Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

[leslievernon]

reg. the contaminated test - inconclusive. i'll stay with that.
reg. averys theories - if i am extreme for thinking that avery didn't kill her... well, then i am an, how do you say, extremist.

 

[Boomstick]

Just to revisit the trial testimony of William Newhouse, the technician who claims to have matched the bullet fragment to the weapon found in Steven's home...

Newhouse readily admits his work is subjective:

8 Q. I'm going to read for you a statement from the
9 AFTE, A-F-T-E, Journal, the organization that you
10 belong with. And you tell me if you agree or
11 disagree with this particular statement. Quote,
12 "Currently the interpretation of
13 individualization/identification is subjective in
14 nature, founded on scientific principles and
15 based on examiner's training and experience."
16 A. That's correct.
(Page 146)

Newhouse cannot deny that there is a great deal of difference between the bullet fragment and the test bullet fired from the weapon found in Steven's home:

1 Q. In any event, the test fired bullet on the right
2 shows quite a bit of differences in the land area
3 from the one on the left, does it not? It seems
4 to have some extra ridges or bulges sticking out
5 of some sort?
6 A. There are differences on -- between both bullets.
7 I don't know what you're referring to
8 specifically. There's a great deal of
9 differences on the bullet on the left side of the
10 photograph when you compare it to the bullet on
11 the right side of the photograph.
12 Q. A great deal of difference, right?
13 A. Absolutely, yes.
(Page 155)

[Note - the left and right portion of the photograph designates an exhibit that shows a side-by-side comparison between the bullet in evidence versus the test bullet known to have been fired from the weapon seized by police.]

Newhouse did not compare the bullet in evidence to any other weapons of the same make and model even though it is one of the most popular and hence common weapons of this caliber.

5 Q. Did you examine any other Marlin 60 firearms for
6 this case?
7 A. I did not.
(page 146)

And in a very long section of the examination of the state's expert witness, he admits that while ordinarily this sort of subjective analysis is confirmed by another expert, in the case of this bullet no peer review was done.

20 Q. Well, how do you ever have anybody review your
21 work?
22 A. I do that using the photographs. And one of the
23 examiners in the Milwaukee laboratory, another of
24 the Wisconsin State Laboratories, of course,
25 reviews my photographs. And on occasion, I will
1 take cases over to him where I believe it's
2 warranted, or where he does. And that's how we
3 conduct our peer review of the examinations.
4 Q. That's how you comply with that part of your
5 protocol that says you always have an examiner --
6 two examiners look at the same thing, right?
7 A. Exactly.
(Pages 160 and 161)

To be valid, scientific work must be subjected to peer review to help eliminate error.

7 Q. Do you see Mr. Templin's initials anywhere on
8 here?
9 A. They are not there.
10 Q. Do you see any other firearm tool examiner's
11 initials anywhere on here?
12 A. No. Mr. Templin is the one who reviewed that
13 one, there wouldn't be anyone else.
14 Q. Do you see Item 428?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Also another one for Item FL; do you see your
17 initials on there?
18 A. Yes, they are.
19 Q. Do you see Mr. Templin's initials on there?
20 A. No, they are not.
21 Q. So, we have, in your documentation that you must
22 keep in order to maintain your profile --
23 protocol, no record that any other examiner,
24 besides yourself, looked at Item FL to confirm
25 whether your opinion that this bullet was fired
1 from the gun that was before you earlier, were
2 one in the same, came from the same gun, right?
(Pages 163 and 164)

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-14-2007Mar01.pdf

It is my considered opinion that Buting did us a service by demonstrating that Newhouse's subjective opinion deviates from the accepted norms of his specialty and cannot be taken as probative.

It's definitely subjective. In fact, many disciplines people think are irrefutable would be surprised. The term "reasonable degree of scientific certainty" sounds great and wonderful, until it is explored a little more.

I am under no illusions that experts can be mistaken. But their testimony carries the weight it does, and should never be taken without the context that the evidence in its totality provides.

There is a reason that there was no ballistics expert refuted the findings.

 

[Boomstick]

i'm relatively new to the case.. i think this is a good thread to discuss various topics, as long as we do it in a comprehensible manner.

one of the more outrageous claims actually came from det. wiegert during avery's final nov. 9 police interview:
"how do you explain your bloody palmprint?"
avery's reaction is priceless, because it is just absolute nonsense.

it is important, besides looking and examining evidence, to see how a person is behaving, and reacting to such accusations. and as i wrote in another thread, avery is genuinley surprised when being confronted with all that by the cops.
even a few days earlier when he was being asked the 2nd time, averys lawyer is advising him not to talk with the police, yet he decided to talk to the detective. no sign of deception or unwillingness to cooperate. (avery not being a master of deception by all means) if anybody, next to the halbach family of course, wanted teresa to show up alive and healthy, it's avery. out of very good reasons.

"no sign of deception or unwillingness to cooperate"

? Aside from the series of lies that his accounts would have led one to believe?

Why are you ignoring that he lied repeatedly? That everything he claimed to do that day was false, and that what he was actually doing was directly related to the crime?

 

[Boomstick]

I'm often told police can lie when interviewing witnesses, so they accused Steven using a lie about a palm print to see if they could make him upset and say something they could use in framing their case.

I agree that from my perspective Steven could have reacted badly to this - that he continued to answer their questions and even left the vicinity so the police could take over his home indicates he was more cooperative than he could be expected to be (considering how he has undeniable reason to be suspicious of cops framing him in the past).

I don't think Steven was aware at first of the forces working to target him.

Or he had no choice.

Were you aware that after the rav-4 was found, he had intended to run away, but was talked out of it by his father because it would make him look guilty?

If he runs away, he has no chance of collecting his lawsuit money.

The forces working against him were investigating a murder he had committed. Yet he lied, over and over. He knew they were "planting" evidence against him, but proceeded to lie? And they so happened to plant the evidence where he lied about? Is that something credible to you?

He didn't leave the salvage yard, the vehicle was discovered when he had gone to his vacation home with his family. Coincidentally, establishing the very circumstances he needed to have privacy to dispose of the vehicle. If the vehicle isn't found, he gets away with it. He was that close to getting away with it.

 

[Boomstick]

yes, i heard that too. saying false things just to get a reaction.. i know. but these are techniques, that may work backwards with people who are not that bright, and who see LE generally as someone who can't be wrong, who can only tell you the truth, who is the authority. that is why false confessions happen. brandon, with all due respect, fell exactly into that category.

steven, i guess, was slowly but surely getting the fear and those old feelings came back as soon as the cop told him that THs car was found at their property... i mean.
he could have said stop right there, but, he continued to cooperate.

Lying during an investigation isn't cooperating. I can;t see how it can be interpreted as such.

Particularly when someone is already claiming that evidence is being planted, and seemingly knowing where they would plant it, and where they wouldn't.

 

[Boomstick]

Yes, the technique of trying to change what witnesses state by lying to them can have unfortunate results. Obtaining testimony by fraud seems to me to be very ripe for abuse. That is exactly what I observe in reviewing the extensive coaching Brendan was subjected to.

We are in agreement with this. Although it isn't nearly as cut and dry as the cops lied to Brendan and he changed his tune.

He was lying from the start of the investigation, and during his interviews. There is a reason his story has also changed so much.

 

[Boomstick]

i know what you mean.. austria is currently infected with political parties who have a long list of corruption, really with a capital C.. who's one and only goal is staying in power, at all costs. i can't tell you how i despise them. complete and utterly useless morons get to be ministers cause everybody knows everybody..

well, anyway.

if have a quick question:
was teresas cell phone ever found? could they determine that it was melted in the burn barrel, or in the pit?

It was found in Avery's burn barrel. AS was her camera, and her Palm Pilot/ personal organizer.

 

[Boomstick]

reg. the contaminated test - inconclusive. i'll stay with that.
reg. averys theories - if i am extreme for thinking that avery didn't kill her... well, then i am an, how do you say, extremist.

Yet, it wasn't inconclusive due to the reasons outlined for you. An inconclusive test would not have been certified by the lab itself, nor admissible in court.

It seems you really just want it thrown out because you don't want to believe Avery committed the crime.

The realities here are quite different than Making a Murderer would have us believe.

 

[CoolJ]

Demonstrated? All you've done is allude to a rainbow of different reasons, a series of unconnected, and completely unsupported claims, brought by numerous defense teams, based entirely on innuendo and conjecture, while ignoring all the actual evidence.

There is a reason none of these claims have ever panned out, that not one has ever borne out the claims upon which they are made. There is a reason that the defense needs to keep changing it's theory, and cycle through suspects like a roulette wheel, only, stepping on the pedal when it keeps landing on Avery's number.

There is a reason Avery's story keeps changing, and with it, the "explanations" of his supporters.

This is untrue. Avery is the only character in this saga whose story has stayed consistent.

Also, if you believe that the defense is changing its theory, you do not understand the strategy of what Zellner is trying to accomplish at this point in time.

 

[CoolJ]

Yet, it wasn't inconclusive due to the reasons outlined for you. An inconclusive test would not have been certified by the lab itself, nor admissible in court.

It seems you really just want it thrown out because you don't want to believe Avery committed the crime.

The realities here are quite different than Making a Murderer would have us believe.

There is so much of the story not included in MaM that at this point in time the documentary is almost irrelevant. After watching the documentary i was probably 70% sure Avery was framed. I am now very close to 100%. Lets put it at about 97.5%.
All MaM did was made me aware of possible massive corruption going on in the Wisconsin Justice system. The investigating I have done since is what really seals the deal for me.

Kratz was right. There was a lot left out of the documentary. Most of which doesn't bode well for the authorities involved.

 

[Boomstick]

T


This is untrue. Avery is the only character in this saga whose story has stayed consistent.

Also, if you believe that the defense is changing its theory, you do not understand the strategy of what Zellner is trying to accomplish at this point in time.

Lol. What?

Let's have a look at Avery's contributions, shall we?

Again, even though he was claiming he was already being framed, and that evidence was being planted against him(even though, at that time it could have been anyone, as no evidence had yet linked him to the crime personally) he told police a series of things that simply weren't true.

He repeatedly claimed his mother had come with his mail, a claim which she never verified, and which he also has long since abandoned. His mother is no longer part of his alibi.

He said his brother and friend came by and chatted. They are no longer part of his alibi.

He claims he went to Barb's house. It is no longer part of his alibi.

He said he stayed home, by himself, listening to music. He watched that night. No longer part of his alibi.

He described her visit, where it took place, and what he and she did in great detail, so memory isn't the issue.

So, we have either time unaccounted for, as is the case immediately following her visit and inactivity on both their phones, or time that he lied about from early evening into the night.

What didn't he mention at all during those interviews?

What he was actually doing. All night.

Which we know is gathering items, building a large bonfire and tending to it long into the night.

He said these things before he knew they had found the evidence that there was a fire. Only after he could no longer claim he didn't have a fire did he admit he did. Only then his story became yes, he did have a fire, but the bones, teeth and personal items were all planted by someone.

Can anyone really believe they planted bones in a place beforehand, then he lied about same thing??

His story changed after that for trial, again in 2009 where he tried to blame his brothers among other people, it changed again in letters to Kratz where he tried to blame his sister-in-law, again in 2016 when he wrote a letter blasting Strang and Buting for trying to blame his family, saying no one in his family had anything to do with the crime, then to do an about face the next year.

He has changed his account, and suddenly remembers things he did and said a dozen years prior that he had never said previously. And people believe THAT too?

Changing one's account and submitting sworn affidavits that contradict your own previous accounts, to match the newest theories, with new suspects, is the definition of incredible.

If it isn't obvious by now that it is a case of -'don't believe what I said then, believe what I say now', over and over, I'm afraid nothing will make it so.

 

[Boomstick]

There is so much of the story not included in MaM that at this point in time the documentary is almost irrelevant. After watching the documentary i was probably 70% sure Avery was framed. I am now very close to 100%. Lets put it at about 97.5%.
All MaM did was made me aware of possible massive corruption going on in the Wisconsin Justice system. The investigating I have done since is what really seals the deal for me.

Kratz was right. There was a lot left out of the documentary. Most of which doesn't bode well for the authorities involved.

Of course, you won't be able to show any actual evidence he was framed, or anything more than innuendo and conjecture, but something tells me that won't mean anything.

The idea that somehow you almost 100% convinced he was framed, but cannot actually point to anything that proves that leads me to think there is nothing that would actually convince you he did do it.

He has done nothing but change his story to meet the moment, and for some reason, people buy it. Meanwhile the actual proven and provable evidence remains piled up, unchanged from when it was originally discovered.

So, are basically saying you are 100% someone else committed the crime, despite no evidence of them having done so. Someone else planted all the evidence, despite no proof that anyone did so. That Avery's lies about the most crucial times mean nothing. That witness statements mean nothing. That Avery's history of violence and abuse of women means nothing. That Avery's prior concerning behavior means nothing...... because Steven Avery says he didn't do it?

 

[CoolJ]

Lol. What?

Let's have a look at Avery's contributions, shall we?

