MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[missy1974]

Something I kind of forgot about. When looking at who would plant stuff at the Avery Salvage Yard, or near SA's trailer, the same day/evening that TH was reported missing, he was doing media interviews that night and the next day. Anyone watching the news at that point, would know that she was there that afternoon if they didn't already. So really, any random person could have planted the RAV4 on the salvage yard. As for the rest, it was all over the news once the RAV4 was found. Including video of SA's trailer, etc. That Salvage Yard was pretty big and I think they only had a few officers watching it overnight (on each corner of the property IIRC). Could they have snuck on to the property after the 5th? Could LE have planted the blood in hopes that it would secure their case? There is so much information in this case LOL

 

[dexter75]

The hand cuffs again? Really?
Th was not restrained and murdered in that trailer. (I will add IMO but you know I am ROLLING MY EYES!).

I also find it stupefying , (if predictable and sadly, rigid and closed minded), that some people are going with the Ken Krantz version as if it is gospel! We do know there are those who will say SA is guilty, even when he is exonerated. We have seen it before in the Penny b crime. What can you do... No amount of In-Your-Face evidence to the contrary will ever make the blind see...

My own theory, ( of sorts), is that TH encountered her assailant after she left ASY. It is difficult to compose a "simplistic" version of what really went down, because we were not being spoon fed carefully crafted alternatives, like we were the SA did it version.
In fact, much of the other avenues were deliberately obscured leaving gaps in ability to "see" the real picture. Hopefully KZ will shed some light on those deceptions....

What I have to work with is what seems impossible...That a crime took place on SA property. We have NO crime scene! We have the the partial remains of a victim on the property, but no evidence that a murder ever took place there. I find that excruciatingly difficult to over look. ( among other things!).

So my working theory goes something like this:

TH encounters someone after she leaves ASY, be it her ex, who is suspect for reasons that have been well gone over... (Only problem I have with him as a suspect is in all honesty, the dude strikes me as such a wimp, I cant picture him going out there with a gun.)... I have a problem with the whole gun thing, It wouldn't surprise me to learn she was shot after death actually...

But if she was shot and killed, than someone who was out hunting could've done it accidentally... Or she was deliberately killed, for reasons unknown to us, and whomever did that, fell under police surveillance, a deal was struck, SA was EASILY framed, (It did not take a massive conspiracy effort, as some like to claim.), and MCSO jumped all over that investigation to ensure secrecy and conviction of SA.

(I'm exhausted guys...I mailed out a ton of Christmas stuff...yesterday! Yikes. I so suck this season lol!

I wanted to post a more detailed, linear depiction of what I think happened, but I cant get it together just now... sucks that BD will have another Christmas in the joint though!)....

I love this post and you put everything so...perfect❤
I frickin love you Safeguard!!😉❤❤❤

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

.
One would think that there would have been a struggle to get her into the bedroom to cuff her and thus her DNA somewhere in the room..or did SA tarp the floors too. :facepalm:

Exactly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[ILoveDateline]

.
One would think that there would have been a struggle to get her into the bedroom to cuff her and thus her DNA somewhere in the room..or did SA tarp the floors too. :facepalm:

I'm still no further along in the series but I have taken the opportunity, since it's slow at work prior to the holidays, to read up on the case from what's available here on WS. I'm drudging away...

Am I correct that the only evidence of a rape is from BD's confession?

I'm no expert but why the heck would he take her to the bedroom to rape her? Did he light a candle and play soft music too? Rape is usually brutal and spontaneous, where the rapist is likely to attack, knock the person down and rape on the spot. I believe tieing the victim up is done to prolong the desire and fantasy and likely so repeat assaults can happen. This fits with BD's theory but there is, um, to phrase it delicately, a certain amount of cleanup required of both the victim and the rapist. There is no DNA on door knobs, light switches, in the bathroom, on towels, on clothes, etc.

How do both SA and BD rape her and not leave her DNA anywhere?



Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

I'm still no further along in the series but I have taken the opportunity, since it's slow at work prior to the holidays, to read up on the case from what's available here on WS. I'm drudging away...

Am I correct that the only evidence of a rape is from BD's confession?

I'm no expert but why the heck would he take her to the bedroom to rape her? Did he light a candle and play soft music too? Rape is usually brutal and spontaneous, where the rapist is likely to attack, knock the person down and rape on the spot. I believe tieing the victim up is done to prolong the desire and fantasy and likely so repeat assaults can happen. This fits with BD's theory but there is, um, to phrase it delicately, a certain amount of cleanup required of both the victim and the rapist. There is no DNA on door knobs, light switches, in the bathroom, on towels, on clothes, etc.

How do both SA and BD rape her and not leave her DNA anywhere?



Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

We've been asking this very question for a long time my friend😉
Glad you're getting to read some😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

I'm still no further along in the series but I have taken the opportunity, since it's slow at work prior to the holidays, to read up on the case from what's available here on WS. I'm drudging away...

Am I correct that the only evidence of a rape is from BD's confession?

I'm no expert but why the heck would he take her to the bedroom to rape her? Did he light a candle and play soft music too? Rape is usually brutal and spontaneous, where the rapist is likely to attack, knock the person down and rape on the spot. I believe tieing the victim up is done to prolong the desire and fantasy and likely so repeat assaults can happen. This fits with BD's theory but there is, um, to phrase it delicately, a certain amount of cleanup required of both the victim and the rapist. There is no DNA on door knobs, light switches, in the bathroom, on towels, on clothes, etc.

How do both SA and BD rape her and not leave her DNA anywhere?



Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

You are correct. The only "evidence" was from the confession. And when BD wouldn't testify for the State (because he was saying he was innocent and they made him say it), the State actually had to drop the rape and IIRC the kidnapping charge.

I never even considered the "clean up" of themselves. There was no DNA attributed to TH anywhere in the trailer. They literally took the walls, carpet, baseboards. They even looked at the septic tank. They did find SA's DNA, and they found DNA belonging to Jodi, his girlfriend. His girlfriend had been in jail for 2 1/2 months at that point. So the thought that he 'cleaned' everything, just doesn't make sense. You can't sanitize but leave or put back Jodi's DNA IMO. They didn't find BD's DNA anywhere in the trailer either.

I'm happy you have joined us, it's nice to read new ideas and thoughts

 

[Safeguard]

I'm still no further along in the series but I have taken the opportunity, since it's slow at work prior to the holidays, to read up on the case from what's available here on WS. I'm drudging away...

Am I correct that the only evidence of a rape is from BD's confession?

I'm no expert but why the heck would he take her to the bedroom to rape her? Did he light a candle and play soft music too? Rape is usually brutal and spontaneous, where the rapist is likely to attack, knock the person down and rape on the spot. I believe tieing the victim up is done to prolong the desire and fantasy and likely so repeat assaults can happen. This fits with BD's theory but there is, um, to phrase it delicately, a certain amount of cleanup required of both the victim and the rapist. There is no DNA on door knobs, light switches, in the bathroom, on towels, on clothes, etc.

How do both SA and BD rape her and not leave her DNA anywhere?

Is there not some way they could have seen tire tracks, of the RAV being driven, vs. being TOWED, into the position it was found in?





Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

He didn't do it. I mean there's really no other conclusion you can come to. With the totality of everything that we know, that's just not possible. LE even had to make **** up, ( KK's press conference). There is no way, in heck, that SA, committed this murder, without leaving a single bit, of UNPLANTED evidence that he did so!

TH's blood was all over the back of the RAV. WHERE IS THE BLOOD that was surely spilled getting her in there? I want someone to explain to me, how SA lifted her body, from the murder scene to the back of her car, without a so much as a single drop of blood in evidence, ANYWHERE, other than the back of the RAV. ( for starters)...

 

[BigCityAccountant]

He didn't do it. I mean there's really no other conclusion you can come to. With the totality of everything that we know, that's just not possible. LE even had to make **** up, ( KK's press conference). There is no way, in heck, that SA, committed this murder, without leaving a single bit, of UNPLANTED evidence that he did so!

TH's blood was all over the back of the RAV. WHERE IS THE BLOOD that was surely spilled getting her in there? I want someone to explain to me, how SA lifted her body, from the murder scene to the back of her car, without a so much as a single drop of blood in evidence, ANYWHERE, other than the back of the RAV. ( for starters)...

.
..and not to sound gross or sensitive to TH~but~~dripping blood from several stab wounds and a slit throat. Nope~~tarp caught all of that dripping...:facepalm:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Do we know how Teresa Halbach died? I'm confused on why there should be any blood evidence left at the crime scene.

 

[proudfootz]

Do we know how Teresa Halbach died? I'm confused on why there should be any blood evidence left at the crime scene.

BBM

I think that is a major stumbling block - how can anyone be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when we don't know how Teresa was killed, or where she was killed, or when she was killed?

In many of the scenarios floated by the prosecution there are violent acts which would be expected to produce quantities of blood - stabbing, throat slashing, multiple gunshots at close range, etc.

 

[missy1974]

Do we know how Teresa Halbach died? I'm confused on why there should be any blood evidence left at the crime scene.

We really don't know. The skull showed 2 bullet entrance wounds and we know she was bleeding at some point, most likely from her head because her blood was found in the back of the RAV4 with patterns consistent with hair.

But if we believe Brendan's 'story', then she was raped, stabbed, throat slit, hair cut, shot multiple times, which would leave much more than just blood evidence IMO

Merry Christmas Ranch

 

[Deleted member 39678]

BBM

I think that is a major stumbling block - how can anyone be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when we don't know how Teresa was killed, or where she was killed, or when she was killed?

In many of the scenarios floated by the prosecution there are violent acts which would be expected to produce quantities of blood - stabbing, throat slashing, multiple gunshots at close range, etc.

That's the excuse the jury in the Casey Anthony trial gave for acquitting her. The state couldn't tell them how Caylee died so they decided that meant no murder had occurred.

I wonder how prosecutions get convictions in "no body" murder cases. If the victims body is never found,and assuming there's no eye witness, how can the state tell the jury the cause of death? That means to me that if a killer can hide or destroy the body of his victim he should not be arrested and tried for murder. JMO

 

[IDK]

That's the excuse the jury in the Casey Anthony trial gave for acquitting her. The state couldn't tell them how Caylee died so they decided that meant no murder had occurred.

I wonder how prosecutions get convictions in "no body" murder cases. If the victims body is never found,and assuming there's no eye witness, how can the state tell the jury the cause of death? That means to me that if a killer can hide or destroy the body of his victim he should not be arrested and tried for murder. JMO

Unless there is indisputable evidence. For example, Randy Allen Taylor was found guilty in the 2013 murder of Alexis Murphy in Nelson County, VA. Her body has never been found. He was found guilty of first degree murder in the commission of an abduction with intent to defile. Among the evidence found in his camper: bloody shirt, hair extension, torn fingernail. Also, Alexis' DNA was found in the camper.

So no, a body does not have to be found in order to bring charges of first degree murder and to obtain a guilty verdict.
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_0ce64b0c-d21c-11e3-b129-0017a43b2370.html

In TH's case, no evidence of her being in SA's trailer has ever been found. (other than the key found under suspicious circumstances). The trailer was torn apart and checked methodically.

 

[dexter75]

Do we know how Teresa Halbach died? I'm confused on why there should be any blood evidence left at the crime scene.

I always thought shot. The bullets with her DNA in the garage? No
But then where's the bedroom evidence? Sigh..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[proudfootz]

That's the excuse the jury in the Casey Anthony trial gave for acquitting her. The state couldn't tell them how Caylee died so they decided that meant no murder had occurred.

I wonder how prosecutions get convictions in "no body" murder cases. If the victims body is never found,and assuming there's no eye witness, how can the state tell the jury the cause of death? That means to me that if a killer can hide or destroy the body of his victim he should not be arrested and tried for murder. JMO

I don't know a lot about that other case, but in this case I am going to harbor reasonable doubt if they cannot show there was a murder, when or where it took place, or show beyond a reasonable doubt who committed the crime.

This is not to say there is no evidence which might make one suspect Steven Avery of complicity in some crime, but for me there is a considerable gap between suspicion and certainty.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I don't know a lot about that other case, but in this case I am going to harbor reasonable doubt if they cannot show there was a murder, when or where it took place, or show beyond a reasonable doubt who committed the crime.

This is not to say there is no evidence which might make one suspect Steven Avery of complicity in some crime, but for me there is a considerable gap between suspicion and certainty.

So the state must show the cause of death, where the death took place and when it happened for you to say that someones guilty of murder.

I'm not sure I can agree with that.

 

[proudfootz]

So the state must show the cause of death, where the death took place and when it happened for you to say that someones guilty of murder.

I'm not sure I can agree with that.

That's cool. I'm not trying to state in advance what evidence would be compelling in any and all cases, just talking about this specific case based on the information I have.

I'd want to know beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder was committed and that the defendant was beyond a reasonable doubt the responsible party.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

That's cool. I'm not trying to state in advance what evidence would be compelling in any and all cases, just talking about this specific case based on the information I have.

I'd want to know beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder was committed and that the defendant was beyond a reasonable doubt the responsible party.

This I can agree with.

What I can't agree with is what was posted up thread about the cause of death,place of death and time of death being a requirement for a guilty vote by a jury. JMO

 

[proudfootz]

This I can agree with.

What I can't agree with is what was posted up thread about the cause of death,place of death and time of death being a requirement for a guilty vote by a jury. JMO

In this context cause of death would be relevant to whether there was a murder, and time and place of death would be relevant in trying to determine who might be responsible for the crime.

I can't speak for other potential jurors, but those would be points of fact I would be interested in.

 

[scaredtopost]

Great ideas and conversations on this thread. I don't have anything to add ATM, just hoping the wheels of justice speed up a little bit for SA and BD.
Jmo, MOO, etc