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

[dexter75]

.
Oh Hi Missy! :seeya:

Thanks the thread titles sound so similar~~I forget which I should be posting to...I get them confused. Thanks for keeping me straight.

I'm glad I'm not the only one😊

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

I just did a big-ish post on Brutus in the barrels thread. Long story short, he seems genuinely great. Haven't seen much on Loof though. Even if it is not important to the outcome of the case, I'd like to know more about Loof and his findings.

It would be interesting to know more about Loofs findings😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

"The bones were moved. That was admitted. There was a human pelvis found over in the quarry. The bones were in different spots. The body was not burned whole. It's not possible to do that. So you've got the same bone in three different places. You've got only 30% of the bones recovered. You have 29 of the teeth never recovered. The bones look like they were planted. The property was closed down. The coroner from Manitowoc was not allowed on the property and actually was not notified it was a murder -- that violates the Wisconsin statute." - Kathleen Zellner, Press Conference, August 26, 2016

 

[missy1974]

"The bones were moved. That was admitted. There was a human pelvis found over in the quarry. The bones were in different spots. The body was not burned whole. It's not possible to do that. So you've got the same bone in three different places. You've got only 30% of the bones recovered. You have 29 of the teeth never recovered. The bones look like they were planted. The property was closed down. The coroner from Manitowoc was not allowed on the property and actually was not notified it was a murder -- that violates the Wisconsin statute." - Kathleen Zellner, Press Conference, August 26, 2016

The same bone in 3 different places.... I wonder if she was talking about the ilium bone? It was found in the quarry. But an ilium bone was found and sent to the retired anthropologist right away and was determined to be a female human bone. I wonder if it came up somewhere else in reports that we don't have?

Otherwise.... I'm not sure which bone she is talking about? anyone have a clue?

As for the body being burned whole, it's not possible.... I always thought that meant it couldn't have been done in the burn pit like that JMO

 

[Karinna]

The same bone in 3 different places.... I wonder if she was talking about the ilium bone? It was found in the quarry. But an ilium bone was found and sent to the retired anthropologist right away and was determined to be a female human bone. I wonder if it came up somewhere else in reports that we don't have?

Otherwise.... I'm not sure which bone she is talking about? anyone have a clue?

As for the body being burned whole, it's not possible.... I always thought that meant it couldn't have been done in the burn pit like that JMO

Hi missy, i'm not sure what Ms Zellner meant by that because she didn't elaborate on it.
This was the question to her in the transcription:
(quote)
QUESTION: Why did you decide to take this case?

ZELLNER: I decided to take it because I knew that he's innocent. I thought when I watched the documentary, which I did--Steven Avery had contacted me in 2011 when I was on trial in Washington in a civil rights case. But I decided to take it because I think that the crime scene doesn't make sense. A couple other things that make absolutely no sense. There's no mixture of blood in the car. We've never seen that before. None of my forensic scientists have. You have all of Steven Avery's blood in the front, all of the victim's blood in the back. He's supposedly cut and he throws her in the car. So my scientists were saying they've never seen that where there isn't a mixture of the victim's blood along with the alleged perpetrator.

The bones were moved. That was admitted. There was a human pelvis found over in the quarry. The bones were in different spots. The body was not burned whole. It's not possible to do that. So you've got the same bone in three different places. You've got only 30% of the bones recovered. You have 29 of the teeth never recovered. The bones look like they were planted. The property was closed down. The coroner from Manitowoc was not allowed on the property and actually was not notified it was a murder--that violates the Wisconsin statute.

So when I looked at the case, I could see all kinds of problems, but I could also see a lot of evidence that could be tested. Evidence that could be retested. And that we could determine if the evidence was planted. So I thought, "great case,", you know, I want to be involved in it. I met with him 18 times. I'm positive that he's innocent. I won't have to prove he's innocent but I would like to because I absolutely believe that he's innocent

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Thought I would share this, if I didn't know better, I would think they were talking about SA and BD.

Question 2: What was your takeaway with the result of Joseph White's murder trial?
I think that by the time his trial started, the result was a foregone conclusion. The deck had been stacked against him from the beginning. Like most catastrophic failures, which his trial was, there isn't one giant factor that causes the ultimate failure. It's always a series of small failures called compounding or cascading errors that lead to the end results. Had any of these small errors been recognized and addressed early on, Joseph White might never have crossed paths with the criminal justice system.

Question 3: Were you surprised with how the wrongful convictions occurred?
No. This case had all of the ingredients for wrongful convictions. It was a heinous, high profile murder with public pressure to solve it. There was an investigator who only used the "evidence" that fit his hypothesis of the crime while rejecting evidence that did not support his hypothesis of the crime (this is known as confirmation bias). There were supposed witnesses whose stories weren't properly vetted and investigated. There was manipulation of psychologically vulnerable individuals by poor interviewing techniques; suggestible interrogations and sessions; and highly questionable polygraph examinations. Correct forensic science results that were ignored and incorrect forensic serology results also contributed to the wrongful convictions. There was also an overzealous prosecution and a lack of independent investigations by the defense. Finally, the press didn't dig into the details of the case at the time. If they had, they may have exposed the flaws in the case sooner.

http://www.johnferak.com/single-pos...RE-OF-JUSTICE-required-reading-at-law-schools

 

[proudfootz]

Interesting observation:

Witness tells police on Nov 5th about large fire allegedly observed on Avery property on the day Teresa visited to take photos for Auto Trader.

http://imgur.com/t4lu12S

The RAV4 was allegedly found in the morning of the 5th, and this statement was taken shortly afterward.

