Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

[proudfootz]

The title of this thread is,"Steven Avery:Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?" It is not about Zellener's quest for a post conviction exoneration.

The title of this thread?

"Is Steven Avery responsible for the murder of Teresa Halbach?"

 

[Boomstick]

Not every case brought into court needs to result in a conviction.

Since we all have reasonable doubts about the prosecution's story, we all agree their work was sloppy and filled with mistakes, we have the option to find the defendant Not Guilty.



That is your view.

But as I have explained, the evidence seems to point the other way.

All that is required for Steven to have not committed crimes against Teresa is for him to be at home and puttering around his garage while whatever happened to her happened somewhere else.

Since there is zero evidence Teresa was ever harmed where Steven was, that is all that is required.

You honestly have displayed ANY evidence. You've taken bits and pieces of one side of the equation, with no evidence to support them, merely claims, and speculation.

The evidence that he did it has been presented to you over and over.

Zero evidence that she was harmed?

Other than her dead body burned in the place he originally said he wasn't, but turns out he was.

Destroyed by the very thing he was doing, but said he didn't.

During a time frame he either lied about his activities, or was unaccounted for.

All with evidence to back it up that would need to have been planted before he had even seen fit to lie about it.

 

[Boomstick]

I have no doubt as to what occurred.

We have several witnesses who state that Teresa left ASY after taking some photographs.

We have no credible witnesses to Steven committing any crime against Teresa.

We have ZERO witnesses stating she left.

We have a 2nd hand account saying someone else said she left.

We have the defendant claiming he left, which is mired in a series of proven lies.

Meanwhile, we have a boatload of evidence that ties the defendant to the crime, including his own lies.

 

[proudfootz]

See, the thing is, none of the things they say are actually exculpatory, other than Brendan claiming he was with Steven...... at a fire. Which the 2 of them originally lied about. Surely you see the concerns in putting any eggs in that basket.

How is Bobby telling everyone that Steve could not have killed Teresa because he saw her leave not exculpatory?

 

[Boomstick]

BBM

I don't know what Steven wanted, and you don't know what he wanted.

We have to constrain ourselves to what he may have said.



If Steven did want to flee from police who had framed him once and stolen his life, so what?

I can hardly blame him.

But it's not 'evidence' of anything.

So these are the same two guys [Brendan and Bryan] whom you don't believe when they testify to facts that exculpate Steven.

It is evidence of a mindset. The same mindset that had him on tv, in tears, saying he was already being framed for...... well, the disappearance of a woman.

The same mindset that allowed him to know that they were going to plant evidence against him at the salvage yard, (even they had not found anything to tie him to the crime as of that time, or that a crime had even been committed) but that they wouldn't find anything up in Crivitz.

The same mindset that would have him lying about all his activities that day.

A guilty mindset.

 

[proudfootz]

You honestly have displayed ANY evidence. You've taken bits and pieces of one side of the equation, with no evidence to support them, merely claims, and speculation.

The evidence that he did it has been presented to you over and over.

Zero evidence that she was harmed?

Other than her dead body burned in the place he originally said he wasn't, but turns out he was.

Destroyed by the very thing he was doing, but said he didn't.

During a time frame he either lied about his activities, or was unaccounted for.

All with evidence to back it up that would need to have been planted before he had even seen fit to lie about it.

The dubious prosecution claims which I have exposed have even forced you to admit are weak.

Police searched all the way into tearing up the house and tearing up the floor looking for a hair, a fiber, a drop of blood belonging to Teresa in the house or garage.

They came up empty.

Steven's activities are accounted for: he was in the house and garage. There are multiple witnesses either on the phone or dropped by at random intervals confirming that.

Meanwhile nothing indicates Teresa was harmed there. In fact, we have multiple statements indicating she left ASY.

This evidence trumps all your speculation.

 

[Boomstick]

How is Bobby telling everyone that Steve could not have killed Teresa because he saw her leave not exculpatory?

When Bobby says that, perhaps it will be credible. His account of her arrival hasn't changed.

Until that time, it is 2nd hand Bryan's impression vs Bobby's own account + all the evidence that supports that she never left.

 

[Karinna]

Well the Jury already convicted him long ago, so that's already a done deal because that ship sailed long ago, and the case is in a different phase now, so i guess we will see.

It is evidence of a mindset. The same mindset that had him on tv, in tears, saying he was already being framed for...... well, the disappearance of a woman.

The same mindset that allowed him to know that they were going to plant evidence against him at the salvage yard, (even they had not found anything to tie him to the crime as of that time, or that a crime had even been committed) but that they wouldn't find anything up in Crivitz.

The same mindset that would have him lying about all his activities that day.

A guilty mindset.

 

[Boomstick]

The dubious prosecution claims which I have exposed have even forced you to admit are weak.

Police searched all the way into tearing up the house and tearing up the floor looking for a hair, a fiber, a drop of blood belonging to Teresa in the house or garage.

They came up empty.

Steven's activities are accounted for: he was in the house and garage. There are multiple witnesses either on the phone or dropped by at random intervals confirming that.

Meanwhile nothing indicates Teresa was harmed there. In fact, we have multiple statements indicating she left ASY.

This evidence trumps all your speculation.

Repeating claims of "evidence" does not turn blank speculation into evidence. You have no actual evidence. You have claims. One sided claims, none which have ever been substantiated.

I can admit that some bits of evidence are weak, because they were found under curious circumstance. You, bar none, have to take every bit of disjointed speculation offered up under one of any number of disconnected conspiracy theories, ignore all the actual physical evidence, ignore the circumstantial evidence, ignore the lies that demolish the credibility of the defendant's own claims, and come up with, well, .......something.

Again, maybe it's me, but her dead body can sort of be looked at as evidence that she was harmed there.

I'd say the evidence trumps all your speculation. Being that I've presented ALOT of it, and can continue to, and you have done nothing but manufacture one excuse atop the next NOT to believe it, well, you know.

 

[proudfootz]

We have ZERO witnesses stating she left.

There's Steven for one. A truck driver who saw her vehicle leaving ASY.

We have a 2nd hand account saying someone else said she left.

And zero witness saying she stayed.

We have the defendant claiming he left, which is mired in a series of proven lies.

Steven said she left. The evidence indicates she left. Sounds like a slam dunk.

Even if Steven was mistaken about some other petty details he'd remember if she'd stayed over for some reason.

Meanwhile, we have a boatload of evidence that ties the defendant to the crime, including his own lies.

There is no evidence that Steven killed anyone, let alone Teresa.

He was at home. She wasn't there.

 

[Boomstick]

I think what KZ is doing factors into that though.
She has certainly brought some things to light that we wouldn't have known otherwise regarding Avery's guilt or not.

See, there's the thing though.

She has actually not brought anything to light.

Except that someone in the Dassey/Janda household looked at horrible *advertiser censored*.

Ironically enough, and I'd love to hear an explanation as to how, Avery knew about the *advertiser censored* before law enforcement did.

Unless, of course, you believe his claim(12 years later, of course) that they put a mole in his cell with him, lol.

I mean, come on. How many times must the same pattern be revealed before the picture becomes clear?

 

[Boomstick]

There's Steven for one. A truck driver who saw her vehicle leaving ASY.

Wrong. Read his testimony.

'And zero witness saying she stayed.'

Who'd have witnessed that? She's not around to speak for herself, having never been seen anywhere else, not making a call, nor checking a voicemail. The same time period that Steven said he was with his mom(he wasn't), with his brother and friend(he wasn't), over at Barb's(he wasn't), made phone calls(he didn't). Listening to music, and watching *advertiser censored*(he was building and tending to a big fire where the victim's body was found.)



"Steven said she left. The evidence indicates she left. Sounds like a slam dunk."

Of course we both know by now there is no actual evidence she left, so this is just something to say.

'Even if Steven was mistaken about some other petty details he'd remember if she'd stayed over for some reason.'

Petty details like his alibi, and the rest of his day. Even though he was on tv claiming he was being framed.



'There is no evidence that Steven killed anyone, let alone Teresa.'

"He was at home. She wasn't there."

Other than all the evidence which has been repeated to you again and again.

 

[Boomstick]

"There's Steven for one. A truck driver who saw her vehicle leaving ASY."



And zero witness saying she stayed.



Steven said she left. The evidence indicates she left. Sounds like a slam dunk.

Even if Steven was mistaken about some other petty details he'd remember if she'd stayed over for some reason.



There is no evidence that Steven killed anyone, let alone Teresa.

He was at home. She wasn't there.

There's Steven for one. A truck driver who saw her vehicle leaving ASY.

Wrong. Read his testimony.

'And zero witness saying she stayed.'

Who'd have witnessed that? She's not around to speak for herself, having never been seen anywhere else, not making a call, nor checking a voicemail. The same time period that Steven said he was with his mom(he wasn't), with his brother and friend(he wasn't), over at Barb's(he wasn't), made phone calls(he didn't). Listening to music, and watching *advertiser censored*(he was building and tending to a big fire where the victim's body was found.)



"Steven said she left. The evidence indicates she left. Sounds like a slam dunk."

Of course we both know by now there is no actual evidence she left, so this is just something to say.

'Even if Steven was mistaken about some other petty details he'd remember if she'd stayed over for some reason.'

Petty details like his alibi, and the rest of his day. Even though he was on tv claiming he was being framed.



'There is no evidence that Steven killed anyone, let alone Teresa.'

"He was at home. She wasn't there."

Other than all the evidence which has been repeated to you again and again.

 

[proudfootz]

Repeating claims of "evidence" does not turn blank speculation into evidence. You have no actual evidence. You have claims. One sided claims, none which have ever been substantiated.

I have cited plenty of evidence. If you refuse to admit it, that's on you not on me.

I can admit that some bits of evidence are weak, because they were found under curious circumstance.

To say the least!

You, bar none, have to take every bit of disjointed speculation offered up under one of any number of disconnected conspiracy theories, ignore all the actual physical evidence, ignore the circumstantial evidence, ignore the lies that demolish the credibility of the defendant's own claims, and come up with, well, .......something.

No, I neither do that nor do I have to do that.

What I have done is examine claims by the prosecution and discovered that one after another they are weak, speculative, false, or meaningless.

It's up to the prosecution to prove their case.

All I or any prospective juror has to do is decide whether they can believe that story beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, maybe it's me, but her dead body can sort of be looked at as evidence that she was harmed there.

It's you.

I know that ashes can be moved from one place to another. Ask anyone who keeps their loved one's funerary urn.

Upthread I listed several very good reasons to conclude the cremains were planted, including physical evidence seized by police.

I'd say the evidence trumps all your speculation. Being that I've presented ALOT of it, and can continue to, and you have done nothing but manufacture one excuse atop the next NOT to believe it, well, you know.

No need for me to manufacture reasons to doubt dubious 'evidence'.

Police looked for evidence Teresa was where Steven was, and couldn't find a single hair, a fiber, or a drop of blood.

Whatever happened to Teresa, it didn't happen where Steven was.

Hard to commit a crime when you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Physics - no matter how much someone wants Steven to be in two places at once it can't be done.

 

[Boomstick]

Yes, a cremation expert testified that the cremains were likely moved to where they were found.

IIRC several buckets were listed in the evidence which had apparently been used to transport the cremains.

No one who claims to have been in the vicinity of the burn pit noticed the unmistakable, unforgettable stench of burning flesh.

No one smelled that stench on either Brendan or Steven.

Since all the available evidence points to the conclusion the cremains were planted, we are left wondering who might be responsible.

