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

[bessie]

ADMIN NOTE: If you have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion, then it's not the thread for you. There are a multitude of other threads where you can post.

What you cannot do is come into this discussion with the intent to post snarky and argumentative comments. Ain't gonna happen. And the same goes for all of the discussion threads.

To avoid problems, learn to use the ALERT and the IGNORE features.

Bessie

 

[Nocturnal 911]

For most of his life, SA was a loser. In trouble with the law for various crimes which mainly consisted of violence towards what he considered weaker opponents such as women and pussy cats.

He spent 18yrs in prison, 12 of which were for rape. After being exonerated and released, he committed the same crime he was falsely accused of within a year TWICE. Bye bye sympathy.

He was giving interviews, people now wanted to know him, talk to him. He gave speeches and men in suits were giving him standing ovations when he entered or left the room. Intelligent, educated women gave him their undivided attention when he spoke. This short man now felt taller than he ever had.

Not only did he think he was going to be a multimillionaire, he incorrectly assumed no one would dare point the finger at him again.

Had he not been caught, I fully believe he would have killed again. He was feeling invincible.

There is no question who killed Teresa. He did it. The only mystery that remains for me, is what kept or prevented him from crushing the car?

For me it's as simple as MAYBE HE WAS TOTALLY GOING TO, but ran out of time. Daylight came too soon? Got paranoid about using the machine after 12-24 hrs elapsed because how could he POSSIBLY know it would take 2-3 days for her to be reported missing? For all we kow, he could have been expecting the police to show up as early as the next day? Also, please explain to me how crushing it would have helped? They STILL would have found it, no? Where was he going to hide 2 tons of crushed steel? It's still identifiable as a pancake in a pile, no?

 

[Nocturnal 911]

Ooooo a thread for us prosecutorial cynics!
Ok-- I came to Websleuths after the M of Murdr'r explosion. Infuriated and STILL 100% convinced of Steven's guilt (riding dirty since the original verdict). I needed my people. My RATIONAL ppl on here-- that would ALL most likely agree with me that the history of what really happened in this case-- THE TRUTH-- was being totally re-written. Totally erased by some ratings craving misleading film makers. And then--Hollywood movie stars that never heard his name prior to December jumping on the free Steven Avery bandwagon??!! Asking the PRESIDENT to pardon someone on STATE charges?? MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!
I never could have anticipated how much support he'd get HERE tho as well. The difference is that ppl HERE care for more than “this week” unlike my FB friends. They are rational, intelligent thinkers. It seems that there are WELL beyond the usual amount of pseudo defense attorneys present on this forum than I recall in previous cases, but I’ll take it. This case is huge!! I’m thankful for the reality that was exposed re: our criminal justice system.
Again, I'm still at 97%, but have to say--is it even possible for ANYONE anymore to be 100% convinced that no framing/planting was done?? Holy hot mess of concerns to consider now. Valid points have been made by the WS defense attorneys and I’m never too stubborn to be proven wrong.
Inasmuch as I originally would have liked to just limit this website to my tried and true, trusted old schoolers and prevent a total invasion from crazy newbies and Bigfoot chasers--- I'm actually thankful for all of the input. (jk- I believe in BF lol)
The documentary made me totally reconsider anything and everything about Brandon. From there I am inevitably led to question everything. I was SNOWED by that overly dramatic, highly misleading press conference and I'm LIVID about it.
Just SOME of the things that now cause me to pause that I'd love clarification on (maybe not on this thread, but elsewhere):
Some say bones found elsewhere WERE proven to be HER pelvic bones, some say NO, never proven. What gives?
Was it her DNA found on bullet in the garage or “tissue”? Where might someone get her “tissue” if framing him? Wouldn’t be in storage somewhere I’m guessing, so am I to believe they remembered to shave off a little brain matter before they burned her and placed her in his yard?
And, yeah- they could arguably grab a few bullet casings from the yard and toss them in the garage hoping to make them “stick” and eventually collaborate new statements they planned on beating out of Brandon next Tuesday, but tissue? Anyone?
The 22? Kratz says it’s a bullet shot from Steven’s 22. Totally non-negotiable. Others say there weren’t even markings on the bullet? What’s the TRUTH??

