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

[Madeleine74]

No proof of any planting has been shown. That's where things stand today. If we are to believe that planting/framing occurred in this case, there needs to be evidence of it.

One source of blood has been alleged to have been used to plant SA's blood in the SUV--the one his defense team at trial brought into the case.

 

[CoolJ]

No proof of any planting has been shown. That's where things stand today. If we are to believe that planting/framing occurred in this case, there needs to be evidence of it.

One source of blood has been alleged to have been used to plant SA's blood in the SUV--the one his defense team at trial brought into the case.

Absolutely no hard proof has been shown as of yet. As of now, according to the law, SA is a convicted murderer. BD, different story. His conviction has been overturned.

As for the source of blood, Zellner has already told us it may not have been planted the way it was originally thought. Therefore, all of this EDTA talk is no longer relevant. The carbon dating is what will really tell us if there was planting.

Everyone agrees with you. There needs to be evidence. Some of us are just not ignoring the numerous red flags that tells me, as it stands now, there was likely planting of evidence and a frame job and a whole pile of other shady dealings. But I am open to listening to the theories that there was not planting/frame job. Just haven't heard anything that makes sense to me yet.

 

[Madeleine74]

Absolutely no hard proof has been shown as of yet. As of now, according to the law, SA is a convicted murderer. BD, different story. His conviction has been overturned.

As for the source of blood, Zellner has already told us it may not have been planted the way it was originally thought. Therefore, all of this EDTA talk is no longer relevant. The carbon dating is what will really tell us if there was planting.

Everyone agrees with you. There needs to be evidence. Some of us are just not ignoring the numerous red flags that tells me, as it stands now, there was likely planting of evidence and a frame job and a whole pile of other shady dealings. But I am open to listening to the theories that there was not planting/frame job. Just haven't heard anything that makes sense to me yet.

No proof has been shown. Not soft proof, not maybe proof, not sort-of proof, not hard proof. Zero proof exists today. Zellner has said lots of things but has yet to show any proof of planting, framing, or conspiracy.

It's time for the evidence to be shown to prove the allegations. The state had the burden 100% in the trial, now Avery has the burden.

 

[CoolJ]

No proof has been shown. Not soft proof, not maybe proof, not sort-of proof, not hard proof. Zero proof exists today. Zellner has said lots of things but has yet to show any proof of planting, framing, or conspiracy.

It's time for the evidence to be shown to prove the allegations. The state had the burden 100% in the trial, now Avery has the burden.

What could she show at this point in time? There is a process that needs to be followed.

There is a ton of circumstantial evidence that points towards framing. We have been discussing it ad infinitum in other threads, but this isn't the place to discuss that.

 

[Saul Vesalot]

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.

Nothing in this post is actually aresponse to the content of mine.

You are factually incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You were talking about the blood possibly being "old blood", which I take to mean blood older than October 31 2005. If the blood is too old to have gotten there on on that date, that is objectively evidence of planting, unless you want to argue that Stephen's blood flowing through his veins is radio-metrically older in appearance than it should be.

If the blood is "old blood" as you put it, then it was planted, whether it matches the vial or not, if the blood did was not fresh on 10/31/05 (or the days following...cleanup and all that), then it was planted. If it is old and does not match the vial, it hardly matters, though it would definitely be interesting. Zellner does not need to explain it.

 

[Limaes]

Interesting interview. A few details that I was unaware of including that they considered the possibility that she had been taken to Chicago prior to the Rav 4 being found. (More proof they didn't zero in on SA)He also talks about the pinging phone.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/making-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-213238310.html

 

[Karinna]

Threads are supposed to stay on topic. If you believe there was framing, you're in the wrong thread and are off topic. Ranch has repeatedly stated this in a polite and civil manner. Please respect his right to post his opinion without the pile-on posts.

The post wasn't initiated by myself, but by Ranch. I just replied to it so maybe you want to address your post to the right person.

 

[Limaes]

I did.

 

[Karinna]

I did.

Well then i'm not sure what your point of relevency was addressing me? As i said it was just a reply to someone else's post. Didn't know that was forbidden on here lol.
If you have a problem with it perhaps you need to alert a moderator?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Nothing in this post is actually aresponse to the content of mine.

You are factually incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You were talking about the blood possibly being "old blood", which I take to mean blood older than October 31 2005. If the blood is too old to have gotten there on on that date, that is objectively evidence of planting, unless you want to argue that Stephen's blood flowing through his veins is radio-metrically older in appearance than it should be.

If the blood is "old blood" as you put it, then it was planted, whether it matches the vial or not, if the blood did was not fresh on 10/31/05 (or the days following...cleanup and all that), then it was planted. If it is old and does not match the vial, it hardly matters, though it would definitely be interesting. Zellner does not need to explain it.

I guess I wasn't ciear when I said I was "done." That means it's time to agree to disagree. Do not continue to badger me and tell me I'm wrong and you're right.

 

[dexter75]

Interesting interview. A few details that I was unaware of including that they considered the possibility that she had been taken to Chicago prior to the Rav 4 being found. (More proof they didn't zero in on SA)He also talks about the pinging phone.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/making-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-213238310.html

Very interesting, limaes.
I find the comments even MORE interesting😉😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

Interesting interview. A few details that I was unaware of including that they considered the possibility that she had been taken to Chicago prior to the Rav 4 being found. (More proof they didn't zero in on SA)He also talks about the pinging phone.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/making-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-213238310.html

Thank you for posting this interview. Just watched it. It was very interesting.

