Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

[swedie]

[video=youtube;T-7tAcHw2bI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-7tAcHw2bI[/video]

 

[DeDee]

We don't know she died and burnt on his property. Where is her blood, behinds the back of the RAV4? Nowhere.

She could of been burnt somewhere else, and the remains moved. I believe the "move" occurred on Nov3; the same day the plates were called in.

Please know that I am just recently gaining interest in the case. I thought Teresa's blood was found in SA's yard and a drop in the garage, as well. I don't mind being corrected. It's a learning process for me.

 

[Tawny]

Please know that I am just recently gaining interest in the case. I thought Teresa's blood was found in SA's yard and a drop in the garage, as well. I don't mind being corrected. It's a learning process for me.

Welcome to the very confusing jungle! LOL

None of Teresa's DNA was found in or on SA's property, except for a teensy bit of nucleated cells on a bullet fragment in the garage, which turned out to be not enough DNA for a second sample when the first sample's control was destroyed in the lab. Other than that, and her bones, there is no trace of her anywhere other than the Rav4. Very troubling :/

 

[Sinsaint]

Welcome to the very confusing jungle! LOL

None of Teresa's DNA was found in or on SA's property, except for a teensy bit of nucleated cells on a bullet fragment in the garage, which turned out to be not enough DNA for a second sample when the first sample's control was destroyed in the lab. Other than that, and her bones, there is no trace of her anywhere other than the Rav4. Very troubling :/

If Avery gets off on a "technicality" he seriously needs to look into a career of crime scene cleaning. Once he's cleaned the place up there will only be a few spots of deer blood and his DNA all over the place.

 

[Sustained]

If Avery gets off on a "technicality" he seriously needs to look into a career of crime scene cleaning. Once he's cleaned the place up there will only be a few spots of deer blood and his DNA all over the place.

If Avery gets off at all, the entire Manitowoc County sheriff's department might want to look at relocation and other careers.

 

[Murtagh21]

If convicted murderer Steven Avery has any chance of obtaining a new trial, it will be based on two issues.

1) New evidence that would result in no juror or reasonable fact finder concluding that Avery is guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach.

2) Evidence linking a specific individual to this horrific crime or inculpating law enforcement in planting evidence.

In regards to the 2nd issue, unsourced DNA is not enough to reach the daunting burden now facing the Avery defense team. Excluding sexual assault cases, the FBI has deemed unsourced trace evidence to be "forensically insignificant" and MOST murder cases have followed that thought process. In other words, the defense would have to produce inculpatory DNA evidence linking at least one of several suspects put forth since the Netflix documentary aired.

In terms of inculpating law enforcement in planting evidence, the defense must pass the first gate, which is to convince an appellate court that there is current DNA technology that is far superior than the DNA technology used in the Avery case. The defense would have to convincingly argue that not allowing this "new" DNA testing would result in a "manifest injustice." If it exists, this could involve newer EDTA technology.

 

[swedie]

Please know that I am just recently gaining interest in the case. I thought Teresa's blood was found in SA's yard and a drop in the garage, as well. I don't mind being corrected. It's a learning process for me.

Sometimes people get blind sided by evidence and the theories presented and forget to try and make common sense and logic out of a case. No I'm not pointed a finger at anyone here if that's what someone might be thinking...no worries I am referring to perhaps the jurors who sat on the jury panel or anyone for that matter. People right away think, ah ha LE found a bullet with her blood on it, in SA's garage, therefore he must have shot her and is guilty. They get fixated on one or two things instead of using their own minds logically and asking themselves is there another way it could have happened. They believe everything they hear and believe it to be true and don't think outside the box so to speak. In other words, they put too much faith into what people say, believing it to be the gospel. Hope that makes sense.

IMO what really is the clincher is that TH's blood, hair nor her DNA was found anywhere in SA's bedroom where he and BD have been accused of raping, torturing and then mutilating her. Stabbing someone in the stomach and slitting their throat (according to BD) while she was bond to SA's bed by ropes and chains, would surely leave some trace of her there in that room. The mattress would have been saturated with blood unless SA made preparations first and put plastic on the bed. But then what about transporting her from the bedroom to the fire pit? Surely blood would have leaked somewhere along the path in which her body was moved. I would think stabbing someone or slitting their throat would also cause spurting of blood, at least from the throat. BD claims SA stabbed her first in the stomach. Had that happened, IMO pain and reflexes would have causes TB to be able to thrash about somewhat and there's no telling where blood could be dispersed. If she was cuffed to the wooden bed frame, surely there would have been scratches in the wood and blood could have soaked into the wood where the finish was worn off. No blood anywhere; not on the headboard of the bed, walls, ceiling carpet, bedding, or other furniture in that room, handcuffs that bound her, not one speck anywhere in SA's trailer. Not to forget that BD's DNA wasn't found either in SA's bedroom. IMO TH was not murdered in SA's bedroom the way BD claimed she was. This just goes to show he was coerced into a false confession as far as murdering her in SA's bedroom.

There are two theories LE are suggesting and it cannot be both. TH was either murdered as BD claims or she was shot in the garage where the bullet with a minute amount of her blood on it was found. And from what I understand, that bullet was crushed or damaged, not like it should have been if it had been fired right out of the gun. Theory one just doesn't make sense with no evidence of her in SA's bedroom, and theory two...if she was shot in the garage, why didn't investigators find her blood in the garage? With all the junk in the garage, and nothing was found with her blood on it. Nonsense theory IMHO. Not even in the cracks of the garage floor revealed anything. Huge chunks of the floor were removed where cracks formed and were examined, and not one speck of her blood, DNA or hair was found. Nothing to prove she was murdered in the garage, other than a spent bullet. Theory two doesn't add up IMO.

I do not believe she was shot or stabbed on the Avery property. She was murdered elsewhere. By who... I have not a clue but these theories should not have been considered by the jurors, too much reasonable doubt. JMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

That's actually not the way jurors are instructed to hear and decide a case. They are not supposed to do their own investigations at all. They are instructed to listen to the evidence/witnesses presented, with an open mind, not form any conclusions, and then all 12 jurors together in deliberations are to discuss and determine if the state met its burden for each of the charges or not. Jurors can choose the weight to put on any evidence or witness, in whole, in part, or not at all.

Most of the time tin foil hat wearing conspiratorists get themselves disqualified during voir dire, perhaps because it's hard to hide that mindset.

In this case the jury had many pieces of evidence to consider. A 25 yr old woman arrives on Avery property, interacts in person with the man who called her phone 3 times that day, is never seen or heard from again, her phone stops pinging, her body and items she had with her are found on the property, burned, her car is found on the property, partially concealed, with blood inside. That male blood happens to match the man she was with and that same man happens to have a deep cut (photographed) on his finger. That's compelling circumstantial evidence.

 

[Sustained]

IMO, SA/BD deserve new trials solely based on Kratz' prejudicial press conference where he described the State's theory of how TH died.

 

[Limaes]

That's actually not the way jurors are instructed to hear and decide a case. They are not supposed to do their own investigations at all. They are instructed to listen to the evidence/witnesses presented, with an open mind, not form any conclusions, and then all 12 jurors together in deliberations are to discuss and determine if the state met its burden for each of the charges or not. Jurors can choose the weight to put on any evidence or witness, in whole, in part, or not at all.

Most of the time tin foil hat wearing conspiratorists get themselves disqualified during voir dire, perhaps because it's hard to hide that mindset.

In this case the jury had many pieces of evidence to consider. A 25 yr old woman arrives on Avery property, interacts in person with the man who called her phone 3 times that day, is never seen or heard from again, her phone stops pinging, her body and items she had with her are found on the property, burned, her car is found on the property, partially concealed, with blood inside. That male blood happens to match the man she was with and that same man happens to have a deep cut (photographed) on his finger. That's compelling circumstantial evidence.

If this was anyone but SA, it would be a slam dunk case.
Others have been convicted with less evidence against them.

 

[emmalpage81]

I voted undecided but believe there should be a new case. Whilst there is a lot of circumstantial evidence I just have this nagging doubt - the key has always irritated me and, in all honestly, the minute Manitowoc were involved I had doubts. I find it very hard to believe that police would frame someone but, on the other hand, i find it even harder to believe that a man with an IQ of 70 could have cleaned up a crime scene to such an extent that no DNA can be found, anywhere.

Just my opinion.

 

[PaperDoll]

Seen the series and thought it favored the defense and of course being a "Reality" type show a lot of things were left out due to editing, this of course is MOO! With that said I voted guilty at this point. He has a history of crime and violence which raises red flags to me. I haven't read the transcripts posted here and I'm just basing my verdict on the series along with my gut feeling.

 

[Madeleine74]

I agree with Murtagh21. The burden shifted to Avery after conviction and that's a high burden. Two courts (State Appeals and State Supreme) have not overturned his case. State Appeals rejected it and State Supreme declined to hear the case.

 

[Safeguard]

Seen the series and thought it favored the defense and of course being a "Reality" type show a lot of things were left out due to editing, this of course is MOO! With that said I voted guilty at this point. He has a history of crime and violence which raises red flags to me. I haven't read the transcripts posted here and I'm just basing my verdict on the series along with my gut feeling.

I love your screen name Paperdoll! Thanks for stating your opinion in a way that doesn't, even subtly, criticize those who may have a different one. That's refreshing.