Also Steven immediately claims the guns belongs to his landlord in recorded interview. Did anyone ever verify or question the landlord? Just curious about his integrity there. He lied about having had a fire that night, what else can we immediately prove/disprove about his initial statements?
The damage to her car. SERIOUSLY? You cannot tell me there isn’t one document or shred of history about ANYONE having any prior knowledge of existing damage to her car? Not one friend, family member, roommate was asked? During the trial or elsewhere? Can’t someone interview them NOW? As Sarah said, did she have minor accident and return to the salvage yard? POW!! Crime of opportunity is right!! Or did she possibly get run off the road by another car and were the vehicles of family members, ex-boyfriends, other potential suspects even looked at?
NOBODY was interviewed as to the nature of TH’s relationship with the ex?? Asked about their breakup and how ugly it was or wasn’t? Perhaps it wasn’t asked or known then- they don’t seem to have even asked. Can someone ask NOW?
Has Steven Avery taken a polygraph AT ALL at any time since he was charged? I’m guessing KZ wouldn’t rely on that completely, but if Ms. TWITTER had given him one recently and he passed- wouldn’t she be screaming that on every channel and social media outlet nationwide? Give him a friggin polygraph Kathleen baby!! I’m pulling for you to succeed and be right again. :copcar::copcar::copcar:

 

[wendybtn]

He went through the justice system and was found guilty. Barring a new trial with new DNA, ballistics, or scientific autopsy findings or fingerprints, justice needs to be settled. Eyewitnesses and alibi statements were given at the time of trial. They are also notoriously unreliable. Now that we have plain, clear, unemotional science we should use it at every moment possible.

 

[Madeleine74]

Once convicted, the burden shifts to the guilty party to prove their assertions. Trial error, judicial error, ineffective assistance of council, issues like that, i.e. legal errors being asserted by the defendant to win an overturned conviction. Avery lost that appeal in 2011, then he appealed to the WI State Supreme Court, and the high court declined to hear the case (which is at their discretion), so he's almost exhausted his appeals.

The governor of WI could pardon Avery, but he's already said he will not do so. So Avery's only remedy at this point is to try and win an appeal on constitutional issues.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

For all the reasons already given, I'm somewhere around 70/30 towards SA's guilt.
What's missing for me, and what would tilt my opinion all the way over to guilty is a cohesive narrative and timeline that ties all the evidence in together to give a credible account of what actually happened.

The framing theory just doesn't do it for me. Too complex, the logistics of it don't make sense nor does the motivation. And it relies on too many coincidences - something had to have happened to TH on a day when she'd been to visit SA, when he just happened to be having a bonfire and conveniently decided to clean up an area of floor in his garage. Having said that, I cannot discount the possibility that some evidence may have been tampered with in order to strengthen the case against SA.

The story put forward in BD's confession doesn't work for me either though. I'm undecided about the extent of his involvement, but there's no doubt in my mind that he was fed a particular narrative and that version of events just doesn't make sense to me. In particular I struggle with the stabbing and slashing taking place on the bed not being backed up with at least some blood evidence.

The one thing I'd love to know is whether there's any evidence of how recent the damage to the front of TH's RAV4 was.
There's a particular line of thought that I just can't help my mind from going down at the moment and some more information on that would help me to either dismiss it altogether or decide it's worth further thought.

If that damage to her car was recent, I can't help wondering whether perhaps the job want as normal, but she had a minor accident on leaving the junk yard.
Not enough to disable the car, but sufficient that she didn't want to continue her journey without it being checked out.
If phone reception was patchy, what would be more logical than returning to a nearby place where they work on cars to seek assistance from somebody she knows?

A routine photography job, followed by a return visit would tie up a lot of loose ends for me and present a more logical version of what may have happened.

> It fits with the propane guy's potential sighting of the car leaving and the bus driver seeing her performing the job.

> It would make SA's actions opportunist rather than pre-planned - which IMO fits better with his personality and IQ.
I'll willingly accept that he may have been obsessing over Teresa or at the very least had a bit of a 'thing' for her - there's enough out there to suggest that he had a history of that sort of behaviour and I see no reason to doubt the 'towel' story.
However, the idea that he'd planned all of this out or would be stupid enough to attack somebody on his own property when plenty of people knew that she'd be there has never sat right with me.
An unexpected return would give him the opportunity to act on impulse and perhaps even foster the belief that she'd checked in to say she'd left the junkyard and nobody knew she had gone back.

> The lack of blood evidence in the garage becomes less of an issue for me if he'd perhaps lured her in there under the pretext of working on her car.
I'm convinced that a clean up occurred in the garage, but what if the clean up was to cover evidence that a car had recently been worked on in there and not to get rid of blood at all?
(This version of events kind of leads me to him lulling her into a false sense of security while he worked on the car and then restraining her or coercing her back into the car with the killing itself occurring somewhere other than on his immediate property - perhaps elsewhere on the junkyard???)

I'm so with you on this...I do think her lured her into the junkyard under the pretense of fixing that light.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

IMO, if SA is indeed the killer, the answer is easy. If SA were to crush the vehicle during the day, any other member of the Avery family or employee @ Avery Salvage would have seen it. I believe Allan/Chuck/Earl knew every car on the lot and a new one would've raised suspicion.
If he were to crush it @ night, is there enough light back by the crusher to operate the machine ? Perhaps he was waiting for the entire Avery clan to head for Crivitz so he could do it then on the weekend of 11/5-11/6 ?