What MaM didn't show, and subsequently supporters don't consider, is how the case started as a missing person's case. Her friends and brother were looking to see if she had been in an auto accident somewhere, the aerial searches were not focused on only Avery Salvage Yard but covered a much larger area where she was known to have traveled that day.

Then you have Steven caught in multiple lies about TH being at Avery Salvage Yard, which his supporters either pretend never happened or claim didn't happen.

- First SA claims to his brother that the photographer (TH) never showed up.
- Then he later claimed the same thing to Auto Trader.
- The next lie (this one told to police) was that TH did show up, but he only saw her from a window in his trailer and didn't speak to her.
- Then his story finally morphed into he did see and interact with her but she was only there for 5 or 10 minutes and he watched her drive away, to the point where he watched which way she turned.

The filmmakers created a fictional account of the investigation, using answers from certain witnesses at trial and splicing those answers onto different questions being asked. They didn't show evidence that were important parts of the case (eg. items found in the burn barrel, etc). What a con job.

 

[Limaes]

Thank you for posting this interview. Just watched it. It was very interesting.

What MaM didn't show, and subsequently supporters don't consider, is how the case started as a missing person's case. Her friends and brother were looking to see if she had been in an auto accident somewhere, the aerial searches were not focused on only Avery Salvage Yard but covered a much larger area where she was known to have traveled that day.

Then you have Steven caught in multiple lies about TH being at Avery Salvage Yard, which his supporters either pretend never happened or claim didn't happen.

- First SA claims to his brother that the photographer (TH) never showed up.
- Then he later claimed the same thing to Auto Trader.
- The next lie (this one told to police) was that TH did show up, but he only saw her from a window in his trailer and didn't speak to her.
- Then his story finally morphed into he did see and interact with her but she was only there for 5 or 10 minutes and he watched her drive away, to the point where he watched which way she turned.

The filmmakers created a fictional account of the investigation, using answers from certain witnesses at trial and splicing those answers onto different questions being asked. They didn't show evidence that were important parts of the case (eg. items found in the burn barrel, etc). What a con job.

I think this is the best interview he has done, or at least the most informative. I think KK's persistence in speaking out is forcing the tides to start changing along with KZ's reluctance to speak outside of Twitter.

I have been desperately searching for a link to a recent incident concerning a former Defense Attorney. If true, it would be embarrassing. Will keep searching.

Just out of curiosity...how many times throughout history, has greed been the downfall of the high and mighty?

Obviously, everything in this post is my opinion.

 

[Madeleine74]

Recent incident with a former defense attorney?

Sounds intriguing, if it's true.

 

[Madeleine74]

According to Zellner's interviews and prior tweets going back months, up to a year, she claimed to already have proof of planting and framing, yet she has never shown that proof, has not filed for a hearing to present that proof, and continues to let her "innocent" client sit in a jail cell, supposedly having proof already that could exonerate him.

That makes no sense. Who would do that to a client? If she already had proof then why would she need to take even more time and spend more money to test items if she already has the proof?

 

[Limaes]

Could you imagine if Kachinsky had scientific evidence of innocence but did nothing except change his Twitter pic? The massive uproar.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Limaes]

This is the public Twitter page of KK's girlfriend. It looks like she has been under siege by SA's supporters. She is doing a good job of holding her own. There are a few tweets stating that JB was once caught sneaking in a camera when visiting SA. And people still claim MaM wasn't a defense piece smh. JMO

https://mobile.twitter.com/leahmariekk?lang=en

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

JB = Jerry Buting?

Jerry sneaking in a camera to the prison? That's a big no no if he did that.

Wonder why Jerry was visiting SA when he was/is no longer representing him. For MaM 2 perchance. You know the fauxcumentarians are not allowed to film SA; perhaps 'ole Jer was going to help them out, you know, for the sake of creative filmmaking.

IMO there was nothing remotely objective about MaM, I knew that before finding out they spliced several courtroom scenes together from the trial to alter testimony. I find the filmmakers deceitful and contemptuous in furthering an agenda that had nothing to do with looking for the truth. Shame on them for creating fiction.

 

[Limaes]

She doesn't say when it was. It could have been during the trial, I'm not sure. Either way if he stashed it down his pants like she said, it goes to show the level of deception and lack of integrity from JB and the filmakers. Imo, the same level of deception and lack of integrity still exists today. It's all slowly coming out now. Yay!

Also, in the interview I linked to above, KK says that they made another one before this one but refused to let him view it...why? That is why he refused their offer to appear in the Netflix one. They're a diabolical lot. JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

She doesn't say when it was.

She being KK's girlfriend? Or someone else? I'm afraid I'm lost on who 'she' is.

Also, in the interview I linked to above, KK says that they made another one before this one but refused to let him view it...why?

That sure was an interesting factoid brought up. Apparently the film made right before MaM is not available and, from some reports, buried with the intention that no one see it. What could be so bad about their earlier work that they felt they needed to bury it and not allow someone they wanted to participate in MaM see their work to get a feel for their style?

I'll tell you what, I wouldn't have participated in their film con either if I were in that situation. That would have been a huge NO WAY.

Something else I've always found terribly ironic, not just in this case but in other cases too where there is a lot of evidence to support a guilty verdict: supporters of convicted killers commonly complain that their guy or gal was unfairly portrayed and evidence either skewed or outright manufactured to take them down. Yet the same supporters will point their fingers at anyone and everyone, accusing others of all kinds of illegal activity, down to actually being the murderer, and they don't require evidence proving it before they name others and accuse others of misdeeds. Now how about that. Doing the very same thing that they accuse LE, prosecutors, juries, and judges of doing.