For Those Who Do Not Think Avery was Framed & Evidence Planted - Discuss

[Limaes]

A snippet of Wiegert's testimony at BD's trial regarding hair.

..........................................

Q What stopped you from asking either the Wisconsin State Crime Lab or another lab from doing a hair comparison?

A Well, if you'd like me, I'll explain the whole thing about hair, if that's what you'd like.

Q I don't want to know your spin on the value of doing the comparisons. I just want to know why you didn't ask somebody to do it?

ATTORNEY FALLON: Well, then, he's then he's now entitled to answer that question.

THE COURT: I think he is, Counsel. I think -- I think -- You -- you may characterize it, editorially, as a spin, but you've asked him, so go ahead and answer it.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(By Attorney Edelstein) Why didn't you do it?

A Thank you. Hair evidence -- First of all, we took a carpet cleaner, which you've all seen. There's a vacuum cleaner that was taken as well. Okay? There is probably thousands and thousands and thousands of hairs both in there and in the vacuum cleaner. Number one. Number two, we had to prioritize things on this case. It was a huge case. One of the biggest submissions of evidence ever done to the Wisconsin State Crime Lab. Had we had somebody look through every piece of hair that we found, they'd still be doing it today, and probably still be doing it two years from now. The Crime Lab is -- has only so many people, which you all know, which you've all seen. We took the evidence that we thought best would solve this crime and bring the murderer of Teresa Halbach to justice, and that's what we did.

Could we have spent two, three, four years going through every hair? Absolutely. Is it feasible? It's not feasible. And if he's going to talk to me about DNA, which he's probably going to, on hair, almost impossible unless you have a root. He never cut any of the -- He never pulled the hair out. He said he cut it. Thus, there's no root there. So there's a lot of reasons we didn't do hair analysis. Not to mention the Crime Lab does very limited hair analysis anymore to begin with. DNA? Absolutely, if you have the root. Even if you have the root of that hair, and it went through that cleaner, you have to have skin follicles on that root. The odds of having skin follicles on the root of that hair when it goes through a cleaner like that are probably slim to none. Could we have done it in the next couple years? Certainly. That's the reason.

........................................


Sooo, since it was a big job to examine every hair, why not just grab a hair from her hairbrush or something and just drop it somewhere they can "find" it? The fact that they could have but did not do something that was very simple just makes the planting theory crazier.

JMO

 

[Limaes]

I've watched many documentaries and read many books and articles about Theresa Halbach death and the prosecution of Steven Avery. And I 100% agree with your standing. There is no doubt in my mind that he is guilty of everything he was on trial for. His long criminal history shows the escalation of violent behaviour. Murder is not a far cry from crimes he had already committed. A man being wrongfully imprisoned is unfortunate to say the least, but with the death of Theresa Halbach this was not the case. They had the right man. He preyed on her for a long while before taking action. And Brendan was taken advantage of, though I do believe he knew that what he was participating in was wrong. I don't agree that he should be released as early as he was, because he was fully aware of the crime he committed he just didn't mastermind it all. He shouldn't serve life in prison like Avery but he does deserve longer behind bars then he got.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don't know if BD will get out soon or not. As it stands, Teresa's murderers didn't get away with it. SA will never get out and BD has lost 11 years so far and still counting and he has himself, his Uncle and the rest of his family to thank for that.

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

Sooo, since it was a big job to examine every hair, why not just grab a hair from her hairbrush or something and just drop it somewhere they can "find" it? The fact that they could have but did not do something that was very simple just makes the planting theory crazier.

It does make one scratch their head when you consider all the things that are alleged to have been done in some framing scenario. Instead of the simplest things, like entering SA's trailer for any reason and looking to see if he was in compliance with not having a firearm, which he did have and would obtain up to 10 years in prison for breaking the law, what's imagined is a vast array of crazy actions, including killing TH, burning her body, transporting her cremains, burying those remains in SA's fire pit under a layer of ash and tire steel belts, all in the hope that someone would find those remains and convict SA. And here all it would have taken was 1 entry into his trailer and right there is a rifle he's not allowed to have, boom instant jail, then conviction and prison.

