Where the Avery Conspiracy Theory Falls Apart

[MaxManning]

I don't recall the documentary ever claiming to support SA's innocence. It highlighted LE corruption and the shoddy investigation.

Kind of hard for me to agree that there wasn't a strong inference of innocence. So while they didn't come out and try to prove that, clearly you are going to get a far less emotional response if people are going.... hmmm seems like he might really be guilty based on all these curious little details.

Pretty clear to me that they wanted me to believe things were planted, and in that case, of course we were being manipulated into believing that he was likely innocent.

Not a clear cut proclamation, but certainly we know what we were being led to believe. right ?

 

[Madeleine74]

If one is a fan of Occam's Razor then it stands to reason that Teresa never left the Avery Salvage Yard alive. She was last known for sure to be in contact with Steven Avery, we know that much. Her charred remains were found in his fire pit. Her burned cell phone, camera, and Palm Pilot was found in SA's burn barrel. We also know for sure he had a bonfire the very night right after she had disappeared. Occam's Razor would suggest the simplest explanation is the correct one -- that the person last known to have seen her alive is the one who was responsible for her demise.

I'm willing to start there and see if the evidence leads in another direction.

 

[bessie]

:bump:

 

[Miette]

If one is a fan of Occam's Razor then it stands to reason that Teresa never left the Avery Salvage Yard alive. She was last known for sure to be in contact with Steven Avery, we know that much. Her charred remains were found in his fire pit. Her burned cell phone, camera, and Palm Pilot was found in SA's burn barrel. We also know for sure he had a bonfire the very night right after she had disappeared. Occam's Razor would suggest the simplest explanation is the correct one -- that the person last known to have seen her alive is the one who was responsible for her demise.

I'm willing to start there and see if the evidence leads in another direction.

So through Occam's Razor we're to believe that a man who had spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit and had a potential windfall from a civil lawsuit murders a woman in cold blood. This man, who it's known to have a low IQ, is somehow a criminal genius on the level of Dexter Morgan when it comes to making sure that there is no DNA or blood evidence from the victim at the supposed crime scene but is too incompetent to crush the victim's car at his conveniently located crusher.

Also we're supposed to believe that all of the pieces of evidence found by the very agency being sued by this man isn't at all suspicious because oh my god how dare you accuse law enforcement of nefarious activities!

 

[Madeleine74]

That's not Occam's Razor. So where does the evidence lead? That's always a good place to start rather than with beliefs.

 

[MaxManning]

If one is a fan of Occam's Razor then it stands to reason that Teresa never left the Avery Salvage Yard alive. She was last known for sure to be in contact with Steven Avery, we know that much. Her charred remains were found in his fire pit. Her burned cell phone, camera, and Palm Pilot was found in SA's burn barrel. We also know for sure he had a bonfire the very night right after she had disappeared. Occam's Razor would suggest the simplest explanation is the correct one -- that the person last known to have seen her alive is the one who was responsible for her demise.

I'm willing to start there and see if the evidence leads in another direction.

The usage of Occam's Razor in the context you chose, is much similar to how he got factually wrongfully convicted of rape the first time around.

They razored off the other suspect who other law enforcement bodies believed was the guy. They razored off his inclusion in a lineup that would have possibly made it really simple to see their mistake.


Yes, they chose the simplest route back then, that he was obviously the killer and a jury agreed. no need to investigate that other guy. right ? razored him off.

Now in this case, you are also suggesting that Occam's Razor means that not investigating suspects that had same access as steve to the junkyard is the simplest route ?


Occam's Razor is something that you should be using AFTER you have followed all your leads and gained evidence. It's not meant to be viewed as a magic razor that allows you to eliminate reasonable and logical investigating.

If they investigated the ex-boyfriend and found out he had no alibi from the day, he had debit card receipts from the junkyard area, and that he deleted voicemails from himself the day of the crime -- would the razor still be sharp enough to cut off all that ?

How would you ever know those simplistic things existed , if you never took the time to do your job of investigating ?

Blatant misuse of Occam's Razor imo, because we see blatant focus on one suspect.

If you investigated those guys, you might be able to use occam's razor to exclude them from the picture. But with no investigation, you are just being careless with a sharp blade imo

 

[Madeleine74]

Actually Occam's Razor should have excluded Avery from the rape in that Avery wasn't physically there and physical evidence wasn't used to determine culpability. Only DNA of the real perp allowed his conviction reversal. Avery had an alibi, his family vouched for him. If he wasn't there he couldn't have assaulted that woman. Neither he nor his family were believed at the time.

