Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #4

[missy1974]

ST had three interviews.

In the first one he stated when he went to pick up BJ she was standing outside with SA and one her younger sons. He said he didn't know the younger son's name. (He had know BJ for 1.5 years) He never even mentioned a fire. He stated BJ had come to his house later and stayed until 11 pm or 12 am.

In the second interview, when he went to pick up BJ, he noticed Steve and one of BJ's sons standing around a fire behind SA's garage. He didn't know which son it was. He stated Barb came out of the house and they then left. When he brought BJ back he noticed the two people at the fire, who's outlines made him think they were the two he had seen earlier. When BJ came to his house later, she stayed until 11 pm or 12 am.

In the third interview, he stated he saw SA and whom he assumed to be BD by the fire behind the garage. He stated BJ came over about 8 pm and spent the night. He stated that he felt SA and BD were in a sexual relationship.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-356-Scott-Tadych-11-10-2005-Interview.pdf

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-357-Scott-Tadych-11-29-2005.pdf

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-358-Scott-Tadych-3-30-2006-Interview.pdf

His stories were inconsistent with each other and as time went on, he remembered more new details, yet he stated that if the investigators had gotten to him sooner he would have remembered more (2nd interview); which is opposite of what he said in the interviews. By the third interview he had run BD's reputation into the ground. Either he stayed in the truck when he picked up BJ or he didn't. Either he went in and saw the bleach stains or he didn't. Either BJ stayed overnight at his house or she didn't. Either he saw BJ outside with her young son with SA or he didn't. So many lies.

There is a reason why LE wants you to write statements right away (which these are summaries, not written statements though) There is a reason why lawyers (for both sides) will ask witnesses about their previous statements or testimony. I think it's fair to say that a persons memory is better closer to the incident, plus it's not clouded by the ridiculous news conferences that this prosecutor had. JMO

I have also read that some of these interviews were not "friendly" with Scott or the Dassey boys. Investigators yelling at them in a restaurant, that kinda stuff. I don't know if it's true, I will have a look when I get back and see if can find anything about it. I have to go to work for a few hours.... play nice all

 

[MysticJynx]

I wonder if Teresa had a girlfriend? They asked if she had a boyfriend, but maybe she was batting for the same team? Just a thought that popped into my head.

 

[amberjb4]

Her brother, her mother (I think) and her business partner all testified that she had other keys. She had a house key, a garage key, a key to her studio, actually 2 keys to her studio (pretty sure her partner told her to leave one in her purse) Apparently she was always misplacing her keys. If they have ever been found, we don't know about it.

I also think they were missing her garage door opener. Not sure what that means. But I recall that they were looking for it at one point. I don't know that her purse was ever found. I have seen news articles saying it was burned with her phone/camera, but I don't see any evidence of that, like a zipper or any metal pieces found in the barrel that would be part of a purse.

I wonder how often she put her vehicle in the garage? was it detached? Did the room mate use it? I remember the room mate saying something about not seeing her suv outside for a few days.... hmmmm. So many missing pieces to this puzzle.

Yes there definitely are many missing pieces. There are many inconsistencies and unanswered questions. I still think something happened to her off of the Avery property and the cops took an opportunity and ran with it.

 

[TheDuchess]

For anyone who believes that evidence can't be planted, here's a story for you:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/murder-mystery-killed-wayne-sharmon-stock/story?id=11523512

ETA - after watching the entire documentary more questions than answers arise and more concern about the validity of how some evidence is processed in a case

Basically, in a nutshell, the case is about a CSI investigator was charged and convicted of planting evidence in a case that seemed to point to 2 men who were ultimately exonerated when the real killers were found and convicted.

However, I think the CSI guy was actually innocent of planting evidence, but was rather the victim of his own cross-contamination. He was for the foremost celebrated expert. If he could make a mistake, anyone could. And even though he was the best around, he still managed to get himself convicted of the evidence planting, even though he comes across very believable. It's a crazy case that parallels so many things about the SA/BD case that scare you when you think of just how easily someone can get railroaded.

