MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[Limaes]

In many ways the defense's hands were tied due to the Denny ruling.

The State not only had a huge financial and resource advantage, but they could also accuse someone using a lower standard of evidence than required of the defense.

...the precedent established in State v. Denny, wherein the court adopted a “legitimate tendency” test for third-party liability evidence. The Wisconsin Supreme Court defines this “legitimate tendency” test as follows:

Third-party defense evidence may be admissible under the legitimate tendency test if the defendant can show that the third party had (1) the motive and (2) the opportunity to commit the charged crime, and (3) can provide some evidence to directly connect the third person to the crime charged which is not remote in time, place or circumstance.

The court deemed the introduction of any other suspects inadmissible “because the defendant does not contend any of the other persons present at the Avery property on October 31, 2005, had a motive to murder Teresa Halbach or commit the other crimes alleged to have been committed against her.”



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ry-thinks-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach.html

The State didn't have to prove motive, and the court blithely assumed the crime was committed on the Avery property.

Hard to prevail when the deck is heavily stacked against you.

They weren't allowed to point the finger at just anybody without at least a motive.

If Teresa's scent was picked up at a trailer at the deer camp that led to the cul-de-sac, that is huge for the defense and the judge would have permitted that so imo, the Denny ruling complaints are groundless.

 

[proudfootz]

What is it that you've read?

The report you reproduced talks about what they found at the RADANT QUARRY.

It just so happens one of the trailers there is red.

When Teresa left Avery salvage Steven noticed she turned LEFT - the same direction that would take her to Kuss Road where the trailers that made up the 'deer camp' were, and also the burn pit where the human pelvic bones were found.

The report does not state that the bloodhound started in the quarry.

The report ONLY mentions the quarry, and I have no reason to guess they meant anyplace else since they put it conveniently in all capital letters.

Riemer, in another report, referred to SA's trailer as the "red house trailer" also along with referencing SA's bedroom as the south bedroom and the 2nd one the north bedroom just as he described the south entry door with the concrete stoop in his report. Heading in a westerly direction from the deer camp trailer would not lead you to the Kuss rd cul-de-sac. Other investigators also described the cul-de-sac as being west of the Avery property.

As can be seen from the map the cul-de-sac is also West of the 'deer camp'.

The defence could have called her, but didn't.

I suppose the defense will call her this time around.

 

[proudfootz]

They weren't allowed to point the finger at just anybody without at least a motive.

BBM

Exactly.

The defense was required to prove motive, but the State was not.

If Teresa's scent was picked up at a trailer at the deer camp that led to the cul-de-sac, that is huge for the defense and the judge would have permitted that so imo, the Denny ruling complaints are groundless.

We don't know what the judge would or would not have allowed.

One of the other conditions was apparently that the defense was required to point the finger at someone present at Avery Salvage Yard on the assumption that is where the crimes were allegedly committed, as mentioned in the article I posted which you included in your reply.

 

[IDK]

BBM

Exactly.

The defense was required to prove motive, but the State was not.



We don't know what the judge would or would not have allowed.

One of the other conditions was apparently that the defense was required to point the finger at someone present at Avery Salvage Yard on the assumption that is where the crimes were allegedly committed, as mentioned in the article I posted which you included in your reply.

:goodpost:So glad you are here Proudfootz!

 

[Limaes]

Teresa was on the property because of one person only, SA. She was last seen walking to his trailer and her cremains were found on his property, just to name a few details. He was charged with her murder. If he wants to blame someone else, then he best have some evidence or logic to back it up. He was not allowed to play eenie meenie miney mo, and rightly so imo.

 

[Madeleine74]

Hi Limaes,

Great points, as always!

I think part of the anger I've seen surrounding this case is because how the laws are written, the court system, how a trial works, confounds people who were ignorant of the law and don't understand how the adversarial justice system was established, with the roles played within.

IMO, when a conspiracy and framing is the choice to explain why a defendant who has multiple pieces of evidence against them and then the conspiracy widens to include possibly anyone involved in the case from CSI types to the judge, IMO that's a sign of desperation.

The state has a tall burden to meet in every murder case, as they should. They met that burden in this case and then it was affirmed again in the appellate process.

