For Those Who Do Think Avery was Framed & Evidence Planted - Discuss

[dexter75]

You're funny, genuinely. I like it. Keeping it lighthearted and a decent sense of humor is a must, IMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

I hope you put me as undecided Zool :giggle:

 

[Hippiemomof5]

I'm not sure if this is the proper thread for this comment.

Throwing it out there that IF SA is indeed exonerated, does not mean that I like the guy, or WILL like the guy, or have ever liked the guy.
Same goes should he be released on a " technicality " etc.

Hoping everyone here understands, just because some of us want to see " justice served " doesn't mean we LIKE Steve Avery, who he is, or anything he stands for.

Totally agree. I posted in one of these threads about my own father and that really sums up how I feel here too. SA definitely has done wrong in this world. I just can't add murder to that list with the information I've been provided.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I hope you put me as undecided Zool :giggle:

I hope you put me as guilty Zool. :giggle:

But willing to change my mind if something comes to light that proves he's innocent.

 

[missy1974]

So, lately, I've been thinking.... maybe she had something, pictures maybe, that someone didn't want her to have? I'm not talking about the BC pictures, but maybe she had other pictures?

Someone posted elsewhere a few days ago about the electronics found in the barrel by SA's. It seems like they may have been taken apart, and I haven't looked into it too much yet, but come to think of it, they weren't found 'whole'. I don't think they were smashed, only because the screens seemed to be intact, and if they were thrown into the fire whole, I would expect them to be a blob or maybe melted together.

Anyway, it was this that led me to wonder hmmmm .... her purse is gone, the back seats being propped up, and maybe someone took the phones apart hoping that nothing would be able to be recovered.

Would love some input about the camera, phone, pda remains.



other photo's of the above in the barrel can be found at http://www.stevenaverycase.org/photos/ under Photos of Charred Remains and Belongings about half way down.


ETA: Curtis Thomas testified about the parts... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1nzus-fCQcoU0tUbTZJTTQ0c3M/view?pref=2&pli=1 page 52, it's not very long, and not very interesting... but during cross exam, and re-direct, he does say that not all parts are there, but there seems to be a lot that was just not done. Like figuring out what pieces were not there (were they all plastic, meaning they may have melted, and if they were not all plastic, where are those pieces?), they didn't even try to get any info from the flash cards or pda either, which I think I knew, but assumed it was because they were so badly burnt, but this guy makes it seem like they could have tried:

A. We have the capability to remove the actual flash memory chips from devices to read them, if necessary.

Q. But you didn't do that here?

A. No.

And about the PDA:

A. The flash -- It doesn't store it in a separate flash card, as the camera does. It instead uses flash memory that would be contained on the main circuit board.

Q. Okay. And did you make any effort to try and retrieve any of the data from that flash memory on the PDA?

A. No, we did not.

 

[dexter75]

I wondered this same thing a while back Missy. Thought I was just being silly, lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[ZOOL]

I hope you put me as guilty Zool. :giggle:

But willing to change my mind if something comes to light that proves he's innocent.

Your Where Do You think Teresa Halbach Was Killed is very interesting because it allows responders to quantify and qualify their feelings.

If we take the total number of responders as of your latest update (4/20/16), I believe we have 25. Of those 25, we have 11 who believe that Steven killed Teresa. The remaining 14 believe that some other person did it. This breaks down to: 44% Guilty vs 56% Innocent.

However keeping this in mind, and balancing it with the He did it poll percentages -- including the 36.56% Undecideds from the Sticky Poll. My guesstimate now of a Straw Poll Jury for the board may look something like this:

• 4 Guilty (28%)
• 3 innocent (23.8%)
• 6 undecided (48.2%)

Ha ha. Suddenly a 13th juror has appeared!

*Note: In order to understand how I achieved my results you may need to refer to Lawrence Ferlinghetti's book of poety: A Coney Island Of The Mind

 

[missy1974]

Zool ~ that is way too much math and thinking this early in the morning (only 6:43am here lol), so I will take your word for it

 

[BigCityAccountant]

So, lately, I've been thinking.... maybe she had something, pictures maybe, that someone didn't want her to have? I'm not talking about the BC pictures, but maybe she had other pictures?

Someone posted elsewhere a few days ago about the electronics found in the barrel by SA's. It seems like they may have been taken apart, and I haven't looked into it too much yet, but come to think of it, they weren't found 'whole'. I don't think they were smashed, only because the screens seemed to be intact, and if they were thrown into the fire whole, I would expect them to be a blob or maybe melted together.

Anyway, it was this that led me to wonder hmmmm .... her purse is gone, the back seats being propped up, and maybe someone took the phones apart hoping that nothing would be able to be recovered.

Would love some input about the camera, phone, pda remains.

other photo's of the above in the barrel can be found at http://www.stevenaverycase.org/photos/ under Photos of Charred Remains and Belongings about half way down.


