Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dogface said:
Yes you are correct on that. Someone who is a true sociopath is a scary thing, a wolf in sheeps clothing. But more than just talking normally to Jodi, the fact he supposedly told BD about his phone call with her while at the bonfire struck me as 1. Truthful 2. Normal.
Click to expand...

Did that have to happen at the bonfire ?

If brendan could say something specific about the conversation between Steve and Jodi, it would have relevance. Right ?

But the police knew the conversation occurred and they likely asked brendan if he knew about it. I guarantee you this, if brendan had given a specific detail from that phone call that steve told him and jodi confirmed, we'd have gotten an earful of that by now. So I trust that it has no relevance.
 
Hi, it's been a while since I have bee active here. I was trying to read the original thread related to Teresa Halbach and I keep getting a message saying I do not have permission/ access. Maybe my account was deactivated for inactivity? Any idea how I fix this?
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
But at his rape trial there was not the DNA we have today that would have cleared him and that would have been that. So for me the weight of certain evidence has changed because of the times we live in.
So no, I don't think they should chase down insane leads to appease the public. I hate hate hate when there is a corrupt official because it taints it all for many people.. But evidence is evidence.
The logical thing is if this guy was wrongly accused once and incarcerated, And now there is another case against him they are going to be extra careful to make sure they have the right guy this time.

I just don't believe that cops were running around setting him up. I think he wants people to believe that but I believe he did this based on the evidence I have seen.
For me, The murder could have been as simple as bashing her over the head, doing whatever he wanted to and then tossing her body on a burning fire. That would not leave much evidence especially if he burned everything. And he would not need anyone's help.
Click to expand...

So, in your mind the fact that they had other law enforcement bodies telling them "We believe we know the guy that did it" and they chose not to investigate or put him in a photo lineup doesn't constitute an unfair investigation/trial ?

forget about the DNA. They CHOSE to look away from someone other law enforcement was pointing at. It wasn't steve avery pointing the finger, it was other law enforcement.

That's not a maybe. That's factual.

But you want me to accept that again they might not do the same thing again , with a 36 million dollar lawsuit in the mix?? :/

Yet...

they didn't investigate the ex boyfriend.
They didn't investigate chuck and earl avery who had sexual assault pasts and access to the junkyard ?

Are you suggesting that the ex-boyfriend and ex convicts of sexual crimes are insane leads ?

Earl hid under a pile of clothes when they came to interview him for heavens sake! :)

I'm confused.

Don't get me wrong, I think on a very logical level, you and I likely believe the same thing, as I believe that the probability of Steve Avery being the killer is very high.

But where we differ is I believe in an actual investigation, even when you are 99% certain you got your guy.
 
MaxManning said:
Yeah, feels futile. Nobody with power is jumping into the picture. And a guy like Strang who understands the system, seems to indicate that it's an overwhelming task ahead. That's the impression I got from hearing him talk. Not that he wasn't up to the challenge, but that he was well aware that this was no small task.
Click to expand...
It appears the Wisconsin Department of Justice has joined Brendan's attorney for the filing of his latest writ of habeas corpus. Which is a good sign. Many probably already knew this (I didn't) bc this article was posted on December 27, 2015. While I won't be holding my breath, it does give me some hope that Brendan's mistreatment will be vindicated. Even though, I admittedly wonder what effects (negative, I'm sure) this whole thing has on Brendan, as he's been in prison for a decade.

Since he was tried as an adult, I wanted to see what Wisconsin's provisions are for such cases. Here's a comprehensive document prepared for the Wisconsin Legislative Council, written in 2008: Treatment of Juveniles in the Wisconsin Criminal Court System: An Analysis of Potential Alternatives. Additionally, a bill has been introduced to the Wisconsin legislature to would cut number of juveniles charged as adults in Wisconsin. Unfortunately, this bill, had it been passed pre-2005, would still not have affected Brendan, as he was only 16 at the time. And, even if he had been 17, he was accused of having committed a violent crime.

All things considered, I would love to see some changes come about as a result of the publicity this case has received. Especially, with regard to questioning minors.

Among these, I would like to see laws change that require a parent be present. I was surprised that very few states actually require this. Although, I admittedly do not think his mother being present would have helped, as she seemed as clueless as he.

Importantly, it is my hope that people educate themselves and their children regarding how miranda really works. That is, do not volunteer anything, even for "friendly questioning." While this may seem counter-intuitive, as the court of public opinion views those who ask for a lawyer as exhibiting guilt, so what. Better to be viewed as guilty by a bunch of arm chair jurors, than go to prison for something you did not do.
 
MaxManning said:
So, in your mind the fact that they had other law enforcement bodies telling them "We believe we know the guy that did it" and they chose not to investigate or put him in a photo lineup doesn't constitute an unfair investigation/trial ?

forget about the DNA. They CHOSE to look away from someone other law enforcement was pointing at. It wasn't steve avery pointing the finger, it was other law enforcement.

That's not a maybe. That's factual.

But you want me to accept that again they might not do the same thing again , with a 36 million dollar lawsuit in the mix?? :/

Yet...

they didn't investigate the ex boyfriend.
They didn't investigate chuck and earl avery who had sexual assault pasts and access to the junkyard ?

Are you suggesting that the ex-boyfriend and ex convicts of sexual crimes are insane leads ?

Earl hid under a pile of clothes when they came to interview him for heavens sake! :)

I'm confused.

Don't get me wrong, I think on a very logical level, you and I likely believe the same thing, as I believe that the probability of Steve Avery being the killer is very high.

But where we differ is I believe in an actual investigation, even when you are 99% certain you got your guy.
Click to expand...

First, I don't want you to accept anything.. I am not trying to convince you. You asked and I answered.. :)

I never forget about DNA. IT puts someone there. It means something. So for me cases with DNA while they are not always perfect have an undeniable link to the person.
I believe all cases have insane leads.. Someone hiding under clothes does not to me, say Guilt! IT says crazy.
For me a big thing is the phone calls. To me it shows his plan to cover for himself in the moment of the crime.
 
stephsb said:
To completely dismiss that evidence wasn't planted or someone else on the property didn't do is just as one-sided as the conspiracy theorists. The judge allowed the jury to be given instructions to consider if evidence could have been planted, even while Kratz argued against it. This was one of the first instructions to be given, so to say it bears no considering isn't fair. The jury considered it, everyone on here should as well.

I do agree there are a lot of posters who go out of their way to make evidence fit the narrative they want- that Steven is innocent, and I don't think that's productive, but there are also people on here who refuse to believe there's any way police could have planted evidence (not calling out you personally) and that's not productive either. Colburn and Lenk should not have been on that scene, period. If they had recognized the conflict of interest and let others handle it, the key would have NEVER been an issue.

To answer your questions (and this is just speculative, not necessarily what I believe): CA killed Teresa. No alibi, history of aggressive behavior w. Women, particularly sexual. Was on grounds and knew Teresa would be there. Could have been done anywhere on Avery property, probably between 3-5. Had access to Stevens house (Jodi woke up to him in the house uninvited before) could have taken the gun, or the bullet could have been planted to strengthen the case. Steven had been bleeding earlier, CA could have taken the rag used to clean up and planted the blood(theory from Defense in post conviction motion) or police could have done it to strengthen their case. Doesn't require a grand conspiracy with a bunch of players.

For what it's worth, I completely agree I find the theory that LE murdered an innocent woman to frame Avery beyond ridiculous. I also think the brother, roommate, and ex are a bit out there as well. I think it was someone on the Avery property, and I won't eliminate Steven as a possibility. But he wasn't the only possibility, even though investigators acted like he was.

Also, I don't dismiss your theory of the key not being planted and falling out of furniture, it's a good point and something to consider. But again, I don't think planting evidence would have ever been considered if Colburn and Lenk didn't involve themselves in the investigation to find the key.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just to add to your comments, while it's human nature to want to know WHO killed Teresa Halbach, that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the State proved its case beyond a "reasonable doubt."

Steven Avery could well be guilty, but gut feelings should never be mistaken for proof; especially when that proof has to be held to the highest of all standards in our justice system.
 
stephsb said:
To answer your questions (and this is just speculative, not necessarily what I believe): CA killed Teresa. No alibi, history of aggressive behavior w. Women, particularly sexual. Was on grounds and knew Teresa would be there. Could have been done anywhere on Avery property, probably between 3-5. Had access to Stevens house (Jodi woke up to him in the house uninvited before) could have taken the gun, or the bullet could have been planted to strengthen the case. Steven had been bleeding earlier, CA could have taken the rag used to clean up and planted the blood(theory from Defense in post conviction motion) or police could have done it to strengthen their case. Doesn't require a grand conspiracy with a bunch of players.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree that this is plausible and high probability. I think if we compared Chuck, Steve, Earl side by side without any evidence, we'd see Chuck as the one most likely based on his past interactions with women who were towed to the junkyard.

My only reason for leaning more towards Steve, is that it's simpler and doesn't require any planting.

Also, Steve had the phone interactions with teresa that day that I personally find suspicious.

But I don't see it as hard to believe in the least that CA might be the killer.
 
GigiG said:
Just to add to your comments, while it's human nature to want to know WHO killed Teresa Halbach, that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the State proved its case beyond a "reasonable doubt."

Steven Avery could well be guilty, but gut feelings should never be mistaken for proof; especially when that proof has to be held to the highest of all standards in our justice system.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is the case at all respectfully.. Did he kill her or not is the only question I care about.
He was convicted because a jury found him guilty. The jury believed it was beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
I have learned over time that I don't have to know exactly what happened to know someone did it.
I still am not sure the order of events in Travis's Killing but I know that JA killed him. Granted she left more obvious evidence but I still see evidence here that points to him.