 

[Madeleine74]

Ironically now it's DNA tying him to his victim, along with the fact her charred body parts were found in the exact burn pit he used after her murder, but that's not believed by many.

 

[MaxManning]

Actually Occam's Razor should have excluded Avery from the rape in that Avery wasn't physically there and physical evidence wasn't used to determine culpability. Only DNA of the real perp allowed his conviction reversal. Avery had an alibi, his family vouched for him. If he wasn't there he couldn't have assaulted that woman. Neither he nor his family were believed at the time.

Right, and my point is that we have the same people wielding that razor and potential suspects you don't want to even bother investigating.

Occam's Razor is not an absolute, I am sure you are aware of this. But if for some reason you seem to think that you can snip away responsible investigating. Sorry, I don't agree.

Do the snipping when you have done your job correctly and interviewed potential suspects adequately, and have actual evidence to evaluate.

Now for a casual person following the case, who just has the results of a poor investigation to look at, we can use Occam's Razor to come to a conclusion for ourselves. Anyone can be that careless with no one's life behind bars being the consequence.

If that's the context you are stating the usage of Occam's Razor, I get it. But I doubt that anyone here is going to agree that we have a proper investigation, just the same as the first case where he was convicted of rape.

Thus this conversation.

 

[MaxManning]

Ironically now it's DNA tying him to his victim, along with the fact her charred body parts were found in the exact burn pit he used after her murder, but that's not believed by many.

It's fact thats where MOST were found, not all. Also fact that there were more bones found near the Janda residence. Thus the theory that the bones were moved. Which the expert agreed that was consistent with the evidence.

If you watch any crimeTV, you know that someone can turn on an air conditioner in the room where the body is, to mask the actual time of death. Occam's razor used in a similar way as you are suggesting, says that the person died at 2pm, the full evidence says they died several hours earlier.

It's really simple to come to that conclusion if you investigate properly. right ? But if you just decide that the air conditioner being on high is irrelevant because it's not as simple as someone not bothering to to be deceptive, you have occam's razored yourself into a false opinion.

that's all.

Use the razor wisely, and not as a shortcut to avoid proper investigation. If you have used it to sum up this case for yourself, I hear you, and you could be right. But I don't believe in shortcuts like that as being fair -- and I'll point to misusage of the same nature as you are suggesting here of occam's razor in the rape conviction, as an example. Many here will likely not want to take the shortcut, and ignore some reasonable suspects.

 

[Madeleine74]

There are not all the same people doing the same things. There were a few people involved who for optics sake should not be involved because it allows the defense an avenue to play with (conspiracy, planting, framing, i.e. the holy troika of defense teams). There were also many people involved who were never involved in the first case (different county investigators, Wisconsin DOJ, etc).

I understand the various allegations made, I'd like to see the evidence of actual planting/framing and evidence that places anyone else with TH that afternoon. We know SA was with her, that is incontrovertible. We know SA used his fire pit starting a couple hours after TH was last seen alive and he kept it going for hours into the night.

 

[CD82]

There are factors that sway me in both directions, but I really feel strongly about LE doing a very shoddy investigation, therefore I believe he and Brendan should be granted a new trial.

I personally feel all these efforts to pardon him are a little silly. There's absolutely not enough evidence (even in the docu) that can convince me he's innocent. At first, while watching it, I was very angry for him, hoping he was innocent, believing he might be, but as the evidence is presented, I just can't be convinced of it. There are way too many factors.

 

[MaxManning]

There are not all the same people doing the same things. There were a few people involved who for optics sake should not be involved because it allows the defense an avenue to play with (conspiracy, planting, framing, i.e. the holy troika of defense teams). There were also many people involved who were never involved in the first case (different county investigators, Wisconsin DOJ, etc).

I understand the various allegations made, I'd like to see the evidence of actual planting/framing and evidence that places anyone else with TH that afternoon. We know SA was with her, that is incontrovertible. We know SA used his fire pit starting a couple hours after TH was last seen alive and he kept it going for hours into the night.

So, what if steve, earl, and chuck were all involved ? Do you care ? Should we care ?

Go ahead and show me one reliable alibi for Chuck, Earl, Scott, or Bobby. Scott and Bobby alibi each other and Blaines testimony conflicts Bobby's, which in turn puts Scott's in question.

