?
> And if not, how much involvement (if any) do you think BD had in the murder?

It's the thing that really disturbs me about this case . . .

I don't believe BD was involved. I think he overheard the killing being discussed. I'm starting to believe SA and BoD. I think someone else on that property at 2:45 pm is responsible for killing her and let his bro rot in jail. I think it was a Halloween prank by SA and BoD that went too far with one or the other actually stabbing her. I do think SA pulled the trigger.

I also don't think it happened in SA's house and garage. I have yet to hear where SA's ice shack was on that property. He lived in there at one point, so there had to be a mattress in there. It also had a padlock on the door. I'm not sure if she was killed on the 31st--I think it was on the 3rd.

Think about it--locked up in an ice shack for days, LE comes snooping around on the 3rd...oh my gosh, got to get rid of this girl before they find her in my ice shack, (family members originally say the fire was on the 3rd). After LE leaves, shoot her in the ice shack, bring her back to the house and throw her in the fire. I think at one point she was on the garage floor, but that was only until they (meaning BoD and SA) could put her on the creeper to transport her to the fire. I think BD overhead the two talking about it, whether they were aware that he overhead or not, I'm not sure. Could the windows have been open?
 
I think someone else on that property at 2:45 pm is responsible for killing her and let his bro rot in jail.

Yet BD knew info from things seen. There's been no evidence of anyone else involved. BD places himself at the scene both in the afternoon and evening.
 
Yet BD knew info from things seen. There's been no evidence of anyone else involved. BD places himself at the scene both in the afternoon and evening.

I understand, and Shadowraths could speak to this more clearly, I hope....

There is such a thing in psychology called Projection. It is when a person transfers unacceptable thoughts, motives, or impulses to others. An example of this is becoming unreasonably jealous of your mate while denying your own attraction to others. I believe it worked in reverse with BD because of his disability. I believe he transferred those unacceptable thoughts, motives to himself--rather than admitting who he saw (or heard) that actually committed the crime with SA.

Another example, a father says to his son, bye son (lets use Nathan for the example)--bye Nathan. The autistic son says "bye Nathan" --is the son leaving??--absolutely not--but he is actually repeating what he heard. I believe this is the case with BD. He heard the crime details between the 2 individual who committed the crime talking about it, repeated them projecting them onto himself (just as the autistic boy in my example)

I think the disability played a huge role in his confession. When LE questioned him, he wasn't thinking--he was recollecting that previous conversation--except using his name INSTEAD of the person who committed the crime.

In my opinion, and we can agree to disagree on this point, but I believe strongly that BD did not commit TH's murder. I do believe there was someone else other than SA and I believe that person is BoD. I'm anxiously awaiting for the interview between him and LE to become available.
 
For those of us who do believe in SA's guilt, there's one thing that I'm curious about and would love to hear your thoughts on it.

> Do you think that events actually unfolded as laid out in BD's confession?
> And if not, how much involvement (if any) do you think BD had in the murder?

It's the thing that really disturbs me about this case . . .

Some of what he says, yes. At this point, I don't feel that he was the one who physically killed her, but I do believe he took part in the sexual assault of Teresa and getting rid of the body.
 
i have a question for those who think SA is guilty.. No sure which thread t ask in, so I picked this one :)

What do u think of the prosecution saying she died in the garage in SA case THEN also stating she died in the trailer in BD case only a few months later? sAme prosecutor...

Both can be true. For example, she may have been strangled inside the trailer. She could have still had a pulse but was brain dead. They then carry her out to the garage, lay her on the ground and finish her completely with the gunshots.





Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
 
Here's an initials syllabus:

TH = Teresa Halbach, murder victim
MH = Mike Halbach, brother of Teresa
RH = Ryan Hillegas, ex-boyfriend & friend of Teresa
SB = Scott Bloedorn, Teresa's roommate
PS = Pam Sturm, cousin of Teresa
NS = Nikole Sturm, daughter of Pam Sturm

SA = Steven Avery
BD = Brendan Dassey, nephew of SA
BJ = Barb Janda, Brendan's mother
ST = Scott Tadych, Barb's current husband
BoD = Bobby Dassey, brother of Brendan, son of Barb
KA = Karla Avery, cousin of Brendan Dassey
EA = Earl Avery, brother of Steven Avery
CA = Chuck Avery, brother of Charles Avery
JS = Jodi Stachowski, SA's ex-fiance

LE = law enforcement
KZ = Kathleen Zellner, Avery's new defense attorney
KK = Ken Kratz, former special prosecutor who prosecuted SA for TH's murder
PB = Penny Beernsten, victim of sexual assault in 1985, who mistakenly ID'd Steven Avery as her attacker
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
349
Total visitors
447

Forum statistics

Threads
625,812
Messages
18,510,743
Members
240,849
Latest member
alonhook
Back
Top