Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

[missy1974]

I am into Statement Analysis, and have reason to suspect at least one other family committed the crime. Not to say I'm confident Steven wasn't involved, but there is clear deception and possible guilty knowledge of a sexual homicide shown in the jury testimony of other persons, whom I don't believe I am allowed to name here at this time. I do believe Steven was set up to look like the sole perpetrator, whether he committed any of the crime or knew of it himself or not, by this other family member, and when LE latched onto that idea and couldn't get Steven, they brought Brendan in and coerced a confession from him to try and save their case.

:wagon:

Welcome to the forum!

We do have a thread for Alternate theories if you are interested

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?298505-Alternate-Theories

 

[robin8]

I have voted that based on current evidence and the subsequent questions they throw up at me, I am not certain it was Steven. A multitude of things make me question the integrity of the police, little things don't make sense to me - like why would he keep TH's RAV4 on property when he had a car crusher? Yes the car would have still been on the property but it let's face it, it would have been less likely to find or be able to obtain evidence from. If he went into all that trouble to cover it up, why leave the keys in a prominent place? Also, the scattering of bones in the quarry along with the burn pit leads me to question the common sense there also. Finally, again I found the immediate finger-pointing of ST and BoD questionable when I believe you would naturally support your family initially, especially a family as close-knit as this. Another question is over the deleting of voicemails by TH's ex, was this ever fully explored? Surely this is punishable as it tampers with evidence or hinders an investigation? Why would you delete something that could potentially help a case for a 'loved one'? Did he have something to hide?

There is one thing for certain, this case has had me hooked and confused since I watch MaM at the start of the year. Whatever the outcome, I just wish for the truth and real justice for TH

 

[dexter75]

I have voted that based on current evidence and the subsequent questions they throw up at me, I am not certain it was Steven. A multitude of things make me question the integrity of the police, little things don't make sense to me - like why would he keep TH's RAV4 on property when he had a car crusher? Yes the car would have still been on the property but it let's face it, it would have been less likely to find or be able to obtain evidence from. If he went into all that trouble to cover it up, why leave the keys in a prominent place? Also, the scattering of bones in the quarry along with the burn pit leads me to question the common sense there also. Finally, again I found the immediate finger-pointing of ST and BoD questionable when I believe you would naturally support your family initially, especially a family as close-knit as this. Another question is over the deleting of voicemails by TH's ex, was this ever fully explored? Surely this is punishable as it tampers with evidence or hinders an investigation? Why would you delete something that could potentially help a case for a 'loved one'? Did he have something to hide?

There is one thing for certain, this case has had me hooked and confused since I watch MaM at the start of the year. Whatever the outcome, I just wish for the truth and real justice for TH

Welcome robin8

You raise some valid points!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Lanette28]

I think he is guilty, and Brendan may have helped dispose of body. I don't belive Brendan killed or raped her. I think the cops planted evidence to ensure guilty verdict. Justice was not allowed to work. I think Steven is where he belongs

 

[cujenn81]

If not Avery, then who killed Teresa and how did they manage to frame Avery for it?

SBM for focus:

I always cringe when I see the "if not, then who" question because that logic is the reason so many people are wrongfully convicted.

If LE follows the evidence and it doesn't lead them anywhere, they often seek out evidence that points to the person that THEY believe is guilty.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jslk]

I have voted that based on current evidence and the subsequent questions they throw up at me, I am not certain it was Steven. A multitude of things make me question the integrity of the police, little things don't make sense to me - like why would he keep TH's RAV4 on property when he had a car crusher? Yes the car would have still been on the property but it let's face it, it would have been less likely to find or be able to obtain evidence from. If he went into all that trouble to cover it up, why leave the keys in a prominent place? Also, the scattering of bones in the quarry along with the burn pit leads me to question the common sense there also. Finally, again I found the immediate finger-pointing of ST and BoD questionable when I believe you would naturally support your family initially, especially a family as close-knit as this. Another question is over the deleting of voicemails by TH's ex, was this ever fully explored? Surely this is punishable as it tampers with evidence or hinders an investigation? Why would you delete something that could potentially help a case for a 'loved one'? Did he have something to hide?

There is one thing for certain, this case has had me hooked and confused since I watch MaM at the start of the year. Whatever the outcome, I just wish for the truth and real justice for TH

In a similar vein also when the police officer 'called in' the rav4 prior to its discovery on the Avery property. I agree with all your other points too.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

Steven Avery may well think he is the unluckiest person when it comes to being wrongfully incarcerated, but i bet certain members in Manitowoc County thought it was their very lucky day when the civil case against them was quashed.