ETA: Curtis Thomas testified about the parts... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1nzus-fCQcoU0tUbTZJTTQ0c3M/view?pref=2&pli=1 page 52, it's not very long, and not very interesting... but during cross exam, and re-direct, he does say that not all parts are there, but there seems to be a lot that was just not done. Like figuring out what pieces were not there (were they all plastic, meaning they may have melted, and if they were not all plastic, where are those pieces?), they didn't even try to get any info from the flash cards or pda either, which I think I knew, but assumed it was because they were so badly burnt, but this guy makes it seem like they could have tried:

A. We have the capability to remove the actual flash memory chips from devices to read them, if necessary.

Q. But you didn't do that here?

A. No.

And about the PDA:

A. The flash -- It doesn't store it in a separate flash card, as the camera does. It instead uses flash memory that would be contained on the main circuit board.

Q. Okay. And did you make any effort to try and retrieve any of the data from that flash memory on the PDA?

A. No, we did not.

That's funny, in the CASO reports it states "the specimens were too heavily damaged to recover any data". Page 745. I don't have time to look but does stevenaverycase.org have the FBI report on there?

By the way, I also wondered why the backseats were down. I wonder if they swabbed the latches to pull them down? I don't remember reading that they did.

 

[missy1974]

That's funny, in the CASO reports it states "the specimens were too heavily damaged to recover any data". Page 745. I don't have time to look but does stevenaverycase.org have the FBI report on there?

By the way, I also wondered why the backseats were down. I wonder if they swabbed the latches to pull them down? I don't remember reading that they did.

There is a report... and I actually meant to put the link in. Nothing earth shattering in it. I was surprised to read that there was a way they could have tried... but they didn't try. Maybe it was one of those situations where they weren't asked, so they didn't do it?

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...I-Report-on-Electronic-Device-Examination.pdf

 

[Jaiddie]

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...got-pr-help-after-avery-documentary/83537512/

'Sheriff Got PR Help After Avery Documentary'

Well, I now not only have a favorite FBI Agent, but I have a new favorite reporter too, as he doesn't seem to be afraid to dish the dirt on local officials and agencies like the rest of local media has done. Some little tidbits from the article:

"It worked to Hermann's advantage that some of the national television shows including Nancy Grace intended to produce shows that reiterated the pretrial narrative of special prosecutor Ken Kratz - that Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey were bloodthirsty, deviant, sex-crazed killers."

...so in other words, take a page from Kratz and his March 2nd fairy tale narrative, and re-saturate the public with their untrue "facts" (Nothing to see here, move along everyone). Also, now we know that LE IS prohibited from speaking about this to the media.

"However, the sheriff has restricted others at his department from doing media interviews about the Avery case, including several employees who received special internal recognition letters for their personnel files praising them for their work at the Avery Salvage Yard leading to Avery's 2005 arrest, the USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin determined. The honorees included Lt. Detective James Lenk, Sgt. Andrew Colborn, detective Dave Remiker, and the sheriff's younger brother Lt. Todd Hermann."

My question is, if everything was done on the up and up during that investigation and prosecutions, then why did they have to, basically, hire a propaganda machine to spin things back in their favor if they had nothing to hide?:thinking:

 

[missy1974]

I read the news article when I was at work Jaiddie, crazy eh? And I agree about the reporter, he's the one that wrote the story about the license plates last week too IIRC.

 

[dexter75]

Agree Jaiddie & Missy!,
Investigative reporting sure isn't what it used to be! Most journalists, flock together to chase a good " story " and don't care to dig into the facts of the matter. A great Investigative reporter, will venture out on his/her own and report the truth. No matter what.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Zool ~ that is way too much math and thinking this early in the morning (only 6:43am here lol), so I will take your word for it

I didn't have time to read that this morning, just catching up now. LOL~~~that's even too much math for my brain that early in the morning...LOL

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Thanks for the article Jaddie!

Oh--back to those cell phone records...LOL

That same date, Nov. 3, Colborn recited the license plates for Halbach's RAV4 while on the road. When his dispatcher confirmed the plates belonged to Halbach, a missing person, Colborn quickly followed up and wanted confirmation that Halbach's vehicle was 1999 Toyota. At Avery's trial, Colborn was unable to give his precise whereabouts when he placed the call.
He testified under oath that he was not standing at the vehicle when he called into dispatch.

IIRC, didn't he make that call from his cell phone? If so, wouldn't he be pinging off of a tower? I wonder if that information would still be available? I wonder why the defense didn't think about that? The towers would give an approximately location of where he was when he made that call.

 

[missy1974]

BCA ~ It's one of those things that was either "missed" by the defense, or it could just be that they didn't have any legal grounds to get those records? I have read elsewhere that if that phone was a work phone, there should be records somewhere, but I don't think anyone knows for sure.

It would be interesting for sure. I have wondered before why he couldn't check from his car? he was highway patrol at the time, wasn't he? I find it hard to believe they didn't have some sort of system in their vehicle to run plates?

 

[missy1974]

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...sects-steven-avery-lawyers-strategy/83697770/

Kind of a summary of other articles from this week. I liked this part....