So with you on this--I think he was waiting until they left.

 

[Limaes]

So his family already had planned the trip to Crivitz? Wasn't sure if they did or they went and stayed there because they couldn't have access while the cops searched their property.

 

[Limaes]

Found another shot of the cut on his finger. The location of the cut answers two pieces of evidence imo. His DNA got on the KEY when he put it into the ignition, which also transferred his BLOOD very close to the ignition. Why do people choose to believe the blood was planted when there is a more logical explanation as to how it got there? :notgood:

 

[Madeleine74]

That's a great find, Limaes. Thanks for posting it.

When emotions and feelings are used as the north star guide, there isn't much room for anything else. The case gets seen through that specific lens and evidence which adds support to the emotional position is believed. Ironically, case followers who look at crime cases primarily from an emotional standpoint tend to accuse detectives of doing the same (i.e. "they hated him," "the cops felt embarrassed and had to get back at him," etc etc).

That cut on SA's finger is real yet it's very existence is minimized or becomes part of a conspiracy agenda. The consideration that Avery had a finger that was bleeding from a deep cut and he inadvertently deposited his own blood in the victim's SUV is deemed preposterous because "he would have seen it and/or he would have known better."

ETA: I can't discard the possibility that Avery actually bled in TH's SUV. It would be harder to consider this if Avery had no cut on his finger. But he does, and it's a piece of evidence to consider. That's a pretty big coinky-dink.

 

[Madeleine74]

So, somehow, Avery gets a pass on his entire criminal history but Kratz doesn't. Avery should be free but Kratz should be badgered and have his life and business destroyed. I just can't quite wrap my head around that logic.

Good observations! I like hearing (reading) how others view this situation.

Kratz got a jury to convict Avery. Avery had been branded as the fallen 'hero'-- a martyr for a prior wrongful conviction, despite the other crimes Avery did commit. So Kratz is hated because he did the unthinkable. Kratz is also a sleazy slimebucket in his personal dealings, but even if he wasn't he'd be in the hot seat of hatred.

If Avery is innocent he should not be in prison.

However, throwing everyone else under the bus without evidence is doing exactly what it's claimed LE did.

 

[Sarah]

Found another shot of the cut on his finger. The location of the cut answers two pieces of evidence imo. His DNA got on the KEY when he put it into the ignition, which also transferred his BLOOD very close to the ignition.

That certainly sounds like the most logical conclusion to me.
IMO it also accounts for why TH's DNA was absent from the key.

If he left very obvious and visible blood on the key, it only stands to reason that he would make an effort to clean it up, thus also removing TH's DNA in the process.
And there are a multitude of scenarios where he could deposit more of his own DNA on the key after cleaning it - Most obvious being using a cloth or something of his own with his DNA on in the clean up or simply handling the key after the event.

Incidentally, I can't completely discount the possibility that the key was moved to a more 'convenient' location to tie the crime more closely to SA, but the above scenarios are a lot more plausible to me than LE acquiring a spare key and somehow rubbing it in SA's DNA.

I'd been of the opinion that SA may have kept hold of the key because it would be required in the final disposal of the RAV4 (detaching it from the rest of the set of keys and dumping those that weren't needed) but I've since read that the battery was found disconnected which was normal protocol for crushing cars.
Is there a reputable source for this?
And does anyone know how this works and how 'disconected' cars would normally be moved to the crusher?

 

[Toodles]

I would have also thought she would have had paperwork in her car for the Auto Trader and maybe even some other jobs. I think he kept the spare key and cleaned any trace of her off it like he cleaned everything out of her car that would have looked obvious like it belonged to her.

 

[Limaes]

That certainly sounds like the most logical conclusion to me.
IMO it also accounts for why TH's DNA was absent from the key.

If he left very obvious and visible blood on the key, it only stands to reason that he would make an effort to clean it up, thus also removing TH's DNA in the process.
And there are a multitude of scenarios where he could deposit more of his own DNA on the key after cleaning it - Most obvious being using a cloth or something of his own with his DNA on in the clean up or simply handling the key after the event.

Incidentally, I can't completely discount the possibility that the key was moved to a more 'convenient' location to tie the crime more closely to SA, but the above scenarios are a lot more plausible to me than LE acquiring a spare key and somehow rubbing it in SA's DNA.

I'd been of the opinion that SA may have kept hold of the key because it would be required in the final disposal of the RAV4 (detaching it from the rest of the set of keys and dumping those that weren't needed) but I've since read that the battery was found disconnected which was normal protocol for crushing cars.
Is there a reputable source for this?
And does anyone know how this works and how 'disconected' cars would normally be moved to the crusher?

Agree. His finger was bleeding, if it was found close to the ignition, then it was on the key too. When washing his blood from it, he also washed Teresa's DNA off it too.

I believe he was rudely shocked when the car was found. He either kept the key as a souvenir, or he was keeping it for Plan B. If he couldn't crush the car, he was going to drive it off the property and dump it somewhere.

 

[Amber29]

I'm completely convinced of his guilt. I too feel that he thought he was untouchable when he committed this murder. He was meeting all these powerful people and having a bill named after him. Some say that's why he wouldn't do this because he had so much going for him. I on the other hand feel it's just who he is. He knew he would be able to claim they framed him, only it didn't work. There is nothing normal about dousing a cat in gas and throwing it on a fire. That IMO is a show of true colors and just plain sick.

While I can not nail down exactly what happened, I can say the totality of evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it beyond all doubt? Absolutely not. What I've noticed while reading opinions on this case is that people try and single out each piece of evidence and explain it away. That is wrong IMO, in every case excuses and reasons can be made for single pieces of evidence. What does the whole picture look like though? That's what matters.

It's much more reasonable for me to conclude that AC was checking his info on her car when he called about the plate than to say he stumbled on a vehicle of a girl that had been missing 3 days, hours after she was reported missing and before anyone else. That a perfect situation to frame SA landed in his lap. The same explanation is also more reasonable IMO than her ex or brother having ACs number and calling him personally about finding the car, rather than the guys actually working THs missing person report.

The bones in the burn pile is what does it completely for me. I believe he pulled a couple of the larger bones out of the pile and left the fragments that weren't clearly identifiable as bones. Why else would someone else have gathered all the tiny fragments enough that there was a piece of every bone in her skeleton from the neck down (teeth and jean rivets included) and left or placed the larger ones elsewhere? A long bone and collarbone were in the burn barrel and the pelvic bone was at the quarry. I mean it's clear that it wasn't obvious bones were in the pit, it went unnoticed for days during searches. Even looking at pictures, most people would never know those fragments were bones. Not to mention her personal belongings were burned in his burn barrel.

The bleach used in that garage is a huge one too. Its hard to believe looking at the pictures that bleach had ever been used to clean anything in that filthy garage, besides that night.

There is just an over whelming amount of coincidences that had to occur during this time frame to prove SAs innocence.
He just happened to have a bonfire burning tires the night TH went missing and her body was burned.
He just happened to spill something on the floor of his garage that needed to be cleaned with bleach.
He just happened to get a large cut capable of bleeding a lot on his hand.
He just happened to be unlucky enough to be framed by the police and the real killer?

Those are a few of my thoughts.

 

[Madeleine74]

<modsnip>

The bones in the burn pile is what does it completely for me. I believe he pulled a couple of the larger bones out of the pile and left the fragments that weren't clearly identifiable as bones.

B.I.N.G.O. Amber29!

And, he didn't use only bleach. Allegedly he used paint thinner and gasoline in addition to the bleach, all to attempt to clean that area. Hinky!

 

[shadowraiths]

All, it's really great that there are different points of view. However, please do not presume to know why other people hold views that oppose yours. Thanks!

 

[Madeleine74]

While I can not nail down exactly what happened, I can say the totality of evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it beyond all doubt? Absolutely not. What I've noticed while reading opinions on this case is that people try and single out each piece of evidence and explain it away. That is wrong IMO, in every case excuses and reasons can be made for single pieces of evidence. What does the whole picture look like though? That's what matters.

Yes, totality! Juries are instructed to consider all the evidence presented to them, and doing that is following the guidance in jury instructions as communicated by the judge.

 

[Sustained]

Yes, totality! Juries are instructed to consider all the evidence presented to them, and doing that is following the guidance in jury instructions as communicated by the judge.

Good thing for the wrongfully convicted that the totality of the evidence presented to the jury is not necessarily the totality of the evidence available.

 

[Itsmevkb]

Evidence that doesn't get presented to juries can work both ways. Sometimes it's things that aren't known at the time of the trial, like in Avery's rape case where DNA was not yet a readily available and accepted science. And then there are things that are known by the prosecutor, defense attorney and the court but are never presented to the jury because under the rules of evidence they are kept out. Often times this works in the defendants favor as it is things like their past criminal history.

I've seen interviews with jurors who when told something that was kept out of the trial say things like well, had I known that I would have definitely convicted/not convicted the defendant. It's a hard job we give juries. Although I find many cases fascinating, I'm sort of glad I've never been picked to be on a jury because the weight of that responsibility would be overwhelming to me.