Rav4

[missy1974]

What glove?

look... I don't even think he was in the RAV4.... but I and others are here discussing what if scenario's. And IF he was in the RAV4 actively bleeding.... he had to have been wearing gloves, because there is just now way that he wouldn't leave prints, none.... OR.... he wiped down his prints and left the blood, your pick, you are the one that thinks he was in there. Either way... it doesn't make much sense, does it?

And add to that.... who DRIPS blood from a glove? that DRIP on the inside of the back passenger door was pretty big to DRIP from a glove IMO

I'm just using common sense. If he was wearing gloves.... or not wearing gloves. Your pick. Something doesn't add up either way IMO

 

[Madeleine74]

I theorized instead of gloves he could have had something in his hand like a rag, T-shirt, paper towel in order to not be leaving his fingerprints. Holding onto something would not be protecting the top of his hands and not where that cut was.

He could have avoided leaving any fingerprints by having that barrier between palmar surfaces and vehicle surfaces, but inadvertently left some blood from the cut on the top/side of that middle finger, which was not covered by holding something in his hand.

Further, it was likely dark out when the SUV was moved from his trailer property over to the spot it was left. The interior of the SUV is dark, and he didn't notice the blood. Very simple, actually.

 

[Sustained]

I theorized instead of gloves he could have had something in his hand like a rag, T-shirt, paper towel in order to not be leaving his fingerprints. Holding onto something would not be protecting the top of his hands and not where that cut was.

He could have avoided leaving any fingerprints by having that barrier between palmar surfaces and vehicle surfaces, but inadvertently left some blood from the cut on the top/side of that middle finger, which was not covered by holding something in his hand.

Further, it was likely dark out when the SUV was moved from his trailer property over to the spot it was left. The interior of the SUV is dark, and he didn't notice the blood. Very simple, actually.

The interior lights, unless out of order, would have gone on when the door was opened. I find it hard to believe SA would not have seen the blood
either with these lights or a flashlight. And I also question why he wouldn't have gone back out in the daylight to clean the RAV4 if he missed something ?

 

[Madeleine74]

The interior lights would have gone on if they were working and were set to go on. However, interior lights are not bright lights in most vehicles. In my vehicle the lights that come on do not light up the entire interior of the vehicle and do not illuminate areas closer to the floorboards.

I've gone out to my car on many nights to retrieve something and unless I had a bright flashlight with me I could easily miss said item. A smudge of something like blood on any of the interior surfaces I would not be able to see without extra light, as those console surfaces are very dark (dark gray).

Why didn't SA double check the SUV? Why didn't SA think he should be extra diligent? Because he didn't, simple as that. If SA had been diligent he would have gotten rid of the rifle hanging on the wall of his room. SA wasn't that diligent.

Smart people make mistakes too. Bernie Madoff anyone? Brilliant man. Got caught. Prison is filled with people smart, dumb, and in between. They don't think of everything and the average crime has something like 10 or more mistakes by the perp, ranging from statements they make to telling someone something to forensic evidence, to something on a computer or cell phone, to behaviors others notice...you name it. Many murderers do get caught. Extremely smart tech dude in my town got nailed in the murder trial of his estranged wife. He did a google search at work, on his secure work laptop, in google maps and zoomed in on the very spot where he would dump her body...12 hours later. He was considered mensa-level smart. But he didn't know everything, and the browser he was using had a bug in it and an FBI cyber task force found his google map search right down to the individual tiles zoomed in. OOPS. Busted! He eventually admitted the killing and gave up all rights to his 2 young daughters to take a 2nd degree plea.

 

[Sustained]

Why didn't SA double check the SUV? Why didn't SA think he should be extra diligent? Because he didn't, simple as that. If SA had been diligent he would have gotten rid of the rifle hanging on the wall of his room. SA wasn't that diligent.

It's possible that SA didn't double-check the SUV because he didn't put it there. Same thing with the rifle ... if SA didn't shoot the rifle, why would he think to hide it ? Still impossible for me to believe SA would kill a woman and burn her body right next door to a house with so many comings and goings ...

 

[TheDuchess]

I theorized instead of gloves he could have had something in his hand like a rag, T-shirt, paper towel in order to not be leaving his fingerprints. Holding onto something would not be protecting the top of his hands and not where that cut was.

He could have avoided leaving any fingerprints by having that barrier between palmar surfaces and vehicle surfaces, but inadvertently left some blood from the cut on the top/side of that middle finger, which was not covered by holding something in his hand.

Further, it was likely dark out when the SUV was moved from his trailer property over to the spot it was left. The interior of the SUV is dark, and he didn't notice the blood. Very simple, actually.

So in order to believe this whole theory about this one would need to assume that someone who lives and works on the property and actually moves cars in and out on a regular basis and does need to park them quite closely would choose to park in a place where he couldn't get out of the vehicle on the drivers side? You know like a normal person would do? Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the property may do that not thinking. But someone with the guts enough to kill a woman many knew was there in broad daylight with all sorts of people coming in and out and also such a badass that he invited his 16 year old learning impaired nephew to join in on the fun and help him build a human bonfire right next to his own house? And then casually discussed the situation with the press just for a little extra fun. A man who probably had nightmares about ever going back to prison. This short stout little man decided to park next to a checks on his drivers side requiring him to climb out onto the passenger side and bleed all over the place. He was in too much of a hurry to turn it around so he could easily get out but then took a little extra time to decorate his prize with all sorts of branches and leaves.

How in the world does that make any sense to anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

It's simple really:facepalm:

So in order to believe this whole theory about this one would need to assume that someone who lives and works on the property and actually moves cars in and out on a regular basis and does need to park them quite closely would choose to park in a place where he couldn't get out of the vehicle on the drivers side? You know like a normal person would do? Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the property may do that not thinking. But someone with the guts enough to kill a woman many knew was there in broad daylight with all sorts of people coming in and out and also such a badass that he invited his 16 year old learning impaired nephew to join in on the fun and help him build a human bonfire right next to his own house? And then casually discussed the situation with the press just for a little extra fun. A man who probably had nightmares about ever going back to prison. This short stout little man decided to park next to a checks on his drivers side requiring him to climb out onto the passenger side and bleed all over the place. He was in too much of a hurry to turn it around so he could easily get out but then took a little extra time to decorate his prize with all sorts of branches and leaves.

How in the world does that make any sense to anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Dirty cops, I bet, make mistakes too. As do ex bf's.

I wonder why SA LOCKED up after he hid that vehicle?? Since he had the Key and all?

The interior lights would have gone on if they were working and were set to go on. However, interior lights are not bright lights in most vehicles. In my vehicle the lights that come on do not light up the entire interior of the vehicle and do not illuminate areas closer to the floorboards.

I've gone out to my car on many nights to retrieve something and unless I had a bright flashlight with me I could easily miss said item. A smudge of something like blood on any of the interior surfaces I would not be able to see without extra light, as those console surfaces are very dark (dark gray).

Why didn't SA double check the SUV? Why didn't SA think he should be extra diligent? Because he didn't, simple as that. If SA had been diligent he would have gotten rid of the rifle hanging on the wall of his room. SA wasn't that diligent.

Smart people make mistakes too. Bernie Madoff anyone? Brilliant man. Got caught. Prison is filled with people smart, dumb, and in between. They don't think of everything and the average crime has something like 10 or more mistakes by the perp, ranging from statements they make to telling someone something to forensic evidence, to something on a computer or cell phone, to behaviors others notice...you name it. Many murderers do get caught. Extremely smart tech dude in my town got nailed in the murder trial of his estranged wife. He did a google search at work, on his secure work laptop, in google maps and zoomed in on the very spot where he would dump her body...12 hours later. He was considered mensa-level smart. But he didn't know everything, and the browser he was using had a bug in it and an FBI cyber task force found his google map search right down to the individual tiles zoomed in. OOPS. Busted! He eventually admitted the killing and gave up all rights to his 2 young daughters to take a 2nd degree plea.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

SA may have deliberately parked the Rav4 so that it would be difficult to look at the Vin plate on the drivers side dash and the sticker on the drivers side door or B pillar that also has the Vin # on it. JMO

 

[dexter75]

Thank you!
A partial print? Palm print?
He opened the hood latch and NOTHING, oh except DNA..right.

Why are there no fingerprints on the RAV4 from SA ? Don't think the RAV4 was dusted all over ?

 

[dexter75]

lol
I can't help myself either..
:laugh::lookingitup:

would be interesting to know if the vehicle that was parked in front of that red car had damage.... or if it looked like it was hit, wouldn't it? Still wouldn't explain the missing wheel well.... and if someone did hit that car, why bother to pick up the light.... nevermind LOL

 

[dexter75]

Where is the concrete proof SA used those three chemicals to clean Teresa Halbachs blood off of his garage floor???

They didn't need to remove traces of TH from her own vehicle. SA didn't realize he had deposited his own blood in the SUV from the cut on his hand.

SA needed to get rid of TH stains from his garage. Why was it necessary for him to use bleach + gasoline + paint thinner in that area?

 

[Sustained]

Where is the concrete proof SA used those three chemicals to clean Teresa Halbachs blood off of his garage floor???

Lol Dexter the proof is in the concrete floor ...

 

[missy1974]

Lol Dexter the proof is in the concrete floor ...

LOL I was wondering if that was supposed to be a funny...... or not haha

 

[dexter75]

With all due respect,

if you believe 100% SA is GUILTY and nothing is/was planted?

( I don't want to seem rude, come off mean, at all. )

I have read every thread here on this subject, why go back n forth with us " conspiracy theorist " types? It's plain to read what you all really believe, which is perfectly fine btw. *smiles*


I am being 100% honest when I say, I am curious.

Why's cannot be known and unless the person tells their thought process or told someone else who can and will repeat it, it can't be known.

How any of us might have figured out where to hide or get rid of evidence that would ensure it not be found or how we might have worked through the variables better than the killer is irrelevant. We do not know what SA was thinking and no one else does either. Lots of "he would have known better than to do x, y, z therefore he couldn't have done it" have been proposed, but that's a logical fallacy based on someone believing they know the inner thoughts of SA or anyone in the case.

 

[dexter75]

I'm getting " goofy tired " and it isn't even midnight yet!

Better watch myself, can't see my giggly face, or goofy tone, via text.
Wish we could all just skype or something!

Even the Guilty side.
It'd be interesting, that's for sure!
Fun stuff =)

LOL I was wondering if that was supposed to be a funny...... or not haha

 

[Madeleine74]

So in order to believe this whole theory about this one would need to assume that someone who lives and works on the property and actually moves cars in and out on a regular basis and does need to park them quite closely would choose to park in a place where he couldn't get out of the vehicle on the drivers side? You know like a normal person would do? Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the property may do that not thinking. But someone with the guts enough to kill a woman many knew was there in broad daylight with all sorts of people coming in and out and also such a badass that he invited his 16 year old learning impaired nephew to join in on the fun and help him build a human bonfire right next to his own house? And then casually discussed the situation with the press just for a little extra fun. A man who probably had nightmares about ever going back to prison. This short stout little man decided to park next to a checks on his drivers side requiring him to climb out onto the passenger side and bleed all over the place. He was in too much of a hurry to turn it around so he could easily get out but then took a little extra time to decorate his prize with all sorts of branches and leaves.

How in the world does that make any sense to anyone?

Yet it makes more sense that someone somehow got a hold of TH's SUV, even though there's zero evidence of that, and then planted that SUV on the Avery property? They not only did that, they then rummaged around the Avery property and gathered up various pieces of stuff, wood posts, metals hoods, branches and other flotsam to place on, up against, and around the vehicle. But wait there's more. They not only did that, they also removed the license plate off that SUV and took it where...nearby to another car? No not to a car right next to the SUV. No, they took it all the way across the auto salvage yard to hide it inside a a vehicle that was fairly close to Avery's trailer. And did they stop there? Why no they didn't. They cleaned out TH's vehicle of AutoTrader paperwork. They removed her cell phone, PDA, digital camera and carried that over to Avery's burn barrels in the hopes someone might start a fire there? They did all of that without anyone seeing them trespassing on Avery property. And THAT's the more reasonable scenario? On what planet is that the more reasonable, more logical scenario? LOL.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Thank you!
A partial print? Palm print?
He opened the hood latch and NOTHING, oh except DNA..right.

So you're saying that if SA left behind DNA on the hood latch that he would have also left behind a print that would be identifiable later on?

Why is that so?

I think that it's much easier to leave behind DNA than to leave behind a print that could be tied to a suspect. JMO

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Understand your POV but why leave the license plate on the property at all ? Or the RAV4 itself knowing the LE would soon find out you were the last person seen with TH ?

Why not get underneath one of the junkers and hide it the license plate out of sight ?

...because you don't have an IQ higher than 70?????

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I'm thinking if the person framing SA wanted the car to be found by searchers only and not by police in fly overs then in the instance a person from the Avery yard (employee/resident) found it was there before searchers they would have done enough to the suv to cause confusion
1. not understand whose it was- no plates
2. not understand why it was there- covered with branches obscured

I'd like to know how someone who supposedly planted this car could have done that without anyone who lived on that property seeing them. Did they bring the branches and fencing to the site or did they scavenged the site during the pitch black night (or daylight) to find those items to put there--all the while no one on the property sees them? It doesn't make sense.