Is there any logical explanation for why evidence of a fire was not searched for until November 8th, three days later after an officer claims to have tripped over a bone in the grass?

If the presence of a dog on the property was hampering the investigation where time may be of the essence in finding a missing person and possibly saving a young woman's life, it's hard to believe Bear could not be removed by animal control.

 

[Madeleine74]

Is there any logical explanation for why evidence of a fire was not searched for until November 8th, three days later after an officer claims to have tripped over a bone in the grass?

I'm sure there's an explanation and timeline of events, but whether anyone would find it reasonable or not would be the question.

I'm not sure LE should have thought TH's body would be in charred little bits underneath a layer of ash with some bones enmeshed in some steel belts in SA's burn pit. On Nov 3rd when they started investigating they were looking for an alive TH, possibly in an auto accident off the highway. Finding TH's SUV doesn't immediately translate to "there's a body that was burned, and charred remains are in that burn pit way over in SA's back yard."

 

[proudfootz]

I'm sure there's an explanation and timeline of events, but whether anyone would find it reasonable or not would be the question.

I'm not sure LE should have thought TH's body would be in charred little bits underneath a layer of ash with some bones enmeshed in some steel belts in SA's burn pit. On Nov 3rd when they started investigating they were looking for an alive TH, possibly in an auto accident off the highway. Finding TH's SUV doesn't immediately translate to "there's a body that was burned, and charred remains are in that burn pit way over in SA's back yard."

Yes, you're correct - if police were searching for an alive Teresa they would have probably acted with dispatch as time was of the essence.

Their lackadaisical approach would seem to suggest they already knew or suspected the result and already knew that there was no big hurry.

 

[missy1974]

psssssssst IDK... you are more than welcome to post in this thread! bringing over one of your posts from another thread...

Yes it is awful, and multiple experts do see correlations between the use of inadequately studied testing methods of physical evidence.

"According to a 2009 report of the National Academy of Sciences, many forensic science methods are inadequately validated, which means they have not been sufficiently tested to establish how well they work and how often and under what conditions they fail. Avery’s case provides a dramatic example of the uncertainty and confusion that can arise when experts rely on such methods, especially when the court allows the findings to be introduced as scientific evidence at trial."


The EDTA testing was created by the FBI especially for the Avery case. The testing the FBI did showed the results were accurate only 50% of the time.
This is similar to how the DNA testing in the case mentioned above was "fudged" on the part of the prosecution.
I'm not sure how those similarities are not obvious. Perhaps you would like to read more:

Here is the full article:

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...iable-as-you-might-think/stories/201603200003

thanks for posting that! I'm sure I have read it before, but so many months later, it's good to have reminders

 

[dexter75]

psssssssst IDK... you are more than welcome to post in this thread! bringing over one of your posts from another thread...



thanks for posting that! I'm sure I have read it before, but so many months later, it's good to have reminders

Thank you for trying to help keep things going smoothly.
Refreshers are never a bad idea😊
IMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Saul Vesalot]

So, here's a philosophy question:
Does the EDTA test count as framing or planting?
On the surface, it strikes me as No. But if there is no way to verify the validity of the testing, presenting the findings as scientific and conclusive is misleading at best. It is always sketchy and iffy to present non-peer reviewed science as fact, the prosecution doing it in a courtroom setting makes me want to bite someone.

Every single legitimate science experiment makes their methods and procedures available (you won't get published by a reputable journal without this), though not necessarily easy to access. And no, I'm not claiming the FBI is part of a conspiracy, just their EDTA test, as of the time of the trial was completely unverified and unverifiable but presented as if the conclusions were set in stone. Is misrepresentation in this manner framing/planting?

 

[proudfootz]

Like some actions, intent will be decisive in how it is characterized.

Supposing the people who threw this EDTA test together honestly think it is a valid procedure, then I don't think it could count as planting/framing because in my opinion that would require a deliberate effort to deceive IMO.

 

[Karinna]

Regardless of the veracity of the EDTA testing there are some facts i haven't seen mentioned.
As to the timeline i think we can ascertain TH was last seen on the 31st. October 2005.
Her vehicle was discovered on the 5th. November 2005. That is approx. 5 days of TH being missing and her vehicle discovered at ASY.
Now lets look at SA's blood evidence inside the vehicle. In this link you can click on the photos to enlarge them.
http://www.makingamurderer.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Blood_near_ignition.jpg
Check photos No. 2 & No. 4. See the vivid red color of SA's blood that has been there for those 5 days.
Do an experiment at home if you happen to accidentally cut your finger and smear some blood onto a surface and leave it there for 5 days and see what happens.
There is no way in 5 days that the blood would remain such a bright red color,
in fact it would turn a rust/brown color when the iron in the blood is exposed to the oxygen.
This to me proves there was some kind of additive in SA's blood to keep it the bright red color we see in the Rav4 photos. All IMO.