Think about all the things, coincidentally, that happened to align to SA's activities:

- His having a bonfire that occurred on the same night after TH was never seen or heard from again. And TH bone fragments actually melded in with some of those steel belts that were sitting in SA's burn pit.
- SA and BD cleaning a specific area of the garage floor (claimed to be an "oil spill") with 3 different substances, one of which was bleach, which BD got splashed on his jeans, and that area of the garage floor later lit up with luminol.
- SA deciding to clean his carpets after TH disappeared, getting one machine, then later taking that machine back and getting a different one, discussing it all with his jailed girlfriend, all before anyone, including LE, knew TH was missing.
- SA deciding to move around his bedroom furniture after TH's Oct 31 visit to ASY, corroborated by 2 different witnesses.
- SA's DNA through his shed skin cells, deposited on the hood latch of TH's SUV. Not his blood, his skin cells.
- The specific way the SUV was hidden, with the tires covered up, some tree branches on top, the license plate removed, the battery disconnected, actions which are consistent in both knowledge of salvage yard operations and which made the SUV harder to find and not seem out of place to salvage yard employees.

It's seriously alleged LE made TH disappear and then planted her remains and lots of other things at Avery's, without anyone noticing a thing. Riiiiight.

 

[Limaes]

I know there were accusations of planting in OJ's case, but even they didn't go as far as to say they planted Nicole and Ronald's body too. This would have to be a first wouldn't it? It's just such a bizarre thought.

If one considers LE did all this, how can one not consider that SA did in fact murder Teresa Halbach?

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

If one considers LE did all this, how can one not consider that SA did in fact murder Teresa Halbach?

To make SA innocent of this murder requires not just overcoming one or 2 pieces of evidence, but ignoring a lot of incriminating evidence and behaviors, along with believing that every piece of inculpatory evidence was somehow planted or falsified, and the corroborating behaviors suggesting involvement were simply coincidences which should not be considered. Looking at the totality of the evidence is sacrificed in lieu of rationalizing each individual piece of evidence or each behavior, as if there is no link between any of it.

When major pieces of the supposed conspiracy are brought to the light and shown for what they are, a con job to try and shift the blame anywhere else but on Avery, that too is ignored. So the theories don't gel and they don't make sense and the claims get wilder (eg. LE planted TH's body, it wasn't even TH's body, TH is hiding out somewhere and is still alive).

I've seen this happen before. I even saw this happen in a case where the defendant took a plea bargain for 2nd degree murder in exchange for 12 to 15 years in prison (instead of going to trial where he was facing LWOP). He stood up in court and admitted he was guilty of the murder and then agreed to give away his parental rights to his 2 young daughters, in exchange for 1 fewer year in prison. His supporters still claimed he was railroaded, claimed he was framed, claimed he had no choice whatsoever but give a false confession and take a plea.

Follow enough cases and you'll see more of the same.

 

[Limaes]

Been reading the Attwood AMA on Reddit. He was absolutely destroyed by a case follower named Super_Pickle. I can't believe there is a section of people that liken Attwood with Griesbach. At least MG had access to legitimate case files and did his own investigating. Attwood is just an opportunist imo. He has been banned by several social media groups for his attempt to obtain fake positive reviews for his book. Smh.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Limaes]

Finally received my copy of KK's book. From what I have read so far, the recorded phone conversations between SA & JS are interesting. Play them all publically and this whole "he's innocent" will go away [emoji14]

 

[Madeleine74]

Finally received my copy of KK's book. From what I have read so far, the recorded phone conversations between SA & JS are interesting. Play them all publically and this whole "he's innocent" will go away [emoji14]

Any particular things said that stood out?

 

[Limaes]

Regarding the recorded phone calls, yes.

- The night before he murdered Teresa, he was very angry with Jodi. She had told him she'd showered after lunch and he claims she said "after work" LOL . The investigators back Jodi up and say she definitely, and clearly, said "after lunch". He got very angry with her and threatened to refuse her phone calls if she didn't tell him where she worked and continued berating her for most of the call. Very controlling.

- The night that Teresa was murdered, he told Jodi that he had pushed the Suzuki out of the garage that afternoon. Seems like a mundane thing to discuss unless he had a sinister motive to move it and was attempting a pre-emptive strike knowing full well the calls were recorded.

- On the same night, he also told her that he brought BD over his house that night even though a few days later, he neglected to mention this to the cops.

- During the 9.00pm phone call, he sounded pre-occupied and not so talkative. They could hear the police scanner chirping in the background.

- He told her (don't recall the day) that he was coming back from Crivitz on the Saturday afternoon...alone.

- He didn't discuss Teresa coming to the property until the cops came and told her that BoD seen her after he did. What a swine he is!


Other tidbits I thought interesting. JS approached the filmakers before the series was aired and asked them not to include her comments because they were lies she was forced to tell under threat by SA. He told her to only say nice things about him (no wonder she had to lie LOL). The investigators say that the recorded calls, which MaM knew about, show that JS is telling the truth. Imo, SA, Laura and Moira are bullies and L & M are a disgrace to the female species.

That's all I can think of atm. When I have more time, I will post anything else that hasn't been discussed

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

Oh that's just SA being empathetic, caring, and concerned for the well-being of others. So SA did plan to come back from Crivitz alone, eh? Wonder if crushing a certain vehicle was on his to-do list!?

On another note, I started reading about the supposed evidence that is claimed to be TH's remains by SA supporters at the quarry and in other spots, and blood & tissue found were determined not to be human and the possible pelvic bone found was not confirmed to be human to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.

So when claims are made that TH's bones were spread or left at the quarry or anywhere else but at the ASY, that's a fabrication, not based on any scientific confirmation.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...-Trial-Transcript-Day-6-2007Feb19.pdf#page=34

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Steven-Avery-Trial-Exhibit-312.pdf

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...rial-Transcript-Day-13-2007Feb28.pdf#page=169

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...-Trial-Transcript-Day-6-2007Feb19.pdf#page=41

 

[Madeleine74]

MaM's splicing of Avery's confession to the SM incident

In episode 1, MaM plays part of the recorded confession Avery gave after the SM incident. What appears to be a single excerpt from that confession is actually another franken-conversation constructed by the filmmakers.

Actual statement & confession

MaM Franken-conversation spliced


Differences between MaM Franken-splice and the Events described in the LE report:

• MaM's splicing makes his actions seem more spontaneous, like he saw her drive past while he was letting the dogs out and decided to give her a piece of her mind. In reality he got up an hour before she drove past, did "all kinds of stuff" and warmed up the car for some reason before she drove past. Note that this preparation for her driving past his house is exactly what she said he was doing when he would expose himself/masturbate as she drove past on several previous mornings.

• "...ran her off a little bit and went out and pulled the gun and she said she had the kid along and her to take the kid where she was going and I followed her and turned around and went back home" becomes the milder "I just pulled alongside of her. And then we hit and she went into a little skid."

• MaM plays Avery's claim that the gun wasn't loaded, but makes no mention that the gun was found loaded hidden under a child's bed in Avery's home and the box of shells was found on his dresser.

• MaM doesn't mention that SM says that he demanded she get into his car and that he only let her leave after she begged him to let her drop her baby off with her parents down the road and come back to let him "do whatever he wanted." Avery somehow can't remember what he said to her after he pulled the gun on her.

• MaM makes it seem like SM didn't feel as if she was in immediate danger by saying she went "to the Sheriff's Department and filed a complaint." In reality she called 911 immediately after Avery let her go and he was arrested before noon.

 

[Madeleine74]

Details of Franken-Splice:


The first part appears to come from page 1 of his confession, but they edited out Steve's description of what happened and spliced in some of his words from later in the interview (parts not included in MaM are in bold):

CONRAD: Steve, I would like to direct your attention to the early morning hours of Janurary 3, 1985, which is today and ask you if you would explain in your own words exactly what happened.

AVERY: It was 4:30, quarter to 5, and I fired up the stove and did all kinds of stuff and let the dog out and started up the cars to warm them up and... I seen her come by and then I went down the road and I ran her off a little bit and went out and pulled the gun and she said she had the kid along and her to take the kid where she was going and I followed her and turned around and went back home [just pulled alongside of her. And then we hit and she went into a little skid.]



​

Note that the last part of Avery's sentence here has been spliced together from his answers to questions found on page 3 of the interview (the transcript isn't perfect):

CONRAD: Did you pull up behind her and bump her or pull alongside of her?
AVERY: Pulled alongside of her
CONRAD: So you are saying you pulled into the left lane and then what happened?
AVERY: … she went into a little skid.



​

Then it cuts to page 3 but stops before it gets too incriminating (parts in bold were not included in MaM):

CONRAD: Did she ever go down into the ditch?
AVERY: No.
CONRAD: OK, once she stopped her car, what was the next thing you did?
AVERY: I got out, and I grabbed a gun and she asked me what I was doing.
CONRAD: Was your gun loaded?
AVERY: No, it was empty. The shells were at home.
CONRAD: OK, once you got out of the car, you had your gun with you, is that correct?
AVERY: Yeah.
CONRAD: Was Sandy in the car or out of the car when you walked up to her?
AVERY: She was out of the car.
CONRAD: Did you ever point the gun at Sandy?
AVERY: I don’t know if I pointed it at her or the car, I don’t know.
CONRAD: Who was the first to speak, you or Sandy?
AVERY: She was.
CONRAD: What did she say?
AVERY: She asked me what I was doing.
CONRAD: What did you say?
AVERY: I don’t know. Said something. Can’t remember. Then she told me about the kid, that she had the kid in the car and she had to take him up by her ma and then she said “you could follow me and I promise you I’ll come back.” And I followed her half way and then turned around and came back home.



​

Then it goes back to page 2:

CONRAD: And you know Sandy Morris personally? Is she a relative of yours?
AVERY: Yeah.



​

Then to page 4 for the finale:

CONRAD: Steve, can you tell me in your own words why you ran Sandy off the road and pointed a gun at her?
AVERY: Because she was spreading rumors that I was on the front lawn and on the road, bare *advertiser censored*, and she was telling everybody about it and it wasn't true.
CONRAD: Was this bothering you?
AVERY: Yeah.
CONRAD: Did you feel by taking the type of action you did earlier today that this would stop the problem?
AVERY: I was hoping, yeah.



​

This altered confession comes after MaM already set up the viewer by making SM look like she recanted some of the "rumors" she was allegedly spreading in local taverns even though she didn't, so we're primed to believe Avery's version when one of his previous lawyers says this immediately after his confession:

Evans: Steven's actions didn't get what he was hoping. Sandy Morris happened to be married to a Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy. And she immediately went to the Sheriff's Department and filed a complaint... that minimized her involvement in provoking the incident and maximized the alleged danger.


​

 

[RANCH]

I just read a link provided on another thread and found this.

Yet, as the defense attorney Jerry Buting lamented in the documentary, the judge used Wisconsin’s so-called Denny rule (State v. Denny, 120 Wis. 2d 614 (Ct. App. 1984)) to prevent the defense from arguing that a specific third party, other than Avery and his codefendant, had killed Halbach. Sure, the defense team was free to contend that Avery wasn’t responsible for the crime, but they were prevented from telling the jury who they thought had committed it.

The author makes it sound like Buting has evidence that proves another person killed Teresa but wasn't allowed to present that evidence to the jury because of the "Denny rule." I don't believe Buting has that evidence. If he did we would have heard about it by now.

Speculating that a particular person other than Avery killed Teresa without any supporting evidence should not be allowed to be presented to the jury. That's want I feel happened in this case. JMO

http://wislawjournal.com/2016/06/06/critics-corner-convicting-avery-and-overturning-denny/

 

[Madeleine74]

Buting and Strang had caca and they knew it. They went with the only defense they could: conspiracy and SA's claim of framing, a claim that was made even before knowledge of TH's demise was known by LE.

Then, pointing to numerous possible others as the real murderer, during a trial, without evidence, is not allowed. If the citizens of WI don't like the law then they need to vote to get it changed. Complaining about the judge(s) following a law is pointless.

On another note, I always found it strange that SA would be claiming he's being setup and framed at the point LE is looking for a missing person--a person not known to be deceased, a person who might have gotten in a car accident somewhere, over an embankment, injured or dead, after her appointments on Oct 31, 2005. Her vehicle had not yet been found, nor her body parts, yet SA was already claiming conspiracy because LE was following the movement of the missing person on the last day her movements could be tracked. Then LE showed up to ask him questions (unfair) that might cause Avery to want to lie (also unfair). Questions like: "what time was TH here to take pictures that day?" and "what happened next, did you see her leave?" That's just so wrong of them to ask!

 

[CoolJ]

Buting and Strang had caca and they knew it. They went with the only defense they could: conspiracy and SA's claim of framing, a claim that was made even before knowledge of TH's demise was known by LE.

Then, pointing to numerous possible others as the real murderer, during a trial, without evidence, is not allowed. If the citizens of WI don't like the law then they need to vote to get it changed. Complaining about the judge(s) following a law is pointless.

On another note, I always found it strange that SA would be claiming he's being setup and framed at the point LE is looking for a missing person--a person not known to be deceased, a person who might have gotten in a car accident somewhere, over an embankment, injured or dead, after her appointments on Oct 31, 2005. Her vehicle had not yet been found, nor her body parts, yet SA was already claiming conspiracy because LE was following the movement of the missing person on the last day her movements could be tracked. Then LE showed up to ask him questions (unfair) that might cause Avery to want to lie (also unfair). Questions like: "what time was TH here to take pictures that day?" and "what happened next, did you see her leave?" That's just so wrong of them to ask!

The cool thing about this case is that it is going to be quite clear cut. Some are right and some are dead wrong.... either it was a frame job or it was not. There is a lot at stake on both sides. I can feel the tension building.

 

[RANCH]

Buting and Strang had caca and they knew it. They went with the only defense they could: conspiracy and SA's claim of framing, a claim that was made even before knowledge of TH's demise was known by LE.

Then, pointing to numerous possible others as the real murderer, during a trial, without evidence, is not allowed. If the citizens of WI don't like the law then they need to vote to get it changed. Complaining about the judge(s) following a law is pointless.

On another note, I always found it strange that SA would be claiming he's being setup and framed at the point LE is looking for a missing person--a person not known to be deceased, a person who might have gotten in a car accident somewhere, over an embankment, injured or dead, after her appointments on Oct 31, 2005. Her vehicle had not yet been found, nor her body parts, yet SA was already claiming conspiracy because LE was following the movement of the missing person on the last day her movements could be tracked. Then LE showed up to ask him questions (unfair) that might cause Avery to want to lie (also unfair). Questions like: "what time was TH here to take pictures that day?" and "what happened next, did you see her leave?" That's just so wrong of them to ask!

The framing story doesn't fit very well when you look at it that way. JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

Watched a 2-hr Dateline episode about the Sarah Goode case, one I was previously unfamiliar with (happened in 2014). Her car was found off the side of a road about a mile away from her home. Bloody handprint was found on the hood, blood & hair clumps inside, body not found for almost a week, it was in the woods.

Cops took a long-ish time to solve, interviewed the guys she was out with that night, took their handprints, DNA, looked into her ex-boyfriend, who she was not with her last night alive.

Defense team said LE cannot be trusted, they suggested the cops only focused on the guy on trial, even though there was a bunch of people they DNA tested and cleared before they got to the perp. And the defense attorney actually had the audacity to suggest LE photoshopped the bloody handprint onto pictures of the victim's car (seriously) to show the jury and suggested the cops maybe planted the body in the woods (including the perp's DNA found inside the victim). LOL.

Crazy knows no bounds because you just know there is someone out there in the viewing audience who will believe the defense. Of course the defense attorney couldn't explain how the state's serology and fingerprint experts were able to 'lift' this bloody & tested print off the hood of the car. The blood in the fingerprint matched the victim. (Photoshopped blood?) Oh and the CSI techs also found a little bit of the victim's blood in the perp's car, a vehicle she had never been in as she never met this guy before that evening, which the defense attorney said the cops planted (but didn't know how that happened).

The jury didn't hesitate to convict the perp of rape and first degree murder, and the perp got LWOP, as he should.

 

[Madeleine74]

Additional document(s) released and this one was a Motion In Limine to admit statements made by Avery and Barb Janda.

Supports the contention made that Avery was calling the shots behind bars in various conversations to his family members. Also removes any doubt of a bonfire occurring the night of Oct 31.

II. STATEMENTS BY STEVEN AVERY AND BARB JANDA


First, these Statements are in furtherance of the conspiracy to cover up the crime of first degree murder and constitute attempts to intimidate a witness under Wis. Stat. § 940.43(4) and which may include an attempt to suborn perjury. Second, all of this behavior on behalf of Steven Avery and Barb Janda constitute other acts of both Janda and Avery which fully explain the defendant's recantation and which refute the defense of "false confession." Third, such statements are offered for the subsequent effect of them on the "listener" Brendan Dassey. Lastly, these statements constitute information utilized and relied upon by the expert witnesses in this case.


A. The October 31, 2005, 5:36 p.m. statements in a recorded telephone call from Jodi Stachowski to Steven Avery.


B. The October 31, 2005, 8:57 p.m. statements in a recorded telephone call from Jodi Stachowski to Steven Avery, advising that Brendan was helping clean up at Steven Avery's.



C. The November 18, 2005, 6:57 p.m. the statements in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to Barb Janda including but not limited to the discussion regarding whether a bonfire did indeed occur on October 31, 2005, and in which Barb Janda said there was a fire, to which Steven Avery replied, "Well then Brendan was with me." This is also a statement of a present sense impression.


D. The November 26, 2005 recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to CA, a news reporter for the Associated Press, during which Steven Avery acknowledges having a bonfire on October 31, 2005, and that his nephew Brendan was present.



E. The February 4, 2006, interview of Steven Avery with AL, WFRV Green Bay, wherein Steven Avery acknowledges having a bonfire on October 31 and that his nephew Brendan was present.



F. The February 27, 2006, statement in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to his brother Charles Avery telling his brother to tell his sister Barb to call the Public Defender's Office so Brendan won't make anymore statements to police.



G. The February 28, 2006, statements in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to Charles Avery wherein Steven Avery tells Charles Avery that "Brendan will go to jail if I'm found guilty."



H. The February 28, 2006, statements in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to Dolores Avery from the jail regarding a fire on October 31, 2005, between 6:00 and 9:00 p.m. wherein Steven Avery jokes with his mother about Brendan seeing body parts in a fire, particularly legs in a fire.



I. The March 2, 2006, statements in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to Dolores Avery and Barb Janda in which Steven Avery told Dolores Avery that it was Barb's fault for letting Brendan talk to the cops.



J. The March 9, 2006, statements in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to Dolores Avery and Barb Janda wherein Steven Avery told Dolores and Barb to call Brendan's lawyer and say that the police forced Brendan to say it.



K. The March 13, 2006, statements in a recorded telephone call from Steven Avery to Jodi Stachowski where Steven tells her that Brendan needs to stick to his first story.
​

 

[Tiffany Twisted]

Hi, I'm relatively new to WS and typically just lurk. However, I just finished watching MoM for the first time and thought I'd throw my hat in the ring here. IMO, if LE (or anyone, for that matter) wanted to frame SA, they would have planted better evidence and they wouldn't have been so brazen to bring her vehicle on his property. BD's bull**** testimony aside, I don't think anything went on in SA's trailer. My speculation: SA may have tried to get her in the trailer, but she declined to go inside. Perhaps he then told her he had another vehicle in the garage he wanted photographed and she willingly (or begrudgingly) went in there. That's where the assault/murder occurred (as evidence shows). He then put her body in the back of the RAV and dumped it in the fire pit behind the house; then drove the RAV to the spot where it was parked and hidden. Why her body wasn't put in the smelter, why her car wasn't crushed ASAP, etc., etc., is simply because he ran out of time before family came back/came home from work/came home from school. SA wasn't framed; when TH declined his advances, he raped her and killed her and disposed of her body. I know I am repeating a lot of the same conclusion(s) others have drawn, which means I am in good company :crazy:

 

[Tiffany Twisted]

So your contention is that he put her whole body into a pit fire and it disintegrated in the fire? Also, what evidence shows the assault/murder happened in garage?

I contend that the burn pit behind the house was big enough to burn a body whole, yes. I also think he manned the fire for awhile; stoking it, moving debris around, tamping it, etc. which could have resulted in destroying TH's cremains even more. He maybe have then shoveled some of the debris (including some of TH's cremains) into the burn barrel or, alternatively, the fire started in the burn barrel and were moved to the burn pit. Both, as you know, had charred/calcined remains in them (the bone fragments @ the quarry were never confirmed to be human). Also, with respect to the garage, this may be the one and only piece of BD's testimony that is believable. He stated he helped SA clean up a reddish stain in the garage with paint thinner, bleach and something else (cleaning solution?), and subsequent luminol testing proved there was indeed a 3' x 5' stain in the garage, and BD's pants he was wearing that evening had several bleach stains. There was also trace DNA of TH's on a bullet fragment in the garage, a bullet fragment that matched SA's rifle. I don't think TH was shot a dozen times in the garage; I think it was one kill shot to the back of the head. This would explain "just" a 3' x 5' (what I believe to be) blood stain on the floor.