No credible motive has been put forward for Steven to plant the cremains st his own home.

So, there is no evidence that anything was planted, is what you're saying.

You just don't think there is enough to satisfy you that they weren't?

Steven plant the cremains? WTF?

He burned her in the burnpit. But since nobody smelled it, it didn't happen? Are you kidding?

 

[Boomstick]

I haven't seen any evidence presented that any bone fragments were 'embedded in the earth'.

Other than some ashes sprinkled onto the surface, there is no evidence any human bodies were burned there.

Might want to try reading the case files before rolling out explanations.

They were in and among the mud, and debris.

Sprinkled onto the surface. Now you are saying things without even bother to check. Your reflex to resort to excuses makes this conversation very difficult.

 

[Boomstick]

Again, multiple people supposedly observing a corpse being cremated in the yard just happen to 'not mention it' when asked about a missing person is a bit... farfetched.

MOO

Yet, nobody knew the body had been burned until after the initial round of interviews. So, clearly no one knew anything about a body being there. Except Steven and Brendan. You can easily look this up.

 

[Boomstick]

I have cited plenty of evidence. If you refuse to admit it, that's on you not on me.



To say the least!



No, I neither do that nor do I have to do that.

What I have done is examine claims by the prosecution and discovered that one after another they are weak, speculative, false, or meaningless.

It's up to the prosecution to prove their case.

All I or any prospective juror has to do is decide whether they can believe that story beyond a reasonable doubt.



It's you.

I know that ashes can be moved from one place to another. Ask anyone who keeps their loved one's funerary urn.

Upthread I listed several very good reasons to conclude the cremains were planted, including physical evidence seized by police.



No need for me to manufacture reasons to doubt dubious 'evidence'.

Police looked for evidence Teresa was where Steven was, and couldn't find a single hair, a fiber, or a drop of blood.

Whatever happened to Teresa, it didn't happen where Steven was.

Hard to commit a crime when you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Physics - no matter how much someone wants Steven to be in two places at once it can't be done.

The only evidence of what happened to Teresa is there in Avery's burnpit, and garage. And in her vehicle. Weird, all places he lied about.

 

[proudfootz]

So, there is no evidence that anything was planted, is what you're saying.

Read it again:

Yes, a cremation expert testified that the cremains were likely moved to where they were found.

IIRC several buckets were listed in the evidence which had apparently been used to transport the cremains.

No one who claims to have been in the vicinity of the burn pit noticed the unmistakable, unforgettable stench of burning flesh.

No one smelled that stench on either Brendan or Steven.

Since all the available evidence points to the conclusion the cremains were planted, we are left wondering who might be responsible.

You just don't think there is enough to satisfy you that they weren't?

Steven plant the cremains? WTF?

Since the cremains appear to have been planted, and Steven has no motive to do it, it was most likely someone who was highly motivated to implicate Steven.

He burned her in the burnpit. But since nobody smelled it, it didn't happen? Are you kidding?

All the evidence points away from the burn pit.

Whatever happened, happened somewhere else.

That's where the facts lead.

All MOO.

 

[Boomstick]

Read it again:

Yes, a cremation expert testified that the cremains were likely moved to where they were found.

IIRC several buckets were listed in the evidence which had apparently been used to transport the cremains.

No one who claims to have been in the vicinity of the burn pit noticed the unmistakable, unforgettable stench of burning flesh.

No one smelled that stench on either Brendan or Steven.

Since all the available evidence points to the conclusion the cremains were planted, we are left wondering who might be responsible.



Since the cremains appear to have been planted, and Steven has no motive to do it, it was most likely someone who was highly motivated to implicate Steven.



All the evidence points away from the burn pit.

Whatever happened, happened somewhere else.

That's where the facts lead.

All MOO.

Your post is nothing but denials and excuses, with claims of "evidence" with nothing to back them.

The facts of the case are incidental to you, and each one is simply something else to look for an excuse for.

Don't waste my time anymore. I'm done.