I know that he called her to come there. That he tried to cover his number.. He calls her saying.. Where are you aren't you coming??? and yet he goes on national tv and says he saw her that day.
He is covering because he killed her. Her bones are found there, her car is found there..

I believe he killed her. I don't need all the details in a box to think that. I have learned over the years there are some things you never get to know.
Click to expand...


I must have missed this, can you point me to your source?
 
Tawny said:
I must have missed this, can you point me to your source?
Click to expand...

Give me a minute to find a source. I heard it on one of the shows and I heard it on more than one show.. Give me a few to find document.
 
norest4thewicked said:
No disrespect meant, but if you are going to do research on this case based off of this propaganda film, then you may as well save your time. Anyone who just watches this travesty of truth and doesn't see it for what it is, won't come to any other conclusion but that he is innocent. Hundreds of thousands of people have already.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I watched the whole series, which was obviously slanted (i.e., the title, in and of itself, indicates the filmographer's opinions) and did not come away feeling the man was innocent.

Since that time, and having dug through what documentation is available (no, not MSM's take, court records), I have yet to be convinced the man is innocent. Even so, at this point in time, I do not believe the prosecution proved their case "beyond a reasonable doubt." There were just too many unexplainable issues.

And no, I do not think LEOs framed the guy. In fact, I think the defense made a couple of huge mistakes, one letting the filmographers follow them around and tape their discussions. Importantly, accusing LEOs of framing SA. I do however, think the LEOs, in their zeal, planted evidence to match the story they coerced from Brendan. I also think the DA was so excited about the media attention, that he put forth a gruesome story that, in reality, was simply not backed up by physical evidence. Glaringly, where is the blood? Where is Ms. Halbach's DNA?

And finally, while I, personally, think SA is guilty, I am willing to entertain other possible scenarios.

That said, I am challenging your assertion bc, imho, it is laced with assumptions and sweeping generalizations.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
First, I don't want you to accept anything.. I am not trying to convince you. You asked and I answered.. :)

I never forget about DNA. IT puts someone there. It means something. So for me cases with DNA while they are not always perfect have an undeniable link to the person.
I believe all cases have insane leads.. Someone hiding under clothes does not to me, say Guilt! IT says crazy.
For me a big thing is the phone calls. To me it shows his plan to cover for himself in the moment of the crime.
Click to expand...


I didn't ask you to forget about DNA - I made the comment because you noted the first crime didn't have DNA - simple misunderstanding of what I said, not a big deal.

you said :
But at his rape trial there was not the DNA we have today
Click to expand...

Maybe would have been better to say "Forget about the lack of DNA". -- they had great reason to investigate another suspect.

I was using the accept wording as a figure of speech. I know that you weren't truly requiring me to accept it! :) sorry about that.

If you want to answer a question, it's "Do you think investigating Chuck Avery or Ex Boyfriend insane ?"

It's your usage of that word in relation to those two as suspects that I find questionable.

Earl hiding under clothes I call suspicious. So you think after that occurrence it would be insane to investigate a wee bit further ?

I agree on the phone calls.

Maybe this is just a semantics misunderstanding between us, but I think you associating the word insane to investigating a bit further with Chuck, Earl, ExBoyfriend, and even Tadych, is a bit too strong.


That's all. I think at the base level, we agree likely 100%
 
The blood stored in a vial (in any case not just this one), is it recorded by LE as to how much was drawn into the vial? As in so many ml?
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
Who is saying that? I have not seen that once in this thread?
Click to expand...

I use the word "people" in general. I've explained before that I'm on different forums, just speaking on what others are saying. Or did I miss what you were asking?

If it's the blood, the blood was tested and shown to have no preservative in it, therefore, the blood in the vehicle was NOT the old blood in the vial. How else did it get there except from SA's bleeding, deep cut on his finger?
 
Tawny said:
I must have missed this, can you point me to your source?
Click to expand...

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/

" Avery then called Halbach’s cell phone three times the day she died, twice using *67 to obscure his identity."

I am looking for a better source but I heard it on two shows.
He called her using *67 before he dialed so it would not show that it came from him. Then when he called her phone after he murdered her ( in my opinion) He did not use the blocking feature and left a message about why she did not show up.

He is making an alibi at the time of the murder and that says more to me than a lot of other things.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/things-steven-avery-making-murderer/story?id=36090236
"Avery called her job to request that she come to his house and that he called Halbach's cell phone three times, twice using the a feature to hide who was calling. "
 
The author of the OnMilwaukee piece has done a whole series and they are all opinion pieces either in favor of or siding with the prosecution and LE side whether she means to be overt about it or not. After then reading about her personal involvement with LE I find it hard to read any of her articles without thinking she is biased and feels some need to "please" the right people by putting these articles out. I guess you might enjoy the articles as feature writing, but not true investigative reporting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 187 more.
Total: 3,949 (members: 188, guests: 3,761)

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
3,761
Total visitors
3,949
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,658
Messages
17,957,091
Members
228,579
Latest member
rodrigokurita
Back
Top