 

[Karinna]

(quote)
The FBI's reports

The FBI's four EDTA-related reports are embedded below.

Until this month, these documents were never publicly posted online and in plain view of outside forensic experts.

Tech Insider has reached out to several scientists to review the documents and offer their feedback.
Trial exhibit 435 — FBI EDTA test
http://www.businessinsider.com/edta...r=AU&IR=T/#trial-exhibit-435--fbi-edta-test-1

 

[missy1974]

So, here's a philosophy question:
Does the EDTA test count as framing or planting?
On the surface, it strikes me as No. But if there is no way to verify the validity of the testing, presenting the findings as scientific and conclusive is misleading at best. It is always sketchy and iffy to present non-peer reviewed science as fact, the prosecution doing it in a courtroom setting makes me want to bite someone.

Every single legitimate science experiment makes their methods and procedures available (you won't get published by a reputable journal without this), though not necessarily easy to access. And no, I'm not claiming the FBI is part of a conspiracy, just their EDTA test, as of the time of the trial was completely unverified and unverifiable but presented as if the conclusions were set in stone. Is misrepresentation in this manner framing/planting?

hmmm I'm not sure! LOL

I would have to say no, but something has to be said about the bias (FBI only does work for LE), if it's a flawed test, not peer reviewed, and of course, they knew what the prosecution wanted as a result (no blind testing).

It still bothers me that no one at the FBI DNA tested to even make sure it as SA's blood they were testing :thinking: LeBeau in his testimony was always clear to say "the swabs that were sent to me" or some variation.

 

[dexter75]

hmmm I'm not sure! LOL

I would have to say no, but something has to be said about the bias (FBI only does work for LE), if it's a flawed test, not peer reviewed, and of course, they knew what the prosecution wanted as a result (no blind testing).

It still bothers me that no one at the FBI DNA tested to even make sure it as SA's blood they were testing :thinking: LeBeau in his testimony was always clear to say "the swabs that were sent to me" or some variation.

Agree
Common sense tells me that if one is going to test the blood of a suspect on trial for such a brutal crime, ( or any crime really ) that the person testing should probably verify the blood they're about to test is indeed the suspects blood as a first step before going any further.
JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CoolJ]

Agree
Common sense tells me that if one is going to test the blood of a suspect on trial for such a brutal crime, ( or any crime really ) that the person testing should probably verify the blood they're about to test is indeed the suspects blood as a first step before going any further.
JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Not allowed to use common sense in this case apparently. Cold hard facts only.

 

[missy1974]

Posting this for CoolJ!

Here is a clip from the show of Colborn:

[video=youtube;KpsRtPCWHoM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpsRtPCWHoM[/video]

Here is the trial transcripts:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Trial-Transcript-Day-7-2007Feb20.pdf#page=187

The obvious one that I am aware of is this portion:

Q. Well, and you can understand how someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at on the back end of a 1999 Toyota; from listening to that tape, you can understand why someone might think that, can't you?

ATTORNEY KRATZ: It's a conclusion, Judge. He's conveying the problems to the jury.
THE COURT: I agree, the objection is sustained.

Q. This call sounded like hundreds of other license plate or registration checks you have done through dispatch before?

A. Yes.

BBM is what was not in the show. I think there are some questions/answer out of order too, but not sure, and it was awhile back that I watched these. Oh, and of course, the call in to dispatch was shortened too in MaM, the full transcript of that call can be found here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Trial-Transcript-Day-7-2007Feb20.pdf#page=181 I know we discussed this stuff months ago, no clue where on these threads though LOL

 

[Saul Vesalot]

Posting this for CoolJ!


Q. Well, and you can understand how someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at on the back end of a 1999 Toyota; from listening to that tape, you can understand why someone might think that, can't you?

ATTORNEY KRATZ: It's a conclusion, Judge. He's conveying the problems to the jury.
THE COURT: I agree, the objection is sustained.

Q. This call sounded like hundreds of other license plate or registration checks you have done through dispatch before?

A. Yes.

BBM is what was not in the show. I think there are some questions/answer out of order too, but not sure, and it was awhile back that I watched these.

Hmmm. I don't know if removing that portion changes things too wildly for the viewer.
It is essentially the same question with the same answer, just not as clear.



All of those "hundreds of other license plate or registration checks" would be done while looking at the plates. The question left in just spells it out explicitly, which is probably done so a broader portion of the audience grasps the point better. I mean, I guess they could have left all of it in, but I don't know, if they left that in something else would have been left on the cutting room floor. I hope some day in the future they release a version where all of the footage is available haha