That "documentary" which is what got most people interested in the case, is IMO a piece of fiction, including what I've discovered are multiple scenes with testimony actually cut and spliced back together, combined with cutaways, to make everyone from TH's family to anyone on the witness stand look complicit and to turn Avery into the victim. IMO it's trashy propaganda. The filmmakers claimed they just wanted to show the truth. What a sham.

 

[Limaes]

Hi Limaes,

Great points, as always!

I think part of the anger I've seen surrounding this case is because how the laws are written, the court system, how a trial works, confounds people who were ignorant of the law and don't understand how the adversarial justice system was established, with the roles played within.

IMO, when a conspiracy and framing is the choice to explain why a defendant who has multiple pieces of evidence against them and then the conspiracy widens to include possibly anyone involved in the case from CSI types to the judge, IMO that's a sign of desperation.

The state has a tall burden to meet in every murder case, as they should. They met that burden in this case and then it was affirmed again in the appellate process.

That "documentary" which is what got most people interested in the case, is IMO a piece of fiction, including what I've discovered are multiple scenes with testimony actually cut and spliced back together, combined with cutaways, to make everyone from TH's family to anyone on the witness stand look complicit and to turn Avery into the victim. IMO it's trashy propaganda. The filmmakers claimed they just wanted to show the truth. What a sham.

Agreed. In fact, if SA was not arrested and charged with Teresa's murder, that would have been the real misconduct imo.

Investigators rarely know how or why a murder has happened when the investigation begins. They're behind the 8 ball from the get go and in most cases, errors are made but that doesn't mean they are deliberate. In this case, we're discussing it with 10 years worth of hindsight that the real investigators did not have.

 

[dexter75]

:goodpost:So glad you are here Proudfootz!

Me too😊

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[proudfootz]

The question remains, why was Teresa on the RADANT QUARRY property, where she was headed when last seen by any innocent party? There is zero evidence Steven was responsible for her being there. Was Teresa lured to that lonely and isolated place? A much more likely place for a murder and cremation, rather than at a business where clients, family, and friends are going in and out all day and evening long. And evidence indicates that at the times the crimes were allegedly committed, Steven was not at the RADANT QUARRY where she was tracked, but at home fielding phone calls all evening.

There is a pretty good track record of perfectly innocent visits by Teresa to the Avery Salvage Yard. So there is no compelling reason to suggest that when Barb was selling her van that this visit was any different than on any other occasion. However, I am not aware of any reason why Teresa would be at the RADANT QUARRY.

The point remains, the State was allowed to be vague about where the alleged crime took place, and had no responsibility to address motive. The defense had to meet greater burdens of proof than the prosecution, requiring both motive and restricted to people present at Avery Salvage on the assumption that is where a murder occurred.

The notion that Steven has to 'prove' his innocence goes against the basic principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Schmatz]

Thank you!

Gesendet von meinem SM-G920F mit Tapatalk

 

[Limaes]

The only question that remains for me is why. Why did he have to take his anger out on an innocent young lady that was just doing her job?

 

[dexter75]

The only question that remains for me is why. Why did he have to take his anger out on an innocent young lady that was just doing her job?

I believe your answers are scattered throughout these threads multiple times.
Shouldn't be too hard to find with WS's tools, search functions and such.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

The only question that remains for me is why. Why did he have to take his anger out on an innocent young lady that was just doing her job?

You're assuming Avery is 100% guilty. Most of the posters here are not convinced of his guilt at all, and people outside of WS's aren't convinced either. Just because a case goes to trial doesn't always mean a Jury gets it right as most of us know.
IMO Steven Avery had no motive to kill TH, but there were others that probably did and wanted to pin it on SA.

 

[Karinna]

The question remains, why was Teresa on the RADANT QUARRY property, where she was headed when last seen by any innocent party? There is zero evidence Steven was responsible for her being there. Was Teresa lured to that lonely and isolated place? A much more likely place for a murder and cremation, rather than at a business where clients, family, and friends are going in and out all day and evening long. And evidence indicates that at the times the crimes were allegedly committed, Steven was not at the RADANT QUARRY where she was tracked, but at home fielding phone calls all evening.

