MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[Limaes]

Here is another article interviewing one of the scientists who authored the above article. It is more in layman's terms imo.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+test+for+tainted+blood.-a019805669

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[IDK]

Here's what I read.



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

Seriously? Not even the fact that the juror knew this information going into the trial ? That this is what he/she, in part , based his decision on? OKayyyy.....

 

[IDK]

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.

So why would she have answered a call from a throwaway phone and not from SA's phone? This does not make sense. Please explain

 

[IDK]

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.

Again, I don't think this was believed to be a key piece of evidence. It only seems to have gained importance with those in the "he's guilty" camp now that SA is once again fighting for his freedom.

 

[IDK]

By the looks of it? He also says that he showered somewhere in that time frame. Do you recall SA's interviews? His version was similar as far as seeing her pull up (it is creepy that she was being watched from both homes) but he describes her as writing down the vin # after taking the photos, whereas BoD did not mention that, perhaps he wasn't looking the whole time. SA also claims that at this point, he went out to meet her and gave her the cash and a note. He later trips himself up by saying she came to the door and when the officer presses him, he quickly changes his story.

Was she reading the vin #? Or was she reading a note directing her to collect the money from SA's trailer?

Not creepy, IMO. If I am expecting a visitor or hear a car pull in front of my home, darn straight I'm going to be looking out the window to see who is approaching.

 

[proudfootz]

So why would she have answered a call from a throwaway phone and not from SA's phone? This does not make sense. Please explain

Nothing about the 'luring' hypothesis makes any sense.

Everything about the listing a vehicle for sale does - they have a better track record for that than for the EDTA testing.

 

[dexter75]

SA hid his identity from TH. This is undisputable. SA supporters have come up with an excuse that once again, casts SA as the poor victim and Teresa as the bad one who would abuse the privilege, that is only bestowed upon a chosen few, even though she most likely already had his number.

At the time that Teresa left the message around 11.30am, she did not know where she was going. Perhaps you didn't know this because MaM cut that part of the vm out. The full recording can easily be found through google if you're interested in listening to it in its entirety.

Pretty sure SA supporters have stated repeatedly...in this case, they were both victims. Smh

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

What I don't get about the whole "lured" idea, is that no rape and torture ever occurred in SA's home or garage.

So where was she lured to? And for what? We have ZERO evidence that TH was raped & tortured. We have only a fantasy story made up by a mentally disturbed, sexually deviant prosecutor.

The whole theory of, "He felt he was "owed a *free* rape", kinda depends on a rape having taken place no?
IIRC that was first circulated by Jody, ( the "SA is angry at all women, and feels he is owed a rape" thing... (He feels is owed a rape AND a murder?, And he is NOT angry at men? especially LE?).

IMO Jody is the definition of opportunistic user. When SA stood to gain bank, she needed a place to live and party, and was dependent on SA's mom to pick her up from jail, give her rides to her PO appointments and what not...She was singing their praises. As soon as that pitiful gravy train dried up, she stabbed them in their backs, correctly accessing that more lucrative opportunities lay in that direction. I don't doubt that she was in a mutually abusive relationship, I DO doubt that it will be her last one. That girl is a Hot Mess. I am not lending credibility to anything she says at this point.

Personally, I feel TH was killed during the course of what, for her, started out a normal work day. If anything was unsettling to TH she certainly didn't sound like it in the rather pleasant sounding, if professional, VM she left. Who ever was blowing up her phone with unwanted calls is worthy of more scrutiny imo, but that issue scarcely raises an eyebrow?

Couple that with the fact that someone deleted her VM's and a LOT of people KNEW her scheduled for the day and there are any number of possible scenario's for what could've happened to her, SA is not even near the top that list, in my mind.

Absolutely this. Let's..never mind. Lol..

Happy New year!❤

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

I thought this had already been covered before. The defense had absolutely no interest in having the blood tested themselves until the trial had already started and the State's results were in. In fact, they attempted to block the State's testing of the blood. I thought I posted a link for you previously explaining the review and change in procedures since the OJ trial (which was 10 yrs prior) and why it is now courtroom approved.[/QUOTE]
You did


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

I'm afraid you missed this whole paragraph about why Steven might be unsure who he was calling on that day:

AT is a business, and he knew exactly who he was calling, no need to block it IMO. I don't think he ever spoke with her when he called because the calls weren't long enough. 2 of his calls to her registered as duration of Zero seconds, one registered as 7.2 seconds. The last call was not blocked, but IMO, it's possible that the 3rd call he was confident that it was the 'photographers' phone number and was not concerned for his privacy. It's also JMO, but like I have posted previously, he had her number written down, in 2 spots actually, but there was no identifying info with it.... no "photographer", no "AutoTrader", nothing, just a number, and if he was unsure if it was her #, blocking his number to call a random number to protect his privacy is not that out of the ordinary, again IMO.

It actually makes perfect sense proud😉 and I have not thought of that one yet🙄 Thanks for spelling that out🤓 underlining it and keeping it simple.
So glad you are here❤

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

I don't think he would have even said Ms. Halbach, or even Teresa. IMO he would have said 'the auto trader photographer'. He didn't even know her name. Even when being interviewed days later, a cop said Teresa to him and he said "who?".

