For Those Who Do Think Avery was Framed & Evidence Planted - Discuss

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n.../78630248/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

Article weighing in on legal expert's opinions on the prosecution's conduct pre-trial.

""Why does this matter? Because you are not allowed to gin up the public and misrepresent the evidence when talking to the press, and the only reason you do that is when you and the police don't have a good case to begin with. Ken Kratz was trying this case in the press to disparage the defendants. What these judges should have done was put a gag order in place. There should have been some consequences from the Wisconsin Bar Association, and the judge who is seeing this nonsense go on should have put a stop to this. Nobody in this case wanted a fair trial."

Edit: included more information.
 
http://fox6now.com/2016/02/21/she-w...g-the-halbach-investigation-what-did-she-see/

I am soooo looking forward to watching this...I wonder if this is one of the deputies who got in trouble in 2006 for posting a video on FB about setting an effigy with a sheriff's uniform and name tags on fire? Does this mean people are starting to crack, or is this another media attempt to cement the guilty verdicts? I will definitely be tuning in. :drumroll::skip:
 
missy1974 said:
Ok.... so looking on reddit (they come up with some good stuff over there lol) .... and now I'm just wondering if they just made this stuff as they went along....
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur..._i_seeing_something_in_the_cartridge_casings/
read the first post from KingLuxor about item EI

they are discussing these exhibit photo's: http://imgur.com/a/K5Kfi

item EI is not the same item in these 2 photo's:
attachment.php
attachment.php


look at the indent compared to the letter C on the casing... they aren't even in the same spots.

Add to this.... that I noticed this on a document I was reading last night (new docs dumped last night)
attachment.php


this is from page 37 of the following motion:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...rief-in-Support-of-Post-Conviction-Motion.pdf
Click to expand...

Oh my gosh! I thought I would never say this....

Those are not the same! However, with that said...I think that it is possible (human error) that it might have been mis-marked and could be another of the bullets retrieved from the garage. With that said, I think someone should point that out and it should be looked into for a plausible explanation.
 
BigCityAccountant said:
Oh my gosh! I thought I would never say this....

Those are not the same! However, with that said...I think that it is possible (human error) that it might have been mis-marked and could be another of the bullets retrieved from the garage. With that said, I think someone should point that out and it should be looked into for a plausible explanation.
Click to expand...

Keep reading...... I think they are different, but I think it is explained by item EI being all 11 casings
 
Wendy101 said:
Is the brother connected with the roommate and ex?
Click to expand...
From my read of their testimony in the trial transcripts (MH on Day 1 and RH on Day 2), all of them attended the same high school and college. SB, RH, & Ms Halbach are the same age, and iirc, MH is a couple of years younger than Ms. Halbach.
 
Jaiddie said:
Yea, didn't really expect my statement to be taken quite so literally. I mainly meant the wheel well was even missing, so that's a little more than just a busted blinker or light. I don't know what happened to her vehicle or when it happened, kinda why I also stated, " Way too many possibilities for me to make an informed guess of what really happened to TH." And I would expect LE to have had those answers as they were the ones who were SUPPOSED to be investigating. Great job they did in that respect. :banghead:
Click to expand...

Why would someone hold on to the busted up light and keep it in the back of their suv?
 
Justiceseeker35 said:
Why would someone hold on to the busted up light and keep it in the back of their suv?
Click to expand...

Have no idea why someone would do that who owned the vehicle and could just go get another light put in. However, the only logical reason I can come up with why that would be thrown in the back like that is if someone didn't want it found at a later time in a place it shouldn't have been. JMO.
 
Justiceseeker35 said:
Why would someone hold on to the busted up light and keep it in the back of their suv?
Click to expand...
She could have easily just thrown it in the back, intending to take the car to get fixed, and had not yet got around to it.

Eta ~ last summer, a guy hit my car while backing out of his parking space. Totally trashed his light such that it was hanging by the wires. Rather than driving around with it hanging like that, he disconnected the wires and tossed the light in his trunk. After all, leaving it in the parking lot would have been considered littering.
 
Why keep a busted part? For a couple reasons: to show an insurance adjuster, for a 'like' part replacement order, as two reasons.

Couple years ago some kid T-boned my car while backing out of his parking spot at the mall. His piece 'o crap red car was held together with red duck tape, and a part of that red duck tape had fallen off upon him backing into the side of my car. In addition to the various photos I took of both mine and his cars, I kept the piece of red duck tape that had been in contact with my car as evidence, in case my insurance company wanted it. You can always throw away a part later but once discarded it's gone. I also kept that evidence so I'd have it for my diminished value claim. My car's value was less because it had been in an accident and that will affect the price I receive when I go to sell it in the future.
 