 

[TheDuchess]

Question for locals - what was the overriding feeling in the community when SA was cleared of the original rape? Did many believe he simply got off on a technicality, or that he was still somehow involved? Or did they turn on LE? Just curious.

 

[pleasestandby]

There is a reason why LE wants you to write statements right away (which these are summaries, not written statements though) There is a reason why lawyers (for both sides) will ask witnesses about their previous statements or testimony. I think it's fair to say that a persons memory is better closer to the incident, plus it's not clouded by the ridiculous news conferences that this prosecutor had. JMO

I have also read that some of these interviews were not "friendly" with Scott or the Dassey boys. Investigators yelling at them in a restaurant, that kinda stuff. I don't know if it's true, I will have a look when I get back and see if can find anything about it. I have to go to work for a few hours.... play nice all

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If BD was convicted on what he said, then ST should also have been a prime suspect because his three statements didn't align with each other. In essence, he made false statements which is indicative of a guilty person with something to hide. You can even see where LE underlined one sentence in one statement that didn't line up with what was said in another statement.

In his first statement he never even mentioned a fire. In his subsequent statements he "remembered" all sorts of things. It's almost as if he was telling the investigators what they wanted to hear, just like BD. Anyone chronologically outlining those three statements next to each other will see the glaring inconsistencies. I'd bet the tape-recorded interviews don't line up with the written statements either.

I think it's fair to say that a persons memory is better closer to the incident, plus it's not clouded by the ridiculous news conferences that this prosecutor had. JMO

I agree, though in this case, his first statement was followed by two more that appear to purposely incriminate SA and BD. a person's memory may be better closer to how the incident happened but a person's lies could also be better closer but in subsequent statements it's hard to keep lies straight.

 

[missy1974]

I wonder if Teresa had a girlfriend? They asked if she had a boyfriend, but maybe she was batting for the same team? Just a thought that popped into my head.

Bradley Czech I believe was a business and personal contact. I can't remember where in the transcripts it came up, but it did. It must have been Wiegert or Fassbender... cuz it was brought up in the sense of "did you interview him".

 

[pleasestandby]

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-401-Eisenberg-Pics-of-Cut-Marks-on-Halbach-Remains.pdf

If SA and BD carried TH's body to the fire pit on a creeper and threw her whole body into the fire, how did those bone fragments get cut marks on them? Were her remains (bones) later cut up after being burnt? And if her body was cremated in the fire pit, how did her other bone fragments end up in the Janda burn barrel and out by the quarry?

 

[angelainwi]

Yeah, Cameron does seem to be a bit of a "Mad Hatter". (Of the Tin Foil kind!), seems like he lost it, mentally, somewhere along the line. (I can see how years of investigative work could cause a break down! LOL!).

Still, EWE was in the area, thought was worth looking at anyway.

Oh and it was Ryan Ferguson that zellner exonerated, who was killed by EWE. ( so it has been said, don't know if they ever proved it was EWE)...

Here's a reddit link discussing the whole thing:
https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/41kx36/edward_wayne_edwards_may_have_been_in/

Was EWE ever conclusively tied to that case? Was anyone determined in that case? There were prints on the car but I'm not sure those were ever tied to anyone. Such a shame tho what Ferguson had to go through.

 

[Sinsaint]

For anyone who believes that evidence can't be planted, here's a story for you:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/murder-mystery-killed-wayne-sharmon-stock/story?id=11523512

ETA - after watching the entire documentary more questions than answers arise and more concern about the validity of how some evidence is processed in a case

Basically, in a nutshell, the case is about a CSI investigator was charged and convicted of planting evidence in a case that seemed to point to 2 men who were ultimately exonerated when the real killers were found and convicted.