 

[concernedmother]

SA may have a low IQ but after 18 years in prison surely he learned some basics about crime. How could he be smart enough to clean up a crime scene and get rid of DNA but stupid enough to burn her body next to his bedroom and park her car on his property? It doesn't make sense to me. I dont know if he killed TH or not, but his defense did raise some nagging reasonable doubt. Even if he thought that you could completely destroy any evidence of a body, moving her car but leaving it on his property was really stupid. Also, why remove her DNA from the key but leave his on it? Obviously her DNA on the key would be expected. I would like to see a new trial. jmo.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think it confuses people when a crime unfolds and the perp doesn't do things someone else might expect them to do (or not do). There is also the element of dumb luck that can sometimes come into play.

If no DNA is found of the victim in SA's bedroom, then she must either have not been in there or didn't leave any of her DNA on items that were tested. What happened to those sheets that were on SA's bed? (were they burned too?).

TH was with SA, TH did most likely die that day, and her body was burned and her personal items were burned and her SUV was parked on the property and obscured with items from that property.

There's no evidence pointing elsewhere except in people's imaginations. I'm open to seeing any verified evidence that leads to a different perp. Not imagined evidence from fantasy scenarios, but actual evidence.

 

[Sustained]

I think it confuses people when a crime unfolds and the perp doesn't do things someone else might expect them to do (or not do). There is also the element of dumb luck that can sometimes come into play.

If no DNA is found of the victim in SA's bedroom, then she must either have not been in there or didn't leave any of her DNA on items that were tested. What happened to those sheets that were on SA's bed? (were they burned too?).

TH was with SA, TH did most likely die that day, and her body was burned and her personal items were burned and her SUV was parked on the property and obscured with items from that property.

There's no evidence pointing elsewhere except in people's imaginations. I'm open to seeing any verified evidence that leads to a different perp. Not imagined evidence from fantasy scenarios, but actual evidence.

Patience, Zellner is working on it ... we @ Websleuths have a miniscule amount of resources at hand while she has a mountain. In the meantime, we will continue to debate and examine what we do have as that is what makes Websleuths work.

 

[Madeleine74]

I remain a fan of Zellner aside from this case. I don't know if she's right or wrong about this one, but she's among the best of the best advocates, and anyone who has her as their attorney is someone who is getting a first-class effort on appeal.

In the meantime, I've not seen evidence that points to anyone else and the convoluted scenarios to try and make certain others the perp do not make sense to me.

 

[Pseudonymph]

Having watched the whole series and read some of the articles about things that were left out, my current working theory is that Steven Avery is guilty. I had the feeling of being manipulated while watching the documentary. Yes, his 18 years in prison were a travesty, but that doesn't make him innocent for life. (I actually think he would have probably wound up in prison anyway, based on how he was headed, but that's neither here nor there.) Plus there is the whole Occam's razor thing.

I feel it is possible he was molesting Brendan or dominating him in some other way prior to the TH murder. Obviously that can't have been going on for long since SA had been in prison, but I think there was a certain dynamic between them that was already in place beforehand. I think Brendan's disability may hinder his memory and he conflated a lot of things he knew/heard/read/did in addition to being manipulated by the interrogators. I think he knew something at the time, though I have no idea what, if anything, he participated in. Without his confession there is no evidence he was physically involved.

 

[swedie]

That's actually not the way jurors are instructed to hear and decide a case. They are not supposed to do their own investigations at all. They are instructed to listen to the evidence/witnesses presented, with an open mind, not form any conclusions, and then all 12 jurors together in deliberations are to discuss and determine if the state met its burden for each of the charges or not. Jurors can choose the weight to put on any evidence or witness, in whole, in part, or not at all.

Most of the time tin foil hat wearing conspiratorists get themselves disqualified during voir dire, perhaps because it's hard to hide that mindset.

In this case the jury had many pieces of evidence to consider. A 25 yr old woman arrives on Avery property, interacts in person with the man who called her phone 3 times that day, is never seen or heard from again, her phone stops pinging, her body and items she had with her are found on the property, burned, her car is found on the property, partially concealed, with blood inside. That male blood happens to match the man she was with and that same man happens to have a deep cut (photographed) on his finger. That's compelling circumstantial evidence.

Then that's the problem, if they did only as you suggested. The jurors didn't give consideration to the possibility that evidence could have been planted and SA framed. They didn't think outside the box and think, "Hey, why was there none of TH's blood, DNA, hair, found it SA's bedroom if she was murdered in there? Why was there no blood or other evidence other than the bullet in the garage?" Plus, plus, plus. And everything you mentioned in your last paragraph...all could have happened due to framing. MOO.