Should we occam's razor off alibis ?

How do you suggest they get evidence of planting/framing without investigating that very aspect ? Do you think that if the police moved the bones, they'd admit to it ?

You saw the document that says the guy who found the DNA on the hood latch contaminated the scene by using the same gloves he wore inspecting the avery car -- where there's gotta be tons of avery dna, right ? -- to collect the sample on the rav4 latch.

Yet, we have seen people rattle off that his DNA was on the latch for weeks. Was it on purpose ? Maybe, maybe not. But we KNOW it happened. Shall we ignore it, because it's not simple ?


As I have said before, I agree with you and my assessment based on evidence from a very poor investigation comes to the same conclusion as you.

But I am not willing to accept I have seen the full picture and that there is no reason to question existing evidence for the sake of simplicity. If we ask questions and the answers are not suspicious, we move on.

Unfortunately, there's a multitude of suspicious elements that need to be explained. So I have reasonable doubt and questions.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think the best way to proceed is to follow the evidence instead of assuming involvement by Party A, B, C. That's all anyone can do, be they a lay person or an investigator. Start with knowns, uncontested activities, who was with who, and see where the evidence leads.

 

[MaxManning]

Earl and Robert Fabian were driving around the property in a golf cart hunting rabbit with rifles while Teresa Halbach was at the property. Both knew of teresa halbach's impending visit.
There was a cadaver dog hit on that golf cart. Is that physical evidence that might require you to investigate earl a bit more ? or just an insane lead that needs no further explanation ?


One user suggested the idea that while shooting at something maybe they accidentally shot teresa. Which although I see the humor in, is about as possible as Dick Cheney factually shooting his hunting partner in the face.

just ask the questions. right ? it'll take an hour or two, then evaluate what you discover. To me, that's reasonable, not insane

 

[Tawny]

I think the best way to proceed is to follow the evidence instead of assuming involvement by Party A, B, C. That's all anyone can do, be they a lay person or an investigator. Start with knowns, uncontested activities, who was with who, and see where the evidence leads.

Ok but honestly, we don't even know all the evidence that might exist because LE only ever investigated SA and his immediate property. What if her entire outfit from that day were under that pile of clothes Earl was hiding under or something? We'll never know because they didn't bother to investigate ANYBODY else. JMO

 

[MaxManning]

I think the best way to proceed is to follow the evidence instead of assuming involvement by Party A, B, C. That's all anyone can do, be they a lay person or an investigator. Start with knowns, uncontested activities, who was with who, and see where the evidence leads.

Exactly, see where the leads take you.

If you focus only on Steve, why is it any surprise that all the evidence points to him ? isn't that obvious ?

 

[Madeleine74]

Who all was interviewed? That's one place to start. The assumption is no one but SA was looked at. Who all gave DNA samples? Where was DNA found matching each person who supplied DNA?

 

[Madeleine74]

Ok but honestly, we don't even know all the evidence that might exist because LE only ever investigated SA and his immediate property. What if her entire outfit from that day were under that pile of clothes Earl was hiding under or something? We'll never know because they didn't bother to investigate ANYBODY else. JMO

I just read in the SD trial transcripts that upwards of 15 buildings on the Salvage Yard were searched, along with all 4,000 junked vehicles.

 

[MaxManning]

Who all was interviewed? That's one place to start. The assumption is no one but SA was looked at. Who all gave DNA samples? Where was DNA found matching each person who supplied DNA?

Part of the problem is we know who was interviewed , but not what was asked etc. I am open to the idea that there might be explanations for why they didn't pursue them further.

I read in the dassey trial transcripts that all the people on the property gave DNA samples.

Part of the problem is that it's this huge junkyard. So finding something could be a bit of a needle in the haystack type thing.

Which is one reason why those that believe in the planting conspiracy find it odd that the person who found the vehicle found it rather quickly once on the property.

Who let them on the property ? uh.. Earl Avery.

So is it possible and maybe even likely that Earl pointed them in a direction where that car was ? Maybe even saying, we haven't checked over there yet...

The person that gave them the camera to document whatever they found and the number to the pertinent law enforcement -- was the roommate.

Those are just facts, I don't think they prove anything. But I agree that it's kind of lucky to find the needle in the haystack so quickly. But if you were pointed in the vicinity, is it lucky ?