However, I think the CSI guy was actually innocent of planting evidence, but was rather the victim of his own cross-contamination. He was for the foremost celebrated expert. If he could make a mistake, anyone could. And even though he was the best around, he still managed to get himself convicted of the evidence planting, even though he comes across very believable. It's a crazy case that parallels so many things about the SA/BD case that scare you when you think of just how easily someone can get railroaded.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-juan-rivera-shoes-met-20141210-story.html

This might be a better one. A bunch of cops standing around saying I didn't plant blood on those sneakers, I don't remember anyone else saying they planted blood, I don't even remember a pair of sneakers, it was a long time ago. :shame:

 

[TheDuchess]

Was EWE ever conclusively tied to that case? Was anyone determined in that case? There were prints on the car but I'm not sure those were ever tied to anyone. Such a shame tho what Ferguson had to go through.

No EWE was never linked to that case by anyone other than Cameron. I think many believe the killer was a man who worked with the victim and was the last person to have seen him alive. His story changed several times and his car mysteriously disappeared although it is still registered to him.

 

[Sinsaint]

No EWE was never linked to that case by anyone other than Cameron. I think many believe the killer was a man who worked with the victim and was the last person to have seen him alive. His story changed several times and his car mysteriously disappeared although it is still registered to him.

There was just something really weird about him smiling while talking about the guy dying and that wasn't creative editing either... He was just smiling away while he was talking about it.

 

[TheDuchess]

Does anyone happen to know where Pam Sturm entered the Avery property to start her search?

 

[Sinsaint]

Does anyone happen to know where Pam Sturm entered the Avery property to start her search?

View attachment 88500

Per her testimony she entered from Avery road and then drove down the middle lane and parked at the building. From there she walked in through I guess what would be considered the main entrance from where the homes are located.

 

[missy1974]

Does anyone happen to know where Pam Sturm entered the Avery property to start her search?

go to her testimony on Day 2 ... follow what she says.

This photo is exhibit 25... it's used throughout the trial.

North is the left of the picture... South is the right. (just to help lol)

 

[TheDuchess]

Per her testimony she entered from Avery road and then drove down the middle lane and parked at the building. From there she walked in through I guess what would be considered the main entrance from where the homes are located.

Thank you but I am still confused. Where did she park on this diagram and what was her walking path. Just curious.

 

[TheDuchess]

View attachment 88502

go to her testimony on Day 2 ... follow what she says.

This photo is exhibit 25... it's used throughout the trial.

North is the left of the picture... South is the right. (just to help lol)

I'm still having difficulties. Would you happen to know where the video of her testimony might be?

 

[Sinsaint]

Thank you but I am still confused. Where did she park on this diagram and what was her walking path. Just curious.

Lol... Sorry. The upper right area. There are two blue rectangles and blue square. She parked in that area in front on one of the buildings. From there she walked in heading south (downward) on that path. From there she headed straight to the RAV4.

 

[missy1974]

Day 2 page 205 or so she starts explaining it.


this is a very rough idea of where she went... I had to do it twice... at first I thought she went up the top side (east) of the "pond", but after reading she searched 3 cars before finding it.... I'm thinking she went up the hill west of the pond. Hope this helps LOL The red is where they drove in... blue is walking... the green spot is where the RAV4 was found.

 

[TheDuchess]

First of all....I love you!!! Secondly, I have to say that in looking at your drawing it does answer my question. There's been lots of discussion about how she found the car so quickly. But in looking at this it makes perfect sense. She was working too to bottom. And in seeing the scattered rows and ones along the perimeter it makes very logical sense to knock those out before getting down into the endless rows of cars.

That said, it is also strange just how it was left in such a place. To me, the argument about finding a needle in a haystack is actually moot. I think anyone could have easily found it there and seems almost like "here I am!!! Come find me!!!" But I'm going to hide myself with a couple of branches and plywood so that NO ONE can see me!!! Shhhh!!!!

The location seems to be one selected because the person who did it wanted to hide it but wasn't very good at hiding it. Or the person who put it there wanted it to be found but just hidden enough to appear as though someone wanted to hide it.

Not sure if I have mentioned this before, but Santa always leaves behind one extra special present behind that is hidden enough not to be noticed by the kids when they see the mountain of others presents under the tree. But simple enough for them to find a little later "accidentally." That is what this reminds me of.

Keep in mind that Santa wants them to find the prize!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk