MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[Madeleine74]

Thanks for clarifying as there are several other posters who believe SA plotted and planned the murder ahead of time, including luring TH to the salvage yard, covering his bed with tarps ahead of time, etc.

I do believe he lured TH to the salvage yard that day as his actions show he wanted her there that day. I don't think it was for the purpose of murder, but that was the end result and what happened to TH. I do not believe TH left that salvage yard alive.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Aww, I don't think anyone is trying to ignore you. There is a lot of back and forth going on and sometimes posts get "lost". We don't know what records were available to the defense. Maybe SA's attorneys did not realize that the use of *67 would come to be seen as such a pivotal piece of information. Many of us here don't find it suspicious or noteworthy in the slightest. Maybe his lawyers didn't see it that way either.

I think that the *67 evidence is powerful and I believe the jury saw it that way also. I also believe that the State had more than one days phone records which means the defense had it too.

I'm only stating my own opinion on the weight of the *67 evidence. Others can feel free to minimize it. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I do believe he lured TH to the salvage yard that day as his actions show he wanted her there that day. I don't think it was for the purpose of murder, but that was the end result and what happened to TH. I do not believe TH left that salvage yard alive.

I don't have to understand the exact motive SA had in making sure TH went to the ASY that day. All that's important to know is she went to that location and was later found dead there because of SA. JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't have to understand the exact motive SA had in making sure TH went to the ASY that day. All that's important to know is she went to that location and was later found dead there because of SA. JMO

You're right and of course motive never has to be proved and is never part of the state's burden. That too is part of pattern jury instructions given to a jury.

 

[IDK]

I think that the *67 evidence is powerful and I believe the jury saw it that way also. I also believe that the State had more than one days phone records which means the defense had it too.

I'm only stating my own opinion on the weight of the *67 evidence. Others can feel free to minimize it. JMO

IMO, the blood evidence would be much more powerful than the use of *67. I know at least one of the jurors has spoken out, but not publicly, AFAIK. This juror reportedly now believes Steven Avery is innocent. http://www.businessinsider.com/juror-speaks-out-steven-avery-making-a-murderer-2016-1

 

[IDK]

More information about how the jury came to convict SA, and it doesn't appear to be because of the use of *67:

https://www.bustle.com/articles/135...members-told-intouch-is-completely-unexpected

 

[Deleted member 39678]

IMO, the blood evidence would be much more powerful than the use of *67. I know at least one of the jurors has spoken out, but not publicly, AFAIK. This juror reportedly now believes Steven Avery is innocent. http://www.businessinsider.com/juror-speaks-out-steven-avery-making-a-murderer-2016-1

The blood evidence is powerful. In a circumstantial case when you have multiple pieces of powerful evidence pointing towards the defendants guilt you usually get a guilty verdict. That's what this case has.

A lot of weak evidence isn't usually good enough to get a conviction. What matters is how the jury votes at trial and not what they allegely said years later to some TV show directors.

JMO

 

[IDK]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to you too!:newyear:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

More information about how the jury came to convict SA, and it doesn't appear to be because of the use of *67:

https://www.bustle.com/articles/135...members-told-intouch-is-completely-unexpected

I didn't read why they voted guilty in this article so I can't tell that *67 wasn't part of it. LOL

 

[IDK]

The blood evidence is powerful. In a circumstantial case when you have multiple pieces of powerful evidence pointing towards the defendants guilt you usually get a guilty verdict. That's what this case has.

A lot of weak evidence isn't usually good enough to get a conviction. What matters is how the jury votes at trial and not what they allegely said years later to some TV show directors.

JMO

Just pointing out, for the sake of accuracy, that a panel of jurors was interviewed by a publication, not just the one juror who spoke with MAM's producers. At least one stated he based his guilty vote on Brendan's pretrial "confession" which was not even allowed as evidence at SA's trial. Hmmm, how is that for a nonbiased jury? Doesn't sound very good to me, personally.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/135...members-told-intouch-is-completely-unexpected

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Just pointing out, for the sake of accuracy, that a panel of jurors was interviewed by a publication, not just the one juror who spoke with MAM's producers. At least one stated he based his guilty vote on Brendan's pretrial "confession" which was not even allowed as evidence at SA's trial. Hmmm, how is that for a nonbiased jury? Doesn't sound very good to me, personally.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/135...members-told-intouch-is-completely-unexpected

Here's what I read.

When InTouch asked one juror, who requested to remain anonymous, what he or she thought Avery did to photographer Teresa Halbach, they responded: Torture and rape. Then he shot her in the head. He cut her up and put her in a burn barrel.

This anonymous juror was asked what they thought Avery did to Teresa not what their guilty vote was based on. This anonymous juror could have read about Brendan's "confession" after the trial and incorporated that into this statement.

Nothing here to make me go Hmmm. JMO


https://www.bustle.com/articles/135...members-told-intouch-is-completely-unexpected

 

[Limaes]

In the post to which I was responding, it was suggested that somehow the lawsuit caused Steven to become enraged to the point of committing a random murder.

"Do you think SA sitting through the depositions in the days leading up to the murder, fueled his rage even more? Hearing the testimony of those who put him in jail surely had some effect on him?"

As a counterbalance to such speculation, we should consider that Steven was not the only human being who might be affected by the lawsuit.

I was asking OBC a question. LOL I have had this same discussion with SA supporters before and they tried to convince me that he was ok with being wrongfully locked up. I don't agree with that.

 

[Limaes]

Yes. This juror has very reasonable doubts about this ridiculous 'luring' hypothesis.



Unless the idea is that Steven was going to disguise his voice and pretend to be Barb, it comes to naught.

There is no need for Steven to involve Barb, have a real vehicle to sell, or contact Teresa through Auto Traders IF there was some wild idea from nowhere to suddenly kill someone for no discernible reason.

Instead he does what an honest person would do - discusses the sale of the vehicle with his sister, gets Auto Trader involved, practically advertises to everyone who is the least bit interested that Teresa is coming to the Savage Yard.

Teresa knows exactly where she is going, as she tells Dawn at Auto Traders.

And if Steven talks to Teresa on the phone -as he was apparently trying to do - then she'd know exactly who was going to handle the sale of this vehicle, just as they'd done on several occasions already.

Cut away all the specious speculation, it is perfectly plain and above board.

But he didn't talk to Teresa, nor did he leave a voice message.

 

[Limaes]

Nope, doesn't sound like the actions of someone plotting a murder, not in the slightest. If he were truly trying to lure her, he would have bought a "throwaway" phone and used that to contact her. Something that could not be tied back to him. Using his own phone, contacting her through her place of employment, all are the actions of an innocent person, IMO.

He hid his phone number and never spoke to Teresa. Going through her employers about a van the owner didn't want or ask him to sell is a definite attempt to fool his intended victim imo.

 

[Limaes]

I'm always happy to entertain diagnoses by random posters on the internet!



Unlike some, I am willing to entertain doubts and not adopt a Manichean view of things.

We have evidence from witnesses that she did leave. I haven't seen any reason to doubt them.

Which witnesses are these?

 

[Limaes]

The fact that it is not well tested.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/ev...verymaking-a-murderercase-a-lot-has-been.html

It might be different if this was a known quantity instead of a procedure with no reliable track record.

You have provided a link to a blog where the author readily admits he/she doesn't have a lot of info.

Rather than posting different links, here is one that provides extensive information about the EDTA tests along with facts about previous cases and sources are provided so you can read them for yourself.

http://stevenaverycase.com/blood-edta-test-explained#old

Saying "no reliable track record" is a little misleading imo. There is very little demand for this test because there aren't that many cases where LE have been accused of planting the defendant's blood. In both cases, where you will read about at the above link, have erred in favour of the defendent, not the Prosecution. Therefore, if this test was so unreliable, why did it not produce a positive result of EDTA like the other previous two cases?

At that link you will come to another link to the Journal of Analytic Toxicology. I have posted it before but it was ignored. The scientist explains all about the procedure and finishes off with stating that this test is a credible source to use in court. It was peer reviewed prior to this case which is probably why it was deemed credible by the court. It is the most credible source floating around the internet regarding the EDTA imo.

 

[Limaes]

Nope, doesn't sound like the actions of someone plotting a murder, not in the slightest. If he were truly trying to lure her, he would have bought a "throwaway" phone and used that to contact her. Something that could not be tied back to him. Using his own phone, contacting her through her place of employment, all are the actions of an innocent person, IMO.

He needed Teresa to come to the property. A "throwaway" phone was not going to benefit him. She would have answered the call, realised it was him, and not accepted imo. I wish he did use a throwaway phone or didn't hide is number. She would have made it home safe that day imo.

 

[CoolJ]

This witness said nothing to prove Teresa left that afternoon. IIRC this witness had JB stuttering on several occasions.

Were you in the courtroom Limaes?

 

[Limaes]

Aww, I don't think anyone is trying to ignore you. There is a lot of back and forth going on and sometimes posts get "lost". We don't know what records were available to the defense. Maybe SA's attorneys did not realize that the use of *67 would come to be seen as such a pivotal piece of information. Many of us here don't find it suspicious or noteworthy in the slightest. Maybe his lawyers didn't see it that way either.

SA is the defense. He had access to all his records LOL

His freedom was at stake here. If his previous phone records proved it was a habitual thing, you bet he would have provided it. Imo he is an example of someone who isn't clever, but thinks he is. Imo he didn't know hiding his number would still show on his records which, to me, indicates it was not normal for him to do that.

 

[Limaes]

Were you in the courtroom Limaes?

No, were you?