" hey auto trader trader girl, you still taking those pictures? ..."
Gawd
This is taking too long
IMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Can we believe CA? He was a creep in his own right.

Nope, not a word the creep says
IMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Dialing *67 is done when the caller doesn't want the receiver to know who's calling or doesn't want the receiver to know what number is being used to call from. It's done to hide or obscure that information. As we all know, it's a control tactic.

TH came out to the salvage yard many times before -- upwards of 15 times by some estimates. She was apparently professional or at least valued enough that SA wanted "the same girl as last time" (which just so happened to be the same girl who had been out many times before to photograph vehicles.)

It's curious why SA would feel compelled to hide his calling information from TH two times that day, in the 20 to 30 minutes before she finally showed up. She was the only person he did so in a day in which he made approximately 16 calls.

As far as we know, TH never bothered SA, did not give out his phone number, and took her photos and left. So the need for SA to hide his number from TH is curious. And then the last call he ever made to TH, the one call that proved TH's phone was not able to ping to any tower, he did not feel a need to hide his number. And on top of that he never again attempted to call TH for the reason some have assumed--to have her come back and take a hustle shot. He didn't call her ever again, he didn't call AutoTrader to try and schedule an appointment for the following Monday and supposedly he knew Mondays were TH's next scheduled availability for his area.

I'm sure that sequence of calls was noticed and made an impression on the jury. It's a piece of circumstantial evidence that most people would consider.

We don't all know it's a " control tactic "
Please don't assume/speak for all of us. As has been previously mentioned above there are a number of reasons/opinions in many people's minds why #67 was used.😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

The issue with where and when this crime might have been committed speaks to who might be responsible for the crime.

If Teresa was killed at Zipperer's or at the quarry when we know Steven as at home talking to half the county on the telephone, that gives me more than reasonable doubt about claims he is guilty.

If the Sate presents no compelling reason to think the *67 calls were out of the ordinary, I have no reason to jump to that conclusion.

I have this old-fashioned idea about 'innocent until proven guilty' which does not require the defense to prove anything.

That's kinda what a handful of folks have been working on for the last year or so😉 Here, behind the scenes, you name it. Just ask Missy❤🙄

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

Did they mention missing *67 in phone records?

It was mentioned in opening statements, which I linked to yesterday or the day before. And yep, actually, I'm pretty sure they also mentioned he used *67 for privacy reasons in numerous interviews after MaM was released. I will say JMO since I haven't had coffee yet and I don't feel like googling

 

[missy1974]

By the looks of it? He also says that he showered somewhere in that time frame. Do you recall SA's interviews? His version was similar as far as seeing her pull up (it is creepy that she was being watched from both homes) but he describes her as writing down the vin # after taking the photos, whereas BoD did not mention that, perhaps he wasn't looking the whole time. SA also claims that at this point, he went out to meet her and gave her the cash and a note. He later trips himself up by saying she came to the door and when the officer presses him, he quickly changes his story.

Was she reading the vin #? Or was she reading a note directing her to collect the money from SA's trailer?

So now there is a note?

 

[Jaiddie]

Happy New Year, every1! :newyear::fireworks:

 

[missy1974]

As I have discussed with you before, they didn't need to find a lab. All they had to do was let the State utilise the FBI testing and it would not cost a thing, but they attempted to block it. Strange how once the FBI results came in, after the trial had begun, they suddenly found a lab to do their testing. The Judge rightfully denied their request.

Your interpretation of what happened differs from my opinion. Period. I know the defense objected to the method and protocols the FBI used. What lab did they find to do the testing? I'm interested.

Have you read the pretrial motions?

For anyone interested, here is a pre-trial motion hearing from Jan 2006. It discusses the labs that could do the EDTA testing, the FBI, and another one that both the defense and the State agreed was not a good option.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Motion-Hearing-2007Jan04.pdf#page=21

All other pre-trial motions can be found here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/hearingtranscripts/

The stevenaverycase.org site (notice the .org) has all of the official documents from this case. It does have some unofficial photo's as well, but they are clearly labeled and under their own tab.

 

[missy1974]

I linked to the transcript way back on page 16 of this thread.

Not sure what significance 'stuttering' is supposed to have.

If we go by the evidence presented in court by this eye witness, during the time Steven is allegedly assaulting Teresa someone else is driving her SUV all over town.

If a lawyer "stuttering" is any indication of the witness they are questioning, makes you wonder about those VM's and cell phone pings.... KK did a lot of 'stuttering' IIRC.

 

[missy1974]

Steven Avery, Brendan Dassey, John Leurquin (whose sworn testimony already linked to), and someone named Knuteson who claims to have seen Teresa on the road side taking photos.

Knuteson is mentioned in this phone conversation - I'm not sure what - if any - follow up was conducted regarding this witness:

https://youtu.be/tlyBVBJKTeM

Her name comes up at about 4:30 into the call.

Baldwin interviewed her.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=68