Emails the department provided in response to an Open Records Law request indicate that a "Nancy Grace" show producer and Hermann developed a bit of a mutual admiration society, with the producer encouraging Hermann to provide a bunch of angry emails to be used in a show that painted the department as a victim of the documentary. “I apologize that your department is having to go through this,” the producer wrote, later adding, “I hope that you have been happy with our coverage."

(Here, a bit of me dies. Our job as journalists is to tell accurate and complete stories, not please our sources.)

 

[Jaiddie]

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...sects-steven-avery-lawyers-strategy/83697770/

Kind of a summary of other articles from this week. I liked this part....

:yeahthat: Ha, was just coming here to post this (for that exact reason too, LOL) when I saw you had beat me to it.

 

[Jaiddie]

It seems like, to me anyway, that there are quite a few cracks appearing there in some Manitowoc official's opinions here lately. First, came Kratz admitting to Dr. Drew that BD confession was a false confession that was manipulated by LE (in so many words, because he stuck that "perceived" part in there once he realized what he was saying and how it sounded, IMO). Now, I see this video of Michael Greisbach basically saying the same thing!! (IIRC, I think his stance when the documentary first came out was that they were both 100% guilty) Do they think that if they admit to any injustice to Brendan it will take some of the heat off the Avery case, because some view it as a bigger injustice? Kinda like those verdicts in SA trial where he is found Not Guilty of mutilation charge, so they can find Guilty on the murder charge?

[video=youtube;-ON2cGja8to]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ON2cGja8to&app=desktop[/video]

The pertinent part starts at 37:09:

"Specifically, the Brendan Dassey confession has really troubled a lot of people... the young man who the police basically manipulated, um, into confessing. Uh, it was troubling to me too. I mean I- I think... that case, by the way, is in federal court right now, in Milwaukee, waiting for a decision on that very issue... whether his confession was so coercive that it should not have been admitted into trial. Now, um, Brendan Dassey was, ya know, cognitively limited, extremely so. He seemed like a nice kid. He didn't have prior convictions. Um, his role model was Steven Avery, his uncle. You know, what do you expect. He's not- He didn't have a lot of advantages. Um, and, the police.. were desperate to get him to confess. It was obvious. And they promised him stuff, they manipulated, they lied. The way it works in real world law, most of that stuff is okay for cops to do. Right or wrong, cops can lie to get a confession, when they interrogate. That's what the law is. Should it be? I- I think that, you know, that's above my pay grade. But, ah, for somebody who has never dealt with the system. And is, for somebody who's got some real limitations, a 16 year old, who thinks even if he confesses to a murder he's gonna go back home that day, that's some pretty troubling stuff.


So, there's an example of where this documentary, I think, really can do a lot of good. It can get this discussion going.. which it has. About, wait a second, do we want police officers to be able to be basically, you know, force confessions out of people. Is that what we're about? Or should there be some limitations, where, ya know, they can't lie to cops. It used to be the old days, they can't lie, the cops shouldn't lie, why should the cops be able to lie.


You know, the old days it would be physical duress. Jam 'em up against the side and start, ya know, threatening. But there's a manipulation, a kind of a psychological warfare that can go on and by cops, with people they're interrogating, that is evey bit as bad. And the court, ah- the constitution does not permit that. So every case has its own facts. And what happens is you have to look at, ah, how often has the interviewee, the person arrested, been in front of police? Do they know the system? Do they know how it works? Can they stand up to the police or not? And how bad was the police conduct? So it's a balancing trick, all that stuff. And that's what the court in Milwaukee's gonna have to do on Brendan Dassey's case. 'Cause if his confession's supressed, there's no evidence against Brendan. And he'll, he'll go free, which many people think isn't the end of the world. Um, he, ya know, how dangerous is he really?"

I am going to go and try and find more information on his earlier stance on the Dassey case, because I think it was much different than what he is saying here, IMO. :lookingitup:

​

 

[Jaiddie]

Just posted, two of SA past criminal history complaints:

MTSO report on SA's domestic violence incident with Jodi in 2004:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/MTSO-Avery-2004-Domestic-Violence.pdf

MTSO 2005 Disorderly Conduct report on SA:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/MTSO-Avery-2005-Disorderly-Conduct.pdf

These reports actually don't look that bad for SA at all, IMO. The report on the domestic violence against Jodi, both officers inspected her and found NO physical signs on her to back up the allegations she made against Steven and the officers noted that she was obviously intoxicated and smelled strongly of alcohol. Then with the disorderly conduct report, that didn't even really have to do with SA, just a friend of his who was having a dispute with his neighbor and he happened to bring Steven's name into it. Because his name appears in the report, apparently this means it shows up in the MTSO Activity Log for Steven Avery that I have listed below (on pg.3). I wonder how many other reports that have been showcased by the prosecutors to point to SA criminal history can actually stand up to scrutiny and how much is actually a smoke screen, such as these two reports seem to be?

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Avery-Activity-Log_Manitowoc.pdf