 

[Karinna]

I recall reading that SA didn't think RH or Teresa's brother had anything to do with what happened, but did say he thought it could of been two other people on their side of things that set him up. And yes, i believe Brendan was railroaded in it all to secure LE's case.
Here are a few potential others that could of done it,
Who killed Teresa Halbach? The four alternative suspects
http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamurdereralternativesuspects.html

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

SBM for focus:

I always cringe when I see the "if not, then who" question because that logic is the reason so many people are wrongfully convicted.

If LE follows the evidence and it doesn't lead them anywhere, they often seek out evidence that points to the person that THEY believe is guilty.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well my friend, it would appear many other people Cringe too. I'd argue about the logic you apply. LE followed the evidence here (I think) and decided that Avery was the last person to see Teresa alive and when her car was found, they became very focussed on finding out what he knew.

I ask for alternative theories, because if the sole motive was he was suing the State, so rather than set him up, the Cops could have just shot Avery and been done with him.

Far easier than the elaborate Hoax people describe.

 

[vanay]

Well my friend, it would appear many other people Cringe too. I'd argue about the logic you apply. LE followed the evidence here (I think) and decided that Avery was the last person to see Teresa alive and when her car was found, they became very focussed on finding out what he knew.

I ask for alternative theories, because if the sole motive was he was suing the State, so rather than set him up, the Cops could have just shot Avery and been done with him.

Far easier than the elaborate Hoax people describe.

We'll see if it's a hoax won't we. To me there is little/no evidence to suggest he did it, regardless of whether he was the last one to see her Alive. Pretty sure the last person will hide away until caught and yep not convinced it was SA. I've read enough articles to suggest there are plenty of other people who would have muttered TH with a motive, which again SA didn't just have, so makes no sense to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IDK]

We'll see if it's a hoax won't we. To me there is little/no evidence to suggest he did it, regardless of whether he was the last one to see her Alive. Pretty sure the last person will hide away until caught and yep not convinced it was SA. I've read enough articles to suggest there are plenty of other people who would have muttered TH with a motive, which again SA didn't just have, so makes no sense to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great post! Tunnel vision is a dangerous frame of mind, and that is what I think LE developed in this case.

 

[dexter75]

Well my friend, it would appear many other people Cringe too. I'd argue about the logic you apply. LE followed the evidence here (I think) and decided that Avery was the last person to see Teresa alive and when her car was found, they became very focussed on finding out what he knew.

I ask for alternative theories, because if the sole motive was he was suing the State, so rather than set him up, the Cops could have just shot Avery and been done with him.

Far easier than the elaborate Hoax people describe.

Nah..shooting him at the time would have been much to obvious IMO
The way LE went about this entire set up, I believe in their eye's, was a much better scenario.
BAD AND DISGRUNTLED AVERY..seeks REVENGE for being set up so takes his wicked fantasy out on innocent THE.
JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[hburke]

I think it was her ex boyfriend. Then again, I think it was someone related to that family.

 

[Limaes]

Nah..shooting him at the time would have been much to obvious IMO
The way LE went about this entire set up, I believe in their eye's, was a much better scenario.
BAD AND DISGRUNTLED AVERY..seeks REVENGE for being set up so takes his wicked fantasy out on innocent THE.
JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

So, just how did they go about this entire set up?

"BAD AND DISGRUNTLED AVERY..seeks REVENGE for being set up so takes his wicked fantasy out on innocent"

Truer words you have never spoken imo.

 

[dexter75]

I think it was her ex boyfriend. Then again, I think it was someone related to that family.

Yep

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

So, just how did they go about this entire set up?

"BAD AND DISGRUNTLED AVERY..seeks REVENGE for being set up so takes his wicked fantasy out on innocent"

Truer words you have never spoken imo.

Limaes
It's been discussed time and time again in other threads..look for it.❤

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[vanay]

So, just how did they go about this entire set up?

"BAD AND DISGRUNTLED AVERY..seeks REVENGE for being set up so takes his wicked fantasy out on innocent"

Truer words you have never spoken imo.

Less about the potential set up and more about the fact they just didn't question enough potential suspects, which I truly believe set off a series of events. I'm no detective but surely If you are start off on the wrong foot you are going to get yourself in a tricky situation and you end up in the wrong place or in this case a questionable conclusion.

What I struggle to understand is how people think the evidence is actually genuine evidence after the mess they made with his last conviction. So what make you so sure the evidence isn't planted? They had more reason to plant, then SA did to kill TH really.

I still have no idea if SA did or didn't do it, I just won't presume he did when it's not clear he did at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robin8]

Less about the potential set up and more about the fact they just didn't question enough potential suspects, which I truly believe set off a series of events. I'm no detective but surely If you are start off on the wrong foot you are going to get yourself in a tricky situation and you end up in the wrong place or in this case a questionable conclusion.

What I struggle to understand is how people think the evidence is actually genuine evidence after the mess they made with his last conviction. So what make you so sure the evidence isn't planted? They had more reason to plant, then SA did to kill TH really.

I still have no idea if SA did or didn't do it, I just won't presume he did when it's not clear he did at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couldn't agree more with this - LE showed their reluctance to investigate more than one suspect in his initial jailing - they went straight for SA then, what is to say it couldn't happen a second time. I am not stating this was a police set up - I think someone else had something to do this, took advantage of the situation SA was in by leaving evidence in close proximity to his trailer and allowed the police to come to a quick conclusion. My doubts have always been on ST and BoD, their behaviour was strange considering how close knit this family are - all living on one site in a 'community'. They relied on each other heavily for alibis, both saying they were hunting (were they at that point setting up an alibi as to why they were in possession of a firearm at the time TH was murdered?) and also ST's relationship with BT - and the link to her burn barrel.

I just find it so hard to believe a man who had just spent 10+ years incarcerated for a crime he didn't commit would readily commit a more drastic crime (basically going from 0 - 120mph... murder is a huge thing to jump to from not much) and leave evidence in plain sight - he had a new life, had a potential for a HUGE payout, a new relationship and was back with his family .... he has protested his innocence loudly for 10+ years. Surely if he was guilty in some element, he would have given up by now and just accepted, that was his life.

jmo but if I was tasked with making a decision with no doubt... I would be lying to myself if I didn't admit there is too many questions, too many challenges to the norm/common sense and also, too many other people who weren't (from what I have read online, not necessarily seen on MaM) investigated sufficiently and displayed some interesting behaviour and even had a stronger motive than SA.

 

[dexter75]

Less about the potential set up and more about the fact they just didn't question enough potential suspects, which I truly believe set off a series of events. I'm no detective but surely If you are start off on the wrong foot you are going to get yourself in a tricky situation and you end up in the wrong place or in this case a questionable conclusion.

What I struggle to understand is how people think the evidence is actually genuine evidence after the mess they made with his last conviction. So what make you so sure the evidence isn't planted? They had more reason to plant, then SA did to kill TH really.

I still have no idea if SA did or didn't do it, I just won't presume he did when it's not clear he did at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great points here, vanay😉 The entire system failed Avery, IMO.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Couldn't agree more with this - LE showed their reluctance to investigate more than one suspect in his initial jailing - they went straight for SA then, what is to say it couldn't happen a second time. I am not stating this was a police set up - I think someone else had something to do this, took advantage of the situation SA was in by leaving evidence in close proximity to his trailer and allowed the police to come to a quick conclusion. My doubts have always been on ST and BoD, their behaviour was strange considering how close knit this family are - all living on one site in a 'community'. They relied on each other heavily for alibis, both saying they were hunting (were they at that point setting up an alibi as to why they were in possession of a firearm at the time TH was murdered?) and also ST's relationship with BT - and the link to her burn barrel.

I just find it so hard to believe a man who had just spent 10+ years incarcerated for a crime he didn't commit would readily commit a more drastic crime (basically going from 0 - 120mph... murder is a huge thing to jump to from not much) and leave evidence in plain sight - he had a new life, had a potential for a HUGE payout, a new relationship and was back with his family .... he has protested his innocence loudly for 10+ years. Surely if he was guilty in some element, he would have given up by now and just accepted, that was his life.

jmo but if I was tasked with making a decision with no doubt... I would be lying to myself if I didn't admit there is too many questions, too many challenges to the norm/common sense and also, too many other people who weren't (from what I have read online, not necessarily seen on MaM) investigated sufficiently and displayed some interesting behaviour and even had a stronger motive than SA.

I like your perspective on the case. I had considered the same suspects you mention, however, not the scenario.
Definitely something to consider. (Being open to ideas, and the open minded person I am)
Thanks for the input😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk