Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

[missy1974]

@Sustained
Here is a link to all the appeal documents: Avery’s Appeals Documents – Steven Avery Trial Transcripts and Documents

There is a ton of information in there about the computer forensics from the last year or so.

 

[Sustained]

There is way more information in the motions filed by KZ, and in the affidavit's from computer expert. That's why I said it was a good place to start to even get an understanding of what was on the computer.

The computer was in Bobby's room, there is evidence of this in a police video or photo, which of course he and Barb now deny it was even in there. KZ has it down to a percentage of the searches where only Bobby should have been home because others would have been at school/work. The blocks of missing data are because Barb had someone try to wipe the hard drive. There is more information that is not available to us because the CD submitted to the courts was sealed.

IMO Steven wasn't computer savvy or smart enough to realize that a computer could keep and store information. This is the same guy that was arrested for being in possession of a gun and didn't realize he couldn't.

The call to TH's phone was at 4:35 IIRC. If you believe even part of what Brendan said in his interviews, there is no way that she was killed before then. That would have only given Brendan a few minutes to do and see all he did. JMO

Thanks ...

I don't doubt that BoD had a problem. Was he just curious @ 20 years old or did his surfing and child pics lead to child molestation or murder ? He doesn't have a criminal rec and AFAIK has never been accused of molesting a minor. SA has ...

As I have said before, IMO there are half-truths in what BD said in his interviews. I do not believe for a minute that he raped TH and stabbed her in the stomach. He was also verified as home @ 5pm. I do believe that SA called him around 7pm and solicited his help in cleaning blood in the garage, possibly burning TH's body, and moving the Rav4. Barb even asks him if he did something and I believe BD said something to the effect of "Some of it". He also asks in a jailhouse call how much time he would get for helping Steven clean up the garage. IMO, BD's mistake was not turning SA in.

 

[Sustained]

ok fine, he doesn't see them go into the Salvage yard, but in that direction. My point is, you don't believe him, right? But yet another part of his story can actually be verified, so we know he didn't make that up 10+ years later. How do you pick and choose what to believe? and what in the world would Siebert have to gain by saying this now?

Missy, I don't doubt he saw 2 vehicles go by @ 40mph. That's pretty fast when you're sitting in your back yard and Siebert said one of them was green, the other a white Jeep. It was countered in the RS article that the white Jeep could have been the silver Suzuki the Averys owned. To me, it's like the guy who saw what he thought was TH's vehicle at the bridge. If he knew TH was missing on 11/4, why wouldn't he have pulled in and snapped a pic. And if he saw it from the road, why didn't anyone else ? One could certainly counter that maybe he didn't have a cell phone ... but we're talking about a missing person who was all over the news.

 

[Poedelini]

You can bet they will if KZ is granted an evidentiary hearing. And that will drag on for months, if not years while they test and retest.

Yes only to keep him behind bars, while there is some serious doubt.

Thanks ...

I don't doubt that BoD had a problem. Was he just curious @ 20 years old or did his surfing and child pics lead to child molestation or murder ? He doesn't have a criminal rec and AFAIK has never been accused of molesting a minor. SA has ...

As I have said before, IMO there are half-truths in what BD said in his interviews. I do not believe for a minute that he raped TH and stabbed her in the stomach. He was also verified as home @ 5pm. I do believe that SA called him around 7pm and solicited his help in cleaning blood in the garage, possibly burning TH's body, and moving the Rav4. Barb even asks him if he did something and I believe BD said something to the effect of "Some of it". He also asks in a jailhouse call how much time he would get for helping Steven clean up the garage. IMO, BD's mistake was not turning SA in.

I think the behaviour of BoD is just as potential dangerous as SA criminial record to be honest.

 

[Sustained]

Yes only to keep him behind bars, while there is some serious doubt.



I think the behaviour of BoD is just as potential dangerous as SA criminial record to be honest.

BBM - maybe, but there is nothing on BoD's record nor any accusations.

 

[missy1974]

Missy, I don't doubt he saw 2 vehicles go by @ 40mph. That's pretty fast when you're sitting in your back yard and Siebert said one of them was green, the other a white Jeep. It was countered in the RS article that the white Jeep could have been the silver Suzuki the Averys owned. To me, it's like the guy who saw what he thought was TH's vehicle at the bridge. If he knew TH was missing on 11/4, why wouldn't he have pulled in and snapped a pic. And if he saw it from the road, why didn't anyone else ? One could certainly counter that maybe he didn't have a cell phone ... but we're talking about a missing person who was all over the news.

We don't know when he saw the vehicles, he only says 'sometime before the RAV4 was discovered'. (logically, I'm thinking he can't pinpoint the day, but knows it was within days of her RAV4 being found and the corner by his house being blocked off by LE) Why would he take a pic? I don't know about you, but I didn't have a cell phone that was capable of taking good pics back then, even Teresa's phone was a flip phone IIRC. We are talking about a gentlemen that was 70 yrs old and didn't even call LE himself, he asked his daughter to.

The silver Suzuki that was in Avery's garage? I don't believe that was a running vehicle.

 

[missy1974]

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/exhibit-231.jpg

That is a photo of the Suzuki. Not sure I would mistake that for white... but it could be the lighting.

 

[Sustained]

We don't know when he saw the vehicles, he only says 'sometime before the RAV4 was discovered'. (logically, I'm thinking he can't pinpoint the day, but knows it was within days of her RAV4 being found and the corner by his house being blocked off by LE) Why would he take a pic? I don't know about you, but I didn't have a cell phone that was capable of taking good pics back then, even Teresa's phone was a flip phone IIRC. We are talking about a gentlemen that was 70 yrs old and didn't even call LE himself, he asked his daughter to.

The silver Suzuki that was in Avery's garage? I don't believe that was a running vehicle.

Sorry for the confusion, but by the pic I meant the gentleman who saw the Rav4 by the bridge. You could be right about cell phone pics. We've come a long way in the 15 years. If it were me and I had seen a missing woman's vehicle, I would have stopped and jotted down the plate number.

 

[Sustained]

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/exhibit-231.jpg

That is a photo of the Suzuki. Not sure I would mistake that for white... but it could be the lighting.

Me either ... so who owns a white Jeep ?

 

[missy1974]

Sorry for the confusion, but by the pic I meant the gentleman who saw the Rav4 by the bridge. You could be right about cell phone pics. We've come a long way in the 15 years. If it were me and I had seen a missing woman's vehicle, I would have stopped and jotted down the plate number.

ahhh ok, but I'm still not sure that the guy knew about her being missing when he saw it? He may have found out after the fact and remembered seeing it? I can't quite recall the details at the moment. Yeah, I'm not sure anyone had "good" phones to take pics with back then, and the culture isn't like it is now, everyone has a phone, including 70 yr olds lol Anddd they take better pics than most camera's now!!!

 

[missy1974]

Me either ... so who owns a white Jeep ?

I don't think anyone has made a connection to a white jeep... I do know that there was much discussion about what is considered a "jeep" LOL lot's of people, including LE, called the RAV4 a jeep... the Suzuki in SA's garage, could be called a jeep.

Investigation continues... ;-)

 

[k-mac]

3. Are we to believe SA killed TH when he knew Autotrader staff and others knew of her visiting the ASY, then just places the car on family property and hides a connecting piece of evidence in his room? What significance does the key have to him? why not dispose of it with the rest of the keys and property? Also, with his knowledge of Salvage yard duties and lack of knowledge in MURDER, the scene is cleaned rather well but the car is not crushed, melted, disposed of in some other way? Instead its just hidden with branches?

rsbm

are we to actually believe that LE had all this evidence in existence , a crimescene, a murdered woman...obviously a KILLER somewhere amongst it...
to let them off scott free to frame a dead beat like avery…..

 

[Karinna]

I think what i have learned so far in this case is that whoever killed TH was a hunter. I believe that because of the forensic evidence of the cut/saw marks on the bones found.
I have read that people who hunt deer and slaughter them do use a hacksaw to cut through the bones when they are dressing the deer.
Was SA a hunter?

 

[Karinna]

rsbm

are we to actually believe that LE had all this evidence in existence , a crimescene, a murdered woman...obviously a KILLER somewhere amongst it...
to let them off scott free to frame a dead beat like avery…..

To frame a deadbeat like Avery as you put it, was worth a lot at the time to those implicated in his civil case who were being deposed.

 

[Sustained]

To frame a deadbeat like Avery as you put it, was worth a lot at the time to those implicated in his civil case who were being deposed.

Colborn and Lenk had no personal liability in Avery's lawsuit and they obviously didn't lose their jobs.

 

[Sustained]

I think what i have learned so far in this case is that whoever killed TH was a hunter. I believe that because of the forensic evidence of the cut/saw marks on the bones found.
I have read that people who hunt deer and slaughter them do use a hacksaw to cut through the bones when they are dressing the deer.
Was SA a hunter?

I don't know if SA is a hunter and I don't hunt, but a hacksaw would be my tool of choice to cut through bones due to the serrated blades.

 

[Karinna]

'Making A Murderer': The Evidence You Didn't See, Straight From Kathleen Zellner
Bobby Dassey

Making A Murderer Part 2 vividly explains Zellner’s theory that Bobby Dassey is the real killer. Select parts of her reasoning were left out of the series, like Dassey’s claim he found a deer on the side of the road around the time of Halbach’s murder, hung it from the ceiling in his garage, and noted it was dripping with blood. The Dassey garage was never luminoled or tested forensically in any way, including for DNA, Zellner explained.

Zellner also revealed Bobby Dassey had three scratches on his back photographed in November of 2005. He claimed the scratches were from his six-week-old Labrador retriever. Zellner’s theory of Halbach’s murder, which she presented with expert trials on Making A Murderer Part 2, claims Halbach was killed during a struggle while lying on her back. She explained the scratches may have come from self-defense.

Bobby Dassey’s family also jokingly referred to Halbach as his girlfriend because of the attention he paid her. Halbach visited the Avery property five times in the summer of 2005. He was able to describe exactly what she was wearing after she died, which Zellner said is unusual.

“He describes her clothing in detail. How is an 18-year-old boy able to do that?” Zellner told Newsweek. “He's describing her jacket and the length of it and the colors of things. It's really unusual. I have four brothers, four younger brothers. They're not gonna be able — that's just so unusual that he was doing that.”
Here's the evidence you didn't see in 'Making A Murderer,' straight from Kathleen Zellner

 

[Karinna]

I didn't know this
(quote)
The Jury Verdict

In Steven Avery’s trial, the jury took three days to deliberate. According to Zellner, this means a large discussion took place. She was told they were split on Avery’s guilt and even considered acquitting him.

“This jury, given the defense even though they [only had one expert], they still almost won. They had the jury out three days. Most experienced criminal defense attorneys would think they won,” she said.

Much of this theory can be assumed in the acquittal of Avery on the count of burning Halbach’s body. The jury found Avery not guilty of disposing of Halbach’s body in a burn pit on his property.

“They must have believed the bones were planted in the burn pit because they found him not guilty,” Zellner said. “How do you explain that? Because that was a key part of the evidence against him.”

 

[missy1974]

I didn't know this
(quote)
The Jury Verdict

In Steven Avery’s trial, the jury took three days to deliberate. According to Zellner, this means a large discussion took place. She was told they were split on Avery’s guilt and even considered acquitting him.

“This jury, given the defense even though they [only had one expert], they still almost won. They had the jury out three days. Most experienced criminal defense attorneys would think they won,” she said.

Much of this theory can be assumed in the acquittal of Avery on the count of burning Halbach’s body. The jury found Avery not guilty of disposing of Halbach’s body in a burn pit on his property.

“They must have believed the bones were planted in the burn pit because they found him not guilty,” Zellner said. “How do you explain that? Because that was a key part of the evidence against him.”

He was found not guilty of mutilating a corpse. So yep, for some reason they didn't think he burned her I guess? It was odd. I think when his attorney's first appealed, part of that appeal was 'inconsistent verdicts' or something like that, because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Karinna]

He was found not guilty of mutilating a corpse. So yep, for some reason they didn't think he burned her I guess? It was odd. I think when his attorney's first appealed, part of that appeal was 'inconsistent verdicts' or something like that, because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I agree it is odd considering a corpse was mutilated. Cut marks on bones, burning the body etc. Wonder what they thought happened then?