There is a pretty good track record of perfectly innocent visits by Teresa to the Avery Salvage Yard. So there is no compelling reason to suggest that when Barb was selling her van that this visit was any different than on any other occasion. However, I am not aware of any reason why Teresa would be at the RADANT QUARRY.

The point remains, the State was allowed to be vague about where the alleged crime took place, and had no responsibility to address motive. The defense had to meet greater burdens of proof than the prosecution, requiring both motive and restricted to people present at Avery Salvage on the assumption that is where a murder occurred.

The notion that Steven has to 'prove' his innocence goes against the basic principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Good post and I totally agree. There are still too many questions about this case that need answering. And i hope something moves this case forward in the new year, and some of those questions will be answered.

 

[proudfootz]

I suppose we won't know about the alleged motives of the killer(s) until a viable suspect is named. We may have to wait for the judicial process to move along before we learn the results of the defense investigation.

What's difficult to pinpoint is where the initial attack took place - other than IMO near the rear of the RAV4 resulting in the blood splatter on the door.

Teresa was transported in the RAV4 apparently, based on the blood transfer found in the rear compartment.

That Teresa was tracked at the Radant Quarry would indicate part of the crime took place there, most likely the burning of the corpse based on the finding of charred bones there.

So it would appear to me Teresa was attacked somewhere in the vicinity of her vehicle, moved in the RAV4 to the Radant Quarry, where her remains were burned at leisure far from prying eyes.

Subsequently some of the cremains were moved to a couple of locations on the Avery property. This last based on the very credible testimony of Scott Fairgrieve.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...42/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-20-2007Mar09.pdf

Page 138 is where Dr Fairgrieve begins to give an expert opinion regarding the several sites where cremains were recovered.

 

[Karinna]

I suppose we won't know about the alleged motives of the killer(s) until a viable suspect is named. We may have to wait for the judicial process to move along before we learn the results of the defense investigation.

What's difficult to pinpoint is where the initial attack took place - other than IMO near the rear of the RAV4 resulting in the blood splatter on the door.

Teresa was transported in the RAV4 apparently, based on the blood transfer found in the rear compartment.

That Teresa was tracked at the Radant Quarry would indicate part of the crime took place there, most likely the burning of the corpse based on the finding of charred bones there.

So it would appear to me Teresa was attacked somewhere in the vicinity of her vehicle, moved in the RAV4 to the Radant Quarry, where her remains were burned at leisure far from prying eyes.

Subsequently some of the cremains were moved to a couple of locations on the Avery property. This last based on the very credible testimony of Scott Fairgrieve.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...42/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-20-2007Mar09.pdf

Page 138 is where Dr Fairgrieve begins to give an expert opinion regarding the several sites where cremains were recovered.

BBM, I guess if we can go by what KZ has said previously she knows who the killer is and it isn't Avery. To state that she must have some good evidence, so we will have to wait and see.
I don't understand why Avery would kill TH and leave any evidence around his yard, that just doesn't make sense unless he wanted LE to get him for a murder.
I remember a recent reply at another website, think it was on the Reddit site, where the poster claimed he worked at a funeral place and said it would of taken days of burning a body to get it to the state of supposedly TH's bone fragments. I keep thinking there was something that lot of investigators on the Halbach case were hiding. And why would Avery scatter all the bones in different locations? He would of been more likely to hide that evidence if he was the culprit IMO.
And i certainly don't think TH was killed at Avery's place.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

The question remains, why was Teresa on the RADANT QUARRY property, where she was headed when last seen by any innocent party? There is zero evidence Steven was responsible for her being there. Was Teresa lured to that lonely and isolated place? A much more likely place for a murder and cremation, rather than at a business where clients, family, and friends are going in and out all day and evening long. And evidence indicates that at the times the crimes were allegedly committed, Steven was not at the RADANT QUARRY where she was tracked, but at home fielding phone calls all evening.

There is a pretty good track record of perfectly innocent visits by Teresa to the Avery Salvage Yard. So there is no compelling reason to suggest that when Barb was selling her van that this visit was any different than on any other occasion. However, I am not aware of any reason why Teresa would be at the RADANT QUARRY.