Justiceseeker35 said:
Why would someone hold on to the busted up light and keep it in the back of their suv?
Click to expand...

I was wondering about the damage. Unfortunately we cannot see the vehicle next to it. I wonder if that vehicle had any damage on it. I was thinking...what if whoever planted the car there--actually hit the car next to it with TH's and caused the damage. Would also explain why they took the light and threw it in the back. But it doesn't explain where the missing wheel well is...
 
Sustained said:
Respectfully snipped ...

I find it extremely odd that TH was not reported missing until 11/3, yet call records show a bunch of calls made to her phone on 11/1 and she lived in a house right next to her parents.

Also

1) IIRC, TH was Catholic and 11/1/06 would have been a holy day of obligation. Did she usually go to Mass with her mom & dad ?
2) She coached middle school volleyball at her parish's school with another woman. No practice Mon 10/31 thru 11/2 ? Volleyball is usually a winter sport ...
Click to expand...

Yeah. I find it odd that she wasn't reported until three days later too. Apparently she visited her family quite a bit and she wasn't the type to disappear for days. If they only saw her every few days, her roommate should've reported her or contacted her parents. I can understand, "Oh maybe she's running late" but not three days later. I get adults can disappear and the LE sometimes can't do anything until later but there hasn't been any evidence of them trying to report her missing on the night itself or even the following day.

Honestly, after your post shadowraiths I'm more leaning towards an accidental death that was covered up, although there are some things that make me suspicious (ST selling a gun the day after that matches SA's gun but that could just be a red herring), it just seems to make more sense to me. When you consider all pieces of evidence, it makes the most sense (although there are still some unanswered questions but I feel it answers more questions than a murder). It explains her blood and hair in the boot better. It explains the disposal of the body more (burn it enough so they can't determine the true cause of death) Makes me wonder if the Halbach family or RH owned a similar gun.
 
As a new poster, I seem to have some confusion as to what is allowed and what isn't, and would like to clarify a question I have now, so I do not do this again in the future. In an earlier post, I made a statement that some took offense to, and for that I humbly apologize to those who were offended as that was not my intention whatsoever. The statement in question was meant to be in DEFENSE of the subject I was speaking about, and absolutely not meant in any kind of negative way towards him or anyone reading my post. The person I was theorizing about has been targeted by MANY since MaM (and not just here in this forum, but EVERYWHERE on the internet) for questionable statements and demeanor that was shown in the public eye during the investigation and trials, and hence, basically has been called a possible murderer or at the very least an accomplice maybe. I, myself, think this individual has come across as very questionable and should have been looked at during the investigation.

With that said, I know that there are some social or emotional disabilities that could explain someone not being aware of how they are appearing to others, through no fault of their own. My confusion comes from the fact that it is somehow offensive to theorize that someone may have a form of a disability that would help explain their actions, but okay to theorize they may be a murderer or an accomplice? Please, do not take this post in the wrong way too, as I am just trying to clarify things for myself and understand how things work here, so I can make sure I conduct myself properly without hurting anyone's feelings in the future.

**I know I probably should have put this to a moderator to clarify things, but I wanted to post this to the whole forum so that people who took offense to my statement would understand that I did not mean anything in a negative way. I also wanted to humbly apologize that I said something that deeply affected some people and assure them that it was not my intention to do so. :sorry:
 
Jaiddie said:
As a new poster, I seem to have some confusion as to what is allowed and what isn't, and would like to clarify a question I have now, so I do not do this again in the future. In an earlier post, I made a statement that some took offense to, and for that I humbly apologize to those who were offended as that was not my intention whatsoever. The statement in question was meant to be in DEFENSE of the subject I was speaking about, and absolutely not meant in any kind of negative way towards him or anyone reading my post. The person I was theorizing about has been targeted by MANY since MaM (and not just here in this forum, but EVERYWHERE on the internet) for questionable statements and demeanor that was shown in the public eye during the investigation and trials, and hence, basically has been called a possible murderer or at the very least an accomplice maybe. I, myself, think this individual has come across as very questionable and should have been looked at during the investigation.

With that said, I know that there are some social or emotional disabilities that could explain someone not being aware of how they are appearing to others, through no fault of their own. My confusion comes from the fact that it is somehow offensive to theorize that someone may have a form of a disability that would help explain their actions, but okay to theorize they may be a murderer or an accