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

[dexter75]

I haven't even referenced or cited MaM, because I have no practical way to do it. I don't link to video clips from the documentary.

I get all my citations from written documentation.

Anyone who tries to criticize my judgements for 'blindly following Netflix' is barking up the wrong tree.

As for Steven's suspicion of LE framing him for a crime against Teresa, I agree with missy1974 that it seems like an obvious conclusion for him to draw. Steven and these cops were up to their eyeballs in a lawsuit involving a frame up job that landed him in prison. Not the sort of thing that would be far from his mind - it was a big deal. I just don't get how anyone can dismiss this lawsuit as being one of the uppermost things in the minds of everyone involved.

MOO

Well stated😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[IDK]

The way I see it, they have to keep rehashing that tired old "MaM used VuDoo" argument because they've got a lot of" nothing much" to work with.

In the actual case files, there is enough evidence that something shady went down to choke a horse. But staunch refusal to see, ALL LE, as anything BUT *White Knights* means sometimes, (over & over again in this case!), falling back on shooting the messenger...

And grasping at bath towel's that turn into wash clothes.., Paying for and revering writings of a sadomasochistic criminal, (with possible necrophiliac tendencies!)... They've got a whole cast of miserable examples of integrity, to quote in support of their LE Nirvana...

I can't wait to hear their fanciful tales of trickery, used by Zellner, when SA & BD walk free.

Couldn't agree more. As for the bolded above, they don't have "caca" as those in the other thread so inelegantly put it. :laughing:

 

[proudfootz]

For all the contention that Steven's recorded phone calls with JS while she was in jail, and with his family while he was in jail, it is interesting that there is nothing the least bit suggestive of his guilt or the least bit threatening (he's supposed to be a fearsome person who runs things by terrorizing his family) that anyone can point out.

There must have been hours of this stuff and the State did not use any of it AFAICT in their efforts to pin any crime on Steven. Another case of no there there.

All JMO

 

[missy1974]

For all the contention that Steven's recorded phone calls with JS while she was in jail, and with his family while he was in jail, it is interesting that there is nothing the least bit suggestive of his guilt or the least bit threatening (he's supposed to be a fearsome person who runs things by terrorizing his family) that anyone can point out.

There must have been hours of this stuff and the State did not use any of it AFAICT in their efforts to pin any crime on Steven. Another case of no there there.

All JMO

There are some new documents that have been released. Easiest way to find them is from here: https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockMa...est_batch_of_dassey_trial_records_now_online/

It's interesting how things can be interpreted differently.

In this document: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...ments-Motion-in-Limine-Series-II_redacted.pdf I read it and find myself thinking the 'false memory' of the fire seems like it is even more of a possibility to me.

And this:
I. The March 2, 2006, statements in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to
Dolores Avery and Barb Janda in which Steven Avery told Dolores Avery that it was Barb's
fault for letting Brendan talk to the cops.

^^^^ how many times have some of us said or thought this in the last year and a half? Barb DID allow them to talk to BD without her or anyone smarter than her in there. A vulnerable teenager and you allow him to talk to the cops... more than once... without you??? Yep, it was Barb's fault. Sorry, not sorry.

J. The March 9, 2006, statements in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to
Dolores Avery and Barb Janda wherein Steven Avery told Dolores and Barb to call Brendan's
lawyer and say that the police forced Brendan to say it.

^^^^^ is this after LK was all over the news saying how BD was responsible BEFORE even talking to his client? Didn't BD already at this point say he had lied and what he said to the cops was a lie???

If these calls were so convincing of SA and BD's guilt, why were they not played in court?

 

[IDK]

There are some new documents that have been released. Easiest way to find them is from here: https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockMa...est_batch_of_dassey_trial_records_now_online/

It's interesting how things can be interpreted differently.

In this document: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...ments-Motion-in-Limine-Series-II_redacted.pdf I read it and find myself thinking the 'false memory' of the fire seems like it is even more of a possibility to me.

And this:
I. The March 2, 2006, statements in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to
Dolores Avery and Barb Janda in which Steven Avery told Dolores Avery that it was Barb's
fault for letting Brendan talk to the cops.

^^^^ how many times have some of us said or thought this in the last year and a half? Barb DID allow them to talk to BD without her or anyone smarter than her in there. A vulnerable teenager and you allow him to talk to the cops... more than once... without you??? Yep, it was Barb's fault. Sorry, not sorry.

J. The March 9, 2006, statements in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to
Dolores Avery and Barb Janda wherein Steven Avery told Dolores and Barb to call Brendan's
lawyer and say that the police forced Brendan to say it.

^^^^^ is this after LK was all over the news saying how BD was responsible BEFORE even talking to his client? Didn't BD already at this point say he had lied and what he said to the cops was a lie???

If these calls were so convincing of SA and BD's guilt, why were they not played in court?

Hi Missy, I hope things are settling down with your family member's illness. I know how hard that can be on the whole family.

I absolutely agree with you and Proudfootz. Those recorded phone calls can be interpreted many different ways. If they were proof of anything, they would have been played in court, IMO. I guess the prosecution didn't feel the need to include them because they were no where near as damning as all the PLANTED evidence: the key, the bones, the blood in the RAV and who knows what else. Oh, let me not forget to add: a false confession! oops, forgot to add: IMO!!!

 

[proudfootz]

Just a quick question:

Anybody have any idea how a documentary program like 'Forensic Files' can be in production for 20 years even though there's no market (I'm told) for programs where police bust and convict someone who's really guilty of the crimes they are accused of?

Asking for a friend.

 

[proudfootz]

Good post proudfootz & i totally agree. I haven't ever watched the MAM series either, but from sourced documentation, and it is mindboggling how people disregard the obvious in this case. Talk about having blinders on, lol.

Just to keep the record straight, I did watch the documentary. I only meant to say that I don't cite is as 'evidence' and that it wasn't the documentary that persuaded me that Steven was most likely innocent of any crimes against Teresa.

Far from being 'hypnotized' or 'brainwashed' about the guilt or innocence of Steven I was on the fence for a while until I did more research outside of the documentary. If the intent of the film was to deceive me into taking a stand (I know it wasn't), it was a spectacular failure in that regard.

MOO, as usual.

 

[Karinna]

Just to keep the record straight, I did watch the documentary. I only meant to say that I don't cite is as 'evidence' and that it wasn't the documentary that persuaded me that Steven was most likely innocent of any crimes against Teresa.

Far from being 'hypnotized' or 'brainwashed' about the guilt or innocence of Steven I was on the fence for a while until I did more research outside of the documentary. If the intent of the film was to deceive me into taking a stand (I know it wasn't), it was a spectacular failure in that regard.

MOO, as usual.

Fair enough. I think the main thing that convinces me of SA's innocence is the hugely incompetent way this case was handled, apart from the fact SA had been set up before. Plus there was plenty of motive to set him up a second time because of the civil case and other reasons that SA himself had mentioned.
But it's all a conspiracy of those that don't believe he's guilty dontcha know,

 

[IDK]

Fair enough. I think the main thing that convinces me of SA's innocence is the hugely incompetent way this case was handled, apart from the fact SA had been set up before. Plus there was plenty of motive to set him up a second time because of the civil case and other reasons that SA himself had mentioned.
But it's all a conspiracy of those that don't believe he's guilty dontcha know,

So true! I never watched the whole documentary either, just the first few episodes. I read articles about the cat incident and was disgusted with SA. Then I started reading the actual files and evidence. I realized that the cat is not proof of anything to do with TH. Any prior bad act of SA's is not proof of wrong doing in this case. All we have to go by are the case files and the shady investigation. I love how those who deride the documentary are so enamored of KK's book and everything in the popular media which has been written about the case, HLN, etc. Sorry, but those shows are pure entertainment and I have to laugh that some think they are so much better informed by watching those shows than anyone who watched the documentary. It's hilarious, actually.

edited to add: I know it's meant as a supreme insult that ***gasp*** I watched the documentary. I think most thinking adults are able to discern biases in shows they watch, books they read, etc. For example, I would certainly hope that those who read Kratz's book are able to discern his motivations and lack of transparency. But then again, he hoodwinked an entire jury, so there's that. IMOO!!!!!

 

[proudfootz]

So true! I never watched the whole documentary either, just the first few episodes. I read articles about the cat incident and was disgusted with SA. Then I started reading the actual files and evidence. I realized that the cat is not proof of anything to do with TH. Any prior bad act of SA's is not proof of wrong doing in this case. All we have to go by are the case files and the shady investigation. I love how those who deride the documentary are so enamored of KK's book and everything in the popular media which has been written about the case, HLN, etc. Sorry, but those shows are pure entertainment and I have to laugh that some think they are so much better informed by watching those shows than anyone who watched the documentary. It's hilarious, actually.

edited to add: I know it's meant as a supreme insult that ***gasp*** I watched the documentary. I think most thinking adults are able to discern biases in shows they watch, books they read, etc. For example, I would certainly hope that those who read Kratz's book are able to discern his motivations and lack of transparency. But then again, he hoodwinked an entire jury, so there's that. IMOO!!!!!

BBM

Some people are very upset by this documentary, and on other sites I've seen people be dismissive of documentaries in general (ironically, some of these same people are fans of Nancy Grace!).

I guess I'm supposed to be apologetic because I'm interested in history, and science, and social issues which are often the subjects of documentary film makers. But I don't think I'm going to change my ways at this late date and stop reading non-fiction, listening to historians, and watching programs about real life events.

 

[Karinna]

So true! I never watched the whole documentary either, just the first few episodes. I read articles about the cat incident and was disgusted with SA. Then I started reading the actual files and evidence. I realized that the cat is not proof of anything to do with TH. Any prior bad act of SA's is not proof of wrong doing in this case. All we have to go by are the case files and the shady investigation. I love how those who deride the documentary are so enamored of KK's book and everything in the popular media which has been written about the case, HLN, etc. Sorry, but those shows are pure entertainment and I have to laugh that some think they are so much better informed by watching those shows than anyone who watched the documentary. It's hilarious, actually.

edited to add: I know it's meant as a supreme insult that ***gasp*** I watched the documentary. I think most thinking adults are able to discern biases in shows they watch, books they read, etc. For example, I would certainly hope that those who read Kratz's book are able to discern his motivations and lack of transparency. But then again, he hoodwinked an entire jury, so there's that. IMOO!!!!!

Good points IDK. From what i read it's people who lack critical thinking skills.
I think most are open to whatever scenario might have happened in this case, and then the people that have made up their mind that won't look at anything else aside from that. It's a narrow mindedness. But IMO we definitely aren't been told the Truth.
As far as KK goes he is a criminal for violating his position as a supposed professional from what we know about him, and resorted to unconstitutional and dirty tactics in the SA case. All IMO.

 

[dexter75]

So true! I never watched the whole documentary either, just the first few episodes. I read articles about the cat incident and was disgusted with SA. Then I started reading the actual files and evidence. I realized that the cat is not proof of anything to do with TH. Any prior bad act of SA's is not proof of wrong doing in this case. All we have to go by are the case files and the shady investigation. I love how those who deride the documentary are so enamored of KK's book and everything in the popular media which has been written about the case, HLN, etc. Sorry, but those shows are pure entertainment and I have to laugh that some think they are so much better informed by watching those shows than anyone who watched the documentary. It's hilarious, actually.

edited to add: I know it's meant as a supreme insult that ***gasp*** I watched the documentary. I think most thinking adults are able to discern biases in shows they watch, books they read, etc. For example, I would certainly hope that those who read Kratz's book are able to discern his motivations and lack of transparency. But then again, he hoodwinked an entire jury, so there's that. IMOO!!!!!

I love this post😊❤

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Good points IDK. From what i read it's people who lack critical thinking skills.
I think most are open to whatever scenario might have happened in this case, and then the people that have made up their mind that won't look at anything else aside from that. It's a narrow mindedness. But IMO we definitely aren't been told the Truth.
As far as KK goes he is a criminal for violating his position as a supposed professional from what we know about him, and resorted to unconstitutional and dirty tactics in the SA case. All IMO.

KK resorted to dirty tactics when it came to much more than just the SA case...
Unfortunately he used his position of power & took advantage of women, abused women, who he was supposed to help protect.
( just trying to help keep the facts straight my friend😊 )

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[proudfootz]

One curious thing I've noticed is that some folks claim that Steven was directing Brendan to claim the coerced statements were false.

As I recall in one of the famous videos Brendan immediately recants the so-called confession as soon as his mother enters the room after one of the coaching sessions with police.

There is zero evidence Brendan took a call from Steven between the time the coerced statements and his recantation.

[video]https://youtube/OdDkYSKmdSo[/video]

AFAICT there's no evidence Steven was 'orchestrating' Brendan's immediate retraction of the coerced statements. It's not even clear that Steven knew at this time police were pressuring Brendan to incriminate Steven at this time.

All MOO.

 

[missy1974]

But... SA is such a mastermind, he used mind control proudfootz :biggrin:

I find it amazing that things can be read and interpreted many different ways. I still wonder why if these calls were so damning, why they weren't used?

 

[proudfootz]

But... SA is such a mastermind, he used mind control proudfootz :biggrin:

I find it amazing that things can be read and interpreted many different ways. I still wonder why if these calls were so damning, why they weren't used?

Steven must have used his mutant powers to control the prosecution, too.

Occam's Razor.

MOO

 

[proudfootz]

Elsewhere I have seen documentaries about criminal cases like 'Making a Murderer' described as ''.

Does that mean Web Sleuths is a site because of all the sharing of images and information about criminal matters?

 

[IDK]

Elsewhere I have seen documentaries about criminal cases like 'Making a Murderer' described as ''.

Does that mean Web Sleuths is a site because of all the sharing of images and information about criminal matters?

Yes, I've seen that statement also. Very strange wording, IMO. If they are trying to offend me, it isn't working, LOL.

It might be my imagination, but it seems as if since Kathleen Zellner's most recent tweet, those convinced of Steve Avery's guilt have revved up their efforts to prove their beliefs. What is that quote " The best defense is a good offense"? Good luck with that! IMO of course.

 

[IDK]

I'd like to address the issue that some who believe Steven Avery to be guilty are saying that "big news that proves his guilt" is on the way. If that were true, I honestly believe that Kratz would not be able to keep this to himself. He would be right out in front, leading the pack. (like he did with his infamous press conference) IMO.

 

[proudfootz]

I'd like to address the issue that some who believe Steven Avery to be guilty are saying that "big news that proves his guilt" is on the way. If that were true, I honestly believe that Kratz would not be able to keep this to himself. He would be right out in front, leading the pack. (like he did with his infamous press conference) IMO.

Yes, I agree that if KK knew what this new, conclusive evidence was he'd have revealed it by now. As it is he's only revealed a lot of material that was so insignificant it played no part in the original trial. Rumors, irrelevancies, and trying to wrest sinister meanings out of totally innocuous conversations.

It may be there is something linked to the allegations contained in the jailhouse snitch letter.

As we saw in the coerced and coached statements wrung out of Brendan Dassey, the 'facts' that corroborated the details were either fed to Brendan so that he could repeat them back 'in his own words' (for example that TH was shot in the head) or he was asked about seemingly random things where 'evidence' would shortly surface ('What did Steven do under the hood?' after which the latch on the hood was swabbed and the 'sweat DNA' ascribed to Steven was belatedly found).

It is speculation on my part, but I would not be surprised to discover the story told in the recently publicized letter got a little help from investigators, as in my opinion it seems designed in parts to plug certain 'holes' in the State's narrative of the crime. New evidence from the defense is to be countered by 'new evidence' from the prosecution.

All MOO