Bones

New Posts

I don't understand why the bonfire that SA had, 100% confirmed, is disregarded in favor of a conspiracy theory that someone else killed, burned TH down to charred bits, and then moved her bones to the fire pit and burn barrel on Avery's property. How is that scenario more likely?
 
Madeleine74 said:
I don't understand why the bonfire that SA had, 100% confirmed, is disregarded in favor of a conspiracy theory that someone else killed, burned TH down to charred bits, and then moved her bones to the fire pit and burn barrel on Avery's property. How is that scenario more likely?
Click to expand...

For myself personally, I can't wrap my head around if it was SA that burned her body, why did he move some of those bones and not all? That to me.... is not logical at all.

Unfortunately, there is no do-overs in investigating, and because LE didn't get an anthropologist there, they can only base their opinions on experience and photographs/evidence that were taken. From what I understand, the barrels were just sifted through/or taken out by the handfuls and sifted through, I don't think they were looked at for burn patterns, etc. (not sure but I think that there are experts that may have had an opinion about whether items were actually burned in a barrel or placed in)
Keep in mind too that the Coroner was also blocked from that area, on the scene and was told by one of the LE agencies to stay away (not sure which one) I don't have time at the moment to look for it, but I know I read that. This was against protocol. (again)
 
Since when is cold blooded murder of an innocent young woman logical? You can't project your own normalcy and logic onto someone else and then dictate what the killer should have done. All anyone can do is follow the evidence.

The most logical thing to do in sleuthing this case is start with where the victim was last seen alive (confirmed). That was with SA somewhere around 2:40pm or possibly 3pm or so. Go from there. Where was she next seen? By who? Where was her SUV last seen before she went missing? What tower did her phone last ping off of? Follow TH's trail. Did she ever leave the Avery Salvage Yard alive?
 
Madeleine74 said:
Since when is cold blooded murder of an innocent young woman logical? You can't project your own normalcy and logic onto someone else and then dictate what the killer should have done. All anyone can do is follow the evidence.

The most logical thing to do in sleuthing this case is start with where the victim was last seen alive (confirmed). That was with SA somewhere around 2:40pm or possibly 3pm or so. Go from there. Where was she next seen? By who? Where was her SUV last seen before she went missing? What tower did her phone last ping off of? Follow TH's trail. Did she ever leave the Avery Salvage Yard alive?
Click to expand...

We do not have the tower information and the last reported seen time was 3:30 by a propane guy of her SUV . Following evidence here is tricky as it seems to be running around wildly. It's all leaving the property and returning.
 
The only thing running around wildly are the multiple theories (IMO)
 
Tawny said:
Isn't that what this entire forum was made for? Theories? Discussion?
Click to expand...

Nonsequitor. I was specifically replying to SoulMagnet's comment, "Following evidence here is tricky as it seems to be running around wildly."

My comment was the evidence isn't running around anywhere. Evidence just sits there. People's imaginations are running around wildly.
 
MaxManning said:
I know it's incredibly enticing to get onto other topics, but I am asking respectfully to keep on topic of bones.

Is it highly likely that the bones were planted ? Certainly not. I've said this so many times.

But the discussion is as much about excluding this aspect as it is about seeing if it makes sense that it could have happened.

No strong arming here, I am just asking respectfully in hopes that this doesn't become about everything but the bones.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. There were three locations that had bones.

1) Avery fire pit.
2) Dassey burn barrel.
3) Quarry.

Common sense tells you if you are going to burn a body you would most likely do so in a secret/remote location where you won't be witnessed. Common sense also dictates that if you intend to transport the remains, you would shovel out the most that you can. You might miss a few here and there but you should be able to gather up the majority of them. IF you chose to do this you would remove the bones and transport them as far away from your general location as possible.

So, common sense dictates the quarry was the original burn site. The other bone locations were chosen for only one logical explanation... To tie them to the property/property owner they were found in close proximity to. If Avery did kill Halbach and did burn her body there were literally a ton of other locations he could have disposed of her bones. Dump them in the pond. Use the smelter. Place them in the trunk of a vehicle slated to be crushed. Take them to the cabin he went to the next day that was 100 miles away. Dispose of them in any location between the Avery Auto Yard and the cabin.

There is zero plausible reason why he would have burned Halbach, put some of her bones in the Dassey burn barrel and then put one or two more way out in the quarry. Just viewing it logically, the bones found at the Avery pit, Dassey burn barrel, Avery/Dassey yard were placed in such a manner as to scream "please find these!" Hansel and Gretel couldn't have done it better themselves.
 
That's exactly how I feel Sinsaint. It is not logical to me at all if it was SA that the bones are in other locations but he chooses to leave the majority literally in his own backyard?
What I don't understand is the logic that SA was so smart to clean up and get rid of bullets, wipe away ALL fingerprints from the truck and the things leaning against the truck (I am assuming this since I have not seen or heard any evidence that there WERE fingerprints, Kratz would be all over that), remove all the DNA from his trailer and/or garage, remove the DNA from handcuffs and leg restraints (but leave his own and someone else's), remove all of TH's DNA from the key and key chain.... BUTTTTTTTTTT stupid enough to.....

Leave the majority (but not all) of the bones in his backyard in the bonfire that he said he had that night. Grab some and put them in a burning barrel... and oh yeah, lets leave a few at the quarry too. Not logical at all to me.
 
So these bones exhibited cut marks..... reportedly out of the scope of Dr. Eisenberg's expertise. Did they bring in an expert to explain this? for either side? I haven't heard of one, this is the first I have heard of cut marks!

I am leaning towards her being burnt in that barrel.... at the quarry .... and then moved.
 
missy1974 said:
So these bones exhibited cut marks..... reportedly out of the scope of Dr. Eisenberg's expertise. Did they bring in an expert to explain this? for either side? I haven't heard of one, this is the first I have heard of cut marks!

I am leaning towards her being burnt in that barrel.... at the quarry .... and then moved.
Click to expand...

I disregard the burn barrel as nothing other than a dumping location. A) burn barrels are much heavier than you would think. It's a 55 gallon steel drum with X amount of burned refuse. The last one I had on my property required three grown men to move. B) IF she were burned in that barrel it would have required 1400-1800 degrees Fahrenheit over the course of 5+ hours. No one could have touched that barrel for days without getting burned, much less pick it up and transport it.
 
Day 14, I think page 18 it starts, cross exam of Dr. Eisenberg, she talks about the 'cuts' on the pelvic bones that are believed to be human. Page 30, she had not even seen pictures of the burn pit!

Page 41, cross exam:
7 Q. All right. As you sit here, though, you cannot

8 rule out another burn site as being a possible

9 site of burning of these human bone fragments,

10 can you?

11 A. I cannot.

12 Q. You are a reasonable person?

13 A. I hope so.

14 Q. I think so. And you cannot reasonably rule out

15 another possible burn site, can you?

16 A. Based on the information I have at hand, I

17 cannot.
Click to expand...
 
Soulmagent said:
The wording on the graphic says cut mark on one of the possible human long bone fragments. She does not even confirm it IS a human long bone.

JMO.

Tricky no?
Click to expand...

the same with the 'pelvic bones'... she suspects they are human, but cannot say 100% they are. These were found in the quarry.
Day 14, page 10, she is asked about the 'cuts'. Her testimony is limited because like in the report.... she is not an expert.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9dpNu3jLO3tMHdzS05fbDlDdFk/view
 
Sleuther87 said:
To the best of my knowledge, only a human pelvic bone was found in the quarry and was never confirmed to be Teresa's (though in Eisenberg's expert opinion it is most likely hers).
Click to expand...

well if we want to go by this most of the bones in the fire pit and in BJ's burn barrel were not technically ID as her. I believe it was a tooth that identified her that was found in the pit. So then does that mean that all the bones that are consistent with her charred remains in the pit that couldnt be proven by DNA to be linked to Teresa, Then none of those charred remains would matter either. So now they don't have her burnt remains at all. They just have a tooth.

But Common sense tells me they are her bones. They are consistent with the charred remains else where they are all to believed from one female. So if you cant believe that LE the anthropologist is correct about the bones then how can you find her correct about moving them bones. I believe by the end of that testimony she was not able to say with absolute certainty that the bones were burned in SA's burn pit.
 
MysticJynx said:
well if we want to go by this most of the bones in the fire pit and in BJ's burn barrel were not technically ID as her. I believe it was a tooth that identified her that was found in the pit. So then does that mean that all the bones that are consistent with her charred remains in the pit that couldn't be proven by DNA to be linked to Teresa, Then none of those charred remains would matter either. So now they don't have her burnt remains at all. They just have a tooth.

But Common sense tells me they are her bones. They are consistent with the charred remains else where they are all to believed from one female. So if you cant believe that LE the anthropologist is correct about the bones then how can you find her correct about moving them bones. I believe by the end of that testimony she was not able to say with absolute certainty that the bones were burned in SA's burn pit.
Click to expand...

I only skimmed her testimony, but I was pretty sure she was an expert for the state however that might have been in Dassey's case and not SA's

I was only pointing out the she was not 100 percent about that certain bone on that exhibit. I have not compared her testimony to the visual aide. I will do so when I get there ,but I am following the trial in order. With the testimony at least .

I have watched quite a few trials ,in the courtroom and on TV. So wording to me in exhibits and in testimony has proven in ,my opinion, to have shown itself to be very important is it very common for the prosecutors and defense to state the testimony slightly different making it seems like something else all together sometimes and some LE officer have also exhibit this skill in the court.
 
I read the bones in the barrel were from different parts of the body. The implication is the bones were most likely moved into the barrel. Otherwise, had she been dismembered the bones would have been specific sections.

I am under the impression the "electronics" were in the burn barrel with some of the bones. Hard to believe this plastic was even near the same fire that charred the bones.

635878473743774700-APP107.jpg
 
suzier ~ The electronics were found in a separate burning barrel, one near SA's house. The bones were found in a burning barrel behind Barb/Dassey home.

Also something interesting.... Blaine said in one of the statements that he remembered burning the barrels behind their place sometime the previous week, he thought the Thursday (the 3rd of November). Eisenberg is the anthropologist that examined the bones and noted that all the bones found, from all 3 places had the same amount of burning/charring. IF the barrel that the bones were found in was burning on the 3rd and the bones were there..... wouldn't those bones be further destroyed and be further damaged? But the anthropologist said they were all similar. They were not looked at in any way forensically (where were they in the barrel? bottom... middle... laying on the top?) as they were being collected/sifted IIRC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 158 more.
Total: 3,287 (members: 159, guests: 3,128)

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
3,128
Total visitors
3,287
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,295
Messages
17,966,825
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top