The point remains, the State was allowed to be vague about where the alleged crime took place, and had no responsibility to address motive. The defense had to meet greater burdens of proof than the prosecution, requiring both motive and restricted to people present at Avery Salvage on the assumption that is where a murder occurred.

The notion that Steven has to 'prove' his innocence goes against the basic principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty.

.
Hi Proudfootz! :seeya:

You bring up a very good point. If you go by BrD's confession, he states that TH was talking and didn't have anything covering her mouth so she couldn't scream. At 2-5pm, the salvage yard was still open for business, in fact they took the customer list from the Avery's that day, so we do know there were customers there that day.

I find it very hard to believe, if what BrD said is true, after all she had been thru (rape and all) she wouldn't be fearing for her life and be screaming for help.

I find it very unlikely that she just sat there silently and let 2 perps rape and kill her.

But then again, JMHO.

 

[Madeleine74]

The only question that remains for me is why. Why did he have to take his anger out on an innocent young lady that was just doing her job?

The 'why' to me is not a remaining question. I believe the murder itself was not pre-planned long in advance and the plan for that occurred to cover up whatever else happened to her.

He seemed fixated on getting TH to come out that day. I think he was attracted to her and was hoping to or intending to act on that attraction. IF TH had been amenable to such an advance by him (yeah, I know, yuck), I don't think he'd have any reason to kill her since if she consented to what SA wanted no crime would have occurred and no reason to cover anything up. She didn't consent to whatever happened and she lost her life in a most brutal and cruel fashion.

In either a book I read or an article detailing an investigative report (can't remember where I read it right now), SA made a sexually aggressive pass at the teenage girlfriend or friend of one of his nephews the day before or within a few days before of TH's murder, suggesting the teen come over to his trailer and they have rough sex. This is while JS is in prison. That bit of info helps inform his state of mind. SA wasn't known for being able to control his impulses and he certainly didn't demonstrate an ability to respect people's personal boundaries.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

BBM, I guess if we can go by what KZ has said previously she knows who the killer is and it isn't Avery. To state that she must have some good evidence, so we will have to wait and see.
I don't understand why Avery would kill TH and leave any evidence around his yard, that just doesn't make sense unless he wanted LE to get him for a murder.
I remember a recent reply at another website, think it was on the Reddit site, where the poster claimed he worked at a funeral place and said it would of taken days of burning a body to get it to the state of supposedly TH's bone fragments. I keep thinking there was something that lot of investigators on the Halbach case were hiding. And why would Avery scatter all the bones in different locations? He would of been more likely to hide that evidence if he was the culprit IMO.
And i certainly don't think TH was killed at Avery's place.

.
I believe KZ said she had a suspect that was high on her list. I don't believe she said she knows who the killer is. JMHO

The burning question I have is why leave her on your own property. There are thousands of acres of agricultural land nearby. That doesn't make sense to me. Ok~~I get it~~you don't want to be seen somewhere else. BUT~~in the middle of the night, SA could have gone to the quarry, could have gone to the deer camp and disposed of the remains. It doesn't make sense that he burned her on his own property and left the remains in his fire pit. Even if he did burn TH in the quarry, it doesn't make sense that he would bring the remains back to his doorstep.

SA was incarcerated for a long time, surely he had conversations with other prisoners about their crimes. Surely, these unscrupulous people enlightened him in their ways. I don't believe he wasn't smart enough to not leave evidence at his doorstep.

All JMHO.

 

[Safeguard]

Some people despise the documentary Making a Murderer. They also hold in obvious disdain, anyone who watched it, or anyone who has come to believe that evidence was planted and SA was framed.

They don't like to dwell on the fact that it was proven that he was framed before, and it will most likely be proven that he was framed again in due time.

What I find harder to understand is what motivates those who hate Making a Murder to continually subject themselves to the Making a Murderer forum?

I personally cannot stand the JBR topic, but I don't go there and post how ignorent, uninformed, and wrong minded those who post there are if they watched
JBR documentaries, and researched the case, yet still don't believe as I do.

Why would anyone frequent a forum, dedicated to a topic they despise?