Again, even though he was claiming he was already being framed, and that evidence was being planted against him(even though, at that time it could have been anyone, as no evidence had yet linked him to the crime personally) he told police a series of things that simply weren't true.

He repeatedly claimed his mother had come with his mail, a claim which she never verified, and which he also has long since abandoned. His mother is no longer part of his alibi.

He said his brother and friend came by and chatted. They are no longer part of his alibi.

He claims he went to Barb's house. It is no longer part of his alibi.

He said he stayed home, by himself, listening to music. He watched that night.

He described her visit, where it took place, and what he and she did in great detail, so memory isn't the issue.

What didn't he mention at all during those interviews?

What he was actually doing. All night.

Which we know is gathering items, building a large bonfire and tending to it long into the night.

He said these things before he knew they had found the evidence that there was a fire. Only after he could no longer claim he didn't have a fire did he admit he did. Only then his story became yes, he did have a fire, but the bones, teeth and personal items were all planted by someone.

Can anyone really believe they planted bones in a place beforehand, then he lied about same thing??

His story changed after that for trial, again in 2009 where he tried to blame his brothers among other people, it changed again in letters to Kratz where he tried to blame his sister-in-law, again in 2016 when he wrote a letter blasting Strang and Buting for trying to blame his family, saying no one in his family had anything to do with the crime, then to do an about face the next year.

He has changed his account, and suddenly remembers things he did and said a dozen years prior that he had never said previously. And people believe THAT too?

Changing one's account and submitting sworn affidavits that contradict your own previous accounts, to match the newest theories, with new suspects, is the definition of incredible.

If it isn't obvious by now that it is a case of -'don't believe what I said then, believe what I say now', over and over, I'm afraid nothing will make it so.

Everything you are stating here as "lies" are simply not remembering what you did on a specific day over a week ago.
You'll have to forgive me as I do not have the entire case file memorised the same way you do, but didn't Avery say to the investigator (can't recall which one it was) " Do you remember what you did on a certain day last week"?

You are showing nothing of substance that shows intentional deceit.

 

[Boomstick]

Everything you are stating here as "lies" are simply not remembering what you did on a specific day over a week ago.
You'll have to forgive me as I do not have the entire case file memorised the same way you do, but didn't Avery say to the investigator (can't recall which one it was) " Do you remember what you did on a certain day last week"?

You are showing nothing of substance that shows intentional deceit.

Right. Except for the parts where he claimed over and over again his mother came by with his mail, or where he stayed home specifically to make calls, when none were made, or that his brother and friend could vouch for him because they were there, only to claim(12 years after) that they weren't there because they linked him to evidence.

Or where the investigators straight up asked him if he burned anything that week or that night to which he answered "NO". (although he described exactly where he burned things, what he had burned, why he burned them other times).

You're almost 100% sure that falsehood had nothing to do with the remains of the dead person whose remains and personal items were scattered throughout that burnpit and barrels?

And whose vehicle was found with his blood in it, and him with a cut on his finger? Who disappeared after meeting him, and after whose departure he said he watched in detail, never made a call again, or checked her phone, which she had been doing all day?

Fact is that he described her visit in distinct details. Details which turn out also weren't true, being that dogs tracked her directly to his trailer and garage, when he said she had not been.

So he remembers details of everything he did prior to and during her visit and her "departure" but haplessly forgot everything from that moment on?

I must ask, do believe the series of suddenly-remembered details and accounts that he gave 12 years later?

 

[Karinna]

For the extremely high temperatures and lengthy burn time it would take to cremate a body in an outdoor burn pit to the extent it is alleged TH was cremated in the SA burn pit, TH's camera, palm pilot /personal organizer would not have survived such an intense fire.

It was found in Avery's burn barrel. AS was her camera, and her Palm Pilot/ personal organizer.

 

[Boomstick]

For the extremely high temperatures and lengthy burn time it would take to cremate a body in an outdoor burn pit to the extent it is alleged TH was cremated in the SA burn pit, TH's camera, palm pilot /personal organizer would not have survived such an intense fire.

The palm pilot was in the burn barrel Avery was seen putting things in, and that was seen burning that day. Not the burnpit.

The body was not cremated, nor would it take in inordinate amount of time to burn it to the extent it was. 6-8 hours as described as by Zellner's own expert. And that was without taking into account several factors.

 

[CoolJ]

Of course, you won't be able to show any actual evidence he was framed, or anything more than innuendo and conjecture, but something tells me that won't mean anything.

The idea that somehow you almost 100% convinced he was framed, but cannot actually point to anything that proves that leads me to think there is nothing that would actually convince you he did do it.

He has done nothing but change his story to meet the moment, and for some reason, people buy it. Meanwhile the actual proven and provable evidence remains piled up, unchanged from when it was originally discovered.

So, are basically saying you are 100% someone else committed the crime, despite no evidence of them having done so. Someone else planted all the evidence, despite no proof that anyone did so. That Avery's lies about the most crucial times mean nothing. That witness statements mean nothing. That Avery's history of violence and abuse of women means nothing. That Avery's prior concerning behavior means nothing...... because Steven Avery says he didn't do it?

OK, i have been though all of this ad nauseum, but you are new, so I will give you a nice dose of some common sense logic this one time only.

• The blood in the RAV has been shown to be impossible to come from an active bleeder. Common sense tells us that the drips of blood are not consistent with someone actively bleeding operating that vehicle. Especially when you consider there are no Avery prints in the vehicle. It was clearly planted.

• The bullet, found 5 months after the fact, which F & W used to coerce Brendan into telling them Avery shot her in the head..... What did he do to her head Brendan? ... Uhh.. cut her hair? No Brendan thats not what i want to hear.... I'm just gonna come out and say it, who shot her in the head? ... Uhhh... he did? ...................... whataya know, they went back to the garage, 5 months after, and voila, the magic bullet appears, on top of the cement dust from where they completely tore that garage apart looking for evidence. The same bullet which Zellner has proven did not go through skull, but in fact it went through wood. The bullet was clearly planted.

• The sweat DNA( the what?, yep... Sweat!) found on the hood latch. Also used to coerce the story they fed Brendan. Proven by Zellner to be significantly more DNA than you would see from touch DNA...... hmmmm... could this be from the groin swab taken by the two corrupt as F investigators that they weren't supposed to take under the direction of a Doctor who just so happens to have a surname of Vogel. Oh but no need to worry, they disposed of that groin swab in the trash bin at the hospital.

What else we got, I am working from memory here so again forgive me, I havent memorised the case files in the manner you have. Oh yea......

• The magic key!! Do i really need to explain this one? Even Kratz conceded this one, because it is impossible to even attempt to explain away no matter how manipulative one is with words. So two officers who werent even supposed to be there came upon a key laying in plain site on their 7th search. No need to worry about the conflict of interest of L & C doing the searching as they were being babysat by Calumets resident alien expert, Kucharski. Why did they need a babysitter again? conflict of interest you say? yet they were still allowed to bag and tag evidence while investigating a man who just weeks earlier had them deposed in a multi million dollar civil rights violation lawsuit. The key was CLEARLY planted.

 

[Karinna]

Burn Pit/ Burn barrel makes no difference really in an outdoor fire.
It takes at least 1500-2000 degrees to burn a body in any type of burning to get it down to bone.
Some metals take a lot less temperature to melt depending on the type of metal.
Melting temperatures of some common metals and alloys
Melting point is the temperature at which a substance changes from solid to liquid state.

Melting points for some metals and alloys:
Metals - Melting Temperatures

The palm pilot was in the burn barrel Avery was seen putting things in, and that was seen burning that day. Not the burnpit.

The body was not cremated, nor would it take in inordinate amount of time to burn it to the extent it was. 6-8 hours as described as by Zellner's own expert. And that was without taking into account several factors.

 

[CoolJ]

For the extremely high temperatures and lengthy burn time it would take to cremate a body in an outdoor burn pit to the extent it is alleged TH was cremated in the SA burn pit, TH's camera, palm pilot /personal organizer would not have survived such an intense fire.

You are absolutely right. A little burn pit fire isn't going to reduce 30 % of a human body to bone fragments and totally disintegrate the remaining 70% while at the same time leave a few hunks of plastic
intact, not to mention a piece of actual flesh. It is ludicrous to even fathom.

Hmmm... maybe this is why the investigators were coercing everyone to change their statements about the size of the fire when most folks couldn't even remember what day the fire was.

 

[Boomstick]

OK, i have been though all of this ad nauseum, but you are new, so I will give you a nice dose of some common sense logic this one time only.

• The blood in the RAV has been shown to be impossible to come from an active bleeder. Common sense tells us that the drips of blood are not consistent with someone actively bleeding operating that vehicle. Especially when you consider there are no Avery prints in the vehicle. It was clearly planted.

• The bullet, found 5 months after the fact, which F & W used to coerce Brendan into telling them Avery shot her in the head..... What did he do to her head Brendan? ... Uhh.. cut her hair? No Brendan thats not what i want to hear.... I'm just gonna come out and say it, who shot her in the head? ... Uhhh... he did? ......................Then whataya know, they go back to the garage, 5 months after, and voila, the magic bullet appears, on top of the cement dust from where they completely tore that garage apart looking for evidence. The same bullet which Zellner has proven did not go through skull, but in fact it went through wood. The bullet was clearly planted.

• The sweat DNA( the what?, yep... Sweat!) found on the hood latch. Also used to coerce the story they fed Brendan. Proven by Zellner to be significantly more DNA than you would see from touch DNA...... hmmmm... could this be from the groin swab taken by the two corrupt as F investigators that they weren't supposed to take under the direction of a Doctor who just so happens to have a surname of Vogel. Oh but no need to worry, they disposed of that groin swab in the trash bin at the hospital.

What else we got, I am working from memory here so again forgive me, I havent memorised the case files in the manner you have. Oh yea......

• The magic key!! Do i really need to explain this one? Even Kratz conceded this one, because it is impossible to even attempt to explain away no matter how manipulative one is with words. So two officers who werent even supposed to be there came upon a key laying in plain site on their 7th search. No need to worry about the conflict of interest of L & C doing the searching as they were being babysat by Calumets resident alien expert, Kucharski. Why did they need a babysitter again? conflict of interest you say? yet they were still allowed to bag and tag evidence while investigating a man who just weeks earlier had them deposed in a multi million dollar civil rights violation lawsuit. The key was CLEARLY planted.

The above is total nonsense, and unbacked by any actual facts. You'll notice.

The blood was shown to be impossible to come from an active bleeder. Care to explain how? Or are simply riding on one of the many changing, unsubstantiated theories presented by Zellner?

There were both drips and contact stains on multiple surfaces.

You do realize that investigators getting Brendan to admit having seen the shooting is not exculpatory in any way for Avery, right? Nor does it suggest the bullet was planted. They knew she had been shot by the types of wounds, and the lead particles ringing them. They absolutely walked him into that admission, but they didn't walk him into which gun, or where it came from.

Once again, the bullet didn't need to go thru skull, nor wood for that matter, but even if it had, it also is not in the least bit exculpatory for Avery.

Also to be considered is that the rifle had been in storage in the crime lab for those months, and yes, the bullet was only found after the garage was exhaustively searched months later.

Odd how there always seems to be a logical, and already proven explanation in the case files for all the conjecture and conspiracy theories.

Sweat DNA isn't actually from sweat, I hope you realize. It is from skin cells sloughed off and transferred via sweat.

Ah, the groin swab story told by Avery. Another thing he suddenly "remembers" a dozen years later, expecting people to actually give it credibility.

Even the key, as suspicious as can be has never actually had anything to support that it was planted beyond that mere suspicion.

Hopefully you realize that the Manitowoc County Sheriff Dept. wasn't being sued and didn't have an actual conflict of interest. Rather the county itself was being sued. The officers from Manitowoc who were involved were requested to perform certain functions. In this case, assist with searches. They clearly should have stayed the hell out of it.

Kratz admitted no such thing. A simple read through of his statement about it provides the context that debunks that he "admitted it". It's nonsense. It's like claiming Strang "admitted" Steven Avery killed her when he gave his *'even if he did'* in his opening.


So, with that nice"nice dose of common sense and logic", which still conspicuously has nothing that actually indicates that Avery didn't kill her(or have you not noticed), or that anyone else did, what are you thinking happened?

Bobby/Ryan/Scott T./Earl/Chuck/Candy/Martinez/Scott B/ the guy with the axe killed her and Manitowoc planted all the evidence? With the help, of course, with Calumet Sheriff's Dept, the Calumet DA's office, the Wisconsin Dept of Justice, the FBI, the Wisconsin Crime Lab, Avery's trial attorneys, Ms. Halbach's family and friends, Avery's family and, and, Avery himself?

Because he is tremendous contributor to the case against himself.

At some point, you'd figure something, heck, anything, might actually be substantiated against someone other than Avery, right?

Why is a proven liar given do-overs in credibility, time and again, but everyone else's errors, mistakes or poor performance is a lie and conspiracy?

Honestly, at what point does so much conspiracy become too much conspiracy?