MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[Limaes]

It was the last sentence in that paragraph that I snipped from the CASO report. Again, page 264

and I guess I should have quoted, but it was in response to your post:



You are wrong. She does state it.

I agree that the report says she stated "whoever was in the the house", but if that didn't include Brendan, she just contradicted herself, or the officer who made the report is wrong. But the statement does not eliminate Brendan from being in the house.

Can you please provide me to a link to where Barb called Steven that evening about the sweater? I know I have heard or read it somewhere, but I can't find it. It isn't in the report I just linked, and I'm pretty sure it's not on the phone records that we do have of Steven's (but she could have called the house phone I guess).

I disagree. Surely you can't acknowledge that BJ seen the two people by the fire and use the fact that she refused to name BD & SA as being those people as proof it wasn't them? ST believed it was them. In all likelihood, it was mistyped and should have read Bobby instead of Brendan, unless you believe it was BoD out by the fire even though those same two people were still there when BoD left for work. BrD recalled overhearing SA & BD talking about BD helping their uncle with something that night around 7.30. I can't imagine who those two people were, maintaining a fire on the property that didn't concern any of them.

The sweater phone call was in one of BD's interviews and I do not recall which one it was. AFAIK SA's landline records are not available although he did call BJ's mobile around 9.20pm but got a busy signal.

 

[Limaes]

Barb said she didn't know who was at the fire, but she says when she came home she talked to 'whoever was in the house' and names Blaine and Brendan. Who else do you think was in the house?.

BARBARA said she returned home at about 7:45 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and told BLAINE and BRENDAN she was going over by SCOTT's house for a while.

BARBARA said when she returned home at 8:00 p.m., she did see a rather large fire, approximately three feet high, in the pit at STEVEN's garage. She said she could tell there were two people standing there; however does not know who that was.

Are you claiming she went over to the bonfire? If she did, then she didn't recognize her own son or his uncle? She didn't see a body in the small fire pit?

No, I am claiming that she lied about not knowing who was at the fire. She wasn't concerned about two strangers tending a fire was she? "BLAINE" and "BRENDAN" should also include "BOBBY" since he was there and his name is left out so I am calling it an error by the Officer who typed it.

 

[Limaes]

Even if we have a bullet hole in a bone, there's no way to match the hole to a bullet, let alone a gun. We can infer such a thing, obviously. But then we are straying off the path of what can be proved into speculation.

It is trial testimony from a credible expert that matched the bullet to SA's rifle.

The only thing connecting the one bullet found in the garage to Teresa is Sherry Culhane's filthy lab, where she can't do a simple test on arguably the most important investigation she will ever do without contaminating it. And let's be generous and give her the benefit of the doubt that she wasn't following the directive of police to 'put Teresa in Avery's garage'.

The same SC that got him exonerated in the wrongful conviction case? If she is so useless and has a "filthy lab", then perhaps she was wrong the first time and he really was guilty? Personally, I think she was correct both times.

The number of times Teresa is shot has crept up to three? Now with one through and through shot that produced no blood splatter and a wound that didn't bleed. Never mind, probably covered the entire inside of the garage with tarps.

Well that is my theory, that I am entitled to considering the thread topic. BD actually said there was more than 3 gunshots, I am just sticking to what fits with the evidence. The bullet could not have gone through bone imo, because of the condition it was in so I feel it went through soft tissue.

It only takes a few minutes of thought to realise that the entire garage didn't need to be covered with tarp, just the body wrapped in it would suffice. Her hair must have been poking out the top to leave the marks in the Rav 4 and also on the rear cargo door imo. Besides, we don't know just what was on that floor that needed to be cleaned up that exact same night they were playing by the fire do we?

 

[Limaes]

Since she also bought sex toys, she was probably bummed she didn't get in on the action and had to work that night - because these Averys are a bad lot.

She worked that night? She doesn't strike me as a murderer so I doubt she would have joined in. Unlike her son, I think she would have attempted to save her. And yes, they are a bad lot aren't they? Or, at least some of them are.

Funny how she tells Blaine and Brendan about her plans to go out, and ALSO tells 'whoever is in the house' - who else was in the house? Police weren't interested to know?

What's so funny about it. The police knew who was there. That is why they interviewed them all.

Why would Barb call Steven to make sure Brendan had a sweater and that he should get home by bedtime? Maybe she thought Brendan might forget it was a school night and knew Steven would be responsible enough to take care of his nephew. This doesn't seem like such a mystery.

But...wasn't BD in the house? [emoji6]

 

[Limaes]

Because his interrogators did not suggest a tarp to him.

IIRC they did lead him to say something about burning the bedclothes.

Well they did find the DF rivets so it is not an unusual question [emoji57]

 

[IDK]

It is trial testimony from a credible expert that matched the bullet to SA's rifle.



The same SC that got him exonerated in the wrongful conviction case? If she is so useless and has a "filthy lab", then perhaps she was wrong the first time and he really was guilty? Personally, I think she was correct both times.



Well that is my theory, that I am entitled to considering the thread topic. BD actually said there was more than 3 gunshots, I am just sticking to what fits with the evidence. The bullet could not have gone through bone imo, because of the condition it was in so I feel it went through soft tissue.

It only takes a few minutes of thought to realise that the entire garage didn't need to be covered with tarp, just the body wrapped in it would suffice. Her hair must have been poking out the top to leave the marks in the Rav 4 and also on the rear cargo door imo. Besides, we don't know just what was on that floor that needed to be cleaned up that exact same night they were playing by the fire do we?

Not sure what you are suggesting in the bolded above. Either there were, or were not bullet holes found in TH's skull. You are saying they only went through soft tissue. How do you explain the discrepancy? (edited to add: BTW, IMO, you sure are putting a lot of faith in a confession which was found to be coerced, and therefore false)

 

[IDK]

Because his interrogators did not suggest a tarp to him.

IIRC they did lead him to say something about burning the bedclothes.

Good point Proudfootz!

 

[Limaes]

Not sure what you are suggesting in the bolded above. Either there were, or were not bullet holes found in TH's skull. You are saying they only went through soft tissue. How do you explain the discrepancy? (edited to add: BTW, IMO, you sure are putting a lot of faith in a confession which was found to be coerced, and therefore false)

Just to clarify...I am not saying no bullets went through the skull. As per testimony, at least two did. I am suggesting that the bullet they found was not one of them but a different one that went through soft tissue e.g her face.

On the contrary, I am not putting any faith in an error filled judgement by Duffin.

 

[IDK]

Just to clarify...I am not saying no bullets went through the skull. As per testimony, at least two did. I am suggesting that the bullet they found was not one of them but a different one that went through soft tissue e.g her face.

On the contrary, I am not putting any faith in an error filled judgement by Duffin.

Not to be too grisly, but here is a model of a skull. I don't understand how a bullet could go through facial soft tissue without also going through bone.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Even if we have a bullet hole in a bone, there's no way to match the hole to a bullet, let alone a gun. We can infer such a thing, obviously. But then we are straying off the path of what can be proved into speculation.

The only thing connecting the one bullet found in the garage to Teresa is Sherry Culhane's filthy lab, where she can't do a simple test on arguably the most important investigation she will ever do without contaminating it. And let's be generous and give her the benefit of the doubt that she wasn't following the directive of police to 'put Teresa in Avery's garage'.

The number of times Teresa is shot has crept up to three? Now with one through and through shot that produced no blood splatter and a wound that didn't bleed. Never mind, probably covered the entire inside of the garage with tarps.

.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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

The CA jury overburdened the state requiring burdens they were not legally required to prove. The Judge failed to instruct them on what the prosecution had to prove and what they did not have to prove legally. So those particular 12 would have only voted for first degree homicide if they had a continuous video showing them the very beginning through the very end like a CSI show.

In each murder case the Prosecutors are required to prove only three elements no matter where the cases are located in our country.

In this case:

1. They had to prove that the victim was indeed TH.
2. They had to prove her death was due to a homicide.
3. They had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence SA was the one who murdered TH.

That's it. That is all they are legally required to prove which they did. IMO.

Imo, one does not need to know where or how she was murdered to know she WAS murdered. Nor do they need to know when it happened or even why. The murdered remains speak for themselves that TH was a victim of homicide no matter where or how it happened. Those things are not required in murder cases when weighing the guilt of the defendant.

That is why missing body murder cases have been highly successfully won for years now and in a lot of those cases they had no forensic evidence whatsoever. None. They had no clue how they were murdered or where it took place or even where the suspect put the body yet they are continuously won by presenting an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence against the suspect. I have seen some who believe CE is not as strong as direct evidence when that is totally inaccurate assumption. 90% of all murder cases which go to trial are CE evidence. I have seen several times when the presiding Judge gives his/her jury instructions to the jury tell them that CE is just as weighty as DE and can be even more weighty than DE since eye witnesses can be faulty especially if they did not know the suspect before the murder. The CE in this case was overwhelming. Most juries that I have seen do not believe in coincidences when it comes to evidence entered in a murder trial.

While I continue to believe 100% that SA is guilty of this horrific murder of TH, I do highly respect all the time, and effort so many posters have put into this case while trying to disprove his guilt.

IMO

 

[dexter75]

Yes, I think you are missing something. SA did involve BJ. I'm not sure why it is being debated. It is a fact. His reasoning or what he could have done is irrelevant. On paper, he took himself out of the whole thing. Going off on a tangent of what he coulda woulda shoulda isn't going to achieve anything imo.

Tangent?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

View attachment 106683

Read the last sentence.

BARBARA said she returned home at about 7:45 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and told BLAINE and
BRENDAN she was going over by SCOTT's house for a while.


If we are to believe Brendan's confession, and the only explanation for the lack of DNA/blood, etc. in the trailer and garage is because of something waterproof, leak proof, and able to stop all evidence from flying away... lets call it a tarp.... why didn't Brendan mention a tarp?

That's a pretty logical and good point I think. Thanks Missy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Even if we have a bullet hole in a bone, there's no way to match the hole to a bullet, let alone a gun. We can infer such a thing, obviously. But then we are straying off the path of what can be proved into speculation.

The only thing connecting the one bullet found in the garage to Teresa is Sherry Culhane's filthy lab, where she can't do a simple test on arguably the most important investigation she will ever do without contaminating it. And let's be generous and give her the benefit of the doubt that she wasn't following the directive of police to 'put Teresa in Avery's garage'.

The number of times Teresa is shot has crept up to three? Now with one through and through shot that produced no blood splatter and a wound that didn't bleed. Never mind, probably covered the entire inside of the garage with tarps.

Good post😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

No, I am claiming that she lied about not knowing who was at the fire. She wasn't concerned about two strangers tending a fire was she? "BLAINE" and "BRENDAN" should also include "BOBBY" since he was there and his name is left out so I am calling it an error by the Officer who typed it.

I'm just pointing out again with regard to this case...SO MANY ERRORS, TYPOS, MISCONDUCT, NOT FOLLOWING PROTOCOL... I wonder if this case set a record, and I AM being serious.

These are people's LIVES! I find it infuriating that so many " mistakes " seem to just happen.

Thank God for folks like Zellner. We need more like her.

This post is not directed toward anyone here. Just putting that out there.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

I disagree. Surely you can't acknowledge that BJ seen the two people by the fire and use the fact that she refused to name BD & SA as being those people as proof it wasn't them? ST believed it was them. In all likelihood, it was mistyped and should have read Bobby instead of Brendan, unless you believe it was BoD out by the fire even though those same two people were still there when BoD left for work. BrD recalled overhearing SA & BD talking about BD helping their uncle with something that night around 7.30. I can't imagine who those two people were, maintaining a fire on the property that didn't concern any of them.

The sweater phone call was in one of BD's interviews and I do not recall which one it was. AFAIK SA's landline records are not available although he did call BJ's mobile around 9.20pm but got a busy signal.

So it was just another typo? Ok, gotcha. But you did reply to proudfootz with: From your own link, not once does BJ state that BD was in the house when she arrived home at 8. And I was just pointing out that it was not the case, it was stated in the report that BD was home at 8pm.

I don't think I commented on the validity of the statement.

Bobby saw 2 people at the fire before he went to work? didn't he work midnight shift? Wasn't Brendan at home by 10? The "fire story", IMO, is like the fish that got away.... it just keeps getting bigger :biggrin:

If the 'sweater' info came from BD's interviews, that is all I need to know, IMO there is not much I believe in that story either. The call made from SA's cell phone at 9:20pm was to her house phone btw.

 

[missy1974]

I'm just pointing out again with regard to this case...SO MANY ERRORS, TYPOS, MISCONDUCT, NOT FOLLOWING PROTOCOL... I wonder if this case set a record, and I AM being serious.

These are people's LIVES! I find it infuriating that so many " mistakes " seem to just happen.

Thank God for folks like Zellner. We need more like her.

This post is not directed toward anyone here. Just putting that out there.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Right! I have followed a lot of cases over the years, read a lot of police reports, police interviews, etc. I do not recall every having to question the reports like this case. I wish we had the audio of all the statements so we didn't have to rely on the LE written statements. Plus we are missing so many that were done by DCI in this case and have not been released.

 

[proudfootz]

She worked that night? She doesn't strike me as a murderer so I doubt she would have joined in.

Barb worked that day and didn't get home until 5:00 PM, then went to the hospital to visit Scott Tadych's mother, returned home about 8:00 and talked to her sons about her going to Scott;'s house for a while.

All that is in the interview in the document we're discussing.

If purchasing novelty sex toys is supposed to be some sort of indication of intent to kidnap and assault someone, Barb is every bit as suspicious as Steven on that score.

What's so funny about it. The police knew who was there. That is why they interviewed them all.

According to the document it would appear that 'whoever was there' in the house at 8:00 PM included Brendan and Blaine. I'm pretty sure she'd recognize her sons as she talked to them about her further plans for that night.

It seems to me that whoever Barb claims to have seen by the fire are different than the people in the house, whom she specifically names: Blaine and Brendan.

But...wasn't BD in the house? [emoji6]

Barb seems to be saying she spoke in person to Brendan at 8:00 PM.

What time did she allegedly call Steven? That's yet another phone call Steven is conveniently waiting by the telephone to receive instead of building funeral pyres, chopping up bodies, driving around the 40 acres looking for a place to hide an SUV, cleaning a house and a garage, etc.

 

[proudfootz]

Not to be too grisly, but here is a model of a skull. I don't understand how a bullet could go through facial soft tissue without also going through bone.

I think if Teresa was shot several times, one could have hit any fleshy part of her body like a hand, arm, leg, or other. Thus a through and through wound could occur causing minimal damage to the slug.

 

[proudfootz]

It is trial testimony from a credible expert that matched the bullet to SA's rifle.

At this time I am not questioning that a slug could have been found that was fired at some time from that rifle.

What I find questionable is the DNA on the slug - as we both know there was contamination in the lab when that specific test was being conducted.

The same SC that got him exonerated in the wrongful conviction case? If she is so useless and has a "filthy lab", then perhaps she was wrong the first time and he really was guilty? Personally, I think she was correct both times.

The only difference i can see is that we have evidence that in the 2005 case the test was ruined by contamination.

Well that is my theory, that I am entitled to considering the thread topic. BD actually said there was more than 3 gunshots, I am just sticking to what fits with the evidence. The bullet could not have gone through bone imo, because of the condition it was in so I feel it went through soft tissue.

I agree, highly unlikely that slug went through bone.

It only takes a few minutes of thought to realise that the entire garage didn't need to be covered with tarp, just the body wrapped in it would suffice.

A few more moments of reflection brings me up against the realization that if a bullet were to pass through some part of Teresa while she was wrapped in a tarp, the bullet might puncture a hole in the tarp. Indeed, that would seem to be required for the bullet to be found in the garage and not end up in the fire where they found all those other bullets.

If the body part that was dealt a through and through wound was sticking out of the tarp, then the blood spatter problem reasserts itself.

Her hair must have been poking out the top to leave the marks in the Rav 4 and also on the rear cargo door imo. Besides, we don't know just what was on that floor that needed to be cleaned up that exact same night they were playing by the fire do we?

It was my understanding that the blood on the RAV4 door was thought to be spatter and not simply transfer. This would seem to indicate an attack near the RAV4 when the back door was open.

The area on the floor that was cleaned came up negative for blood, so it could be just about anything but that. They went so far as to take a jackhammer to break up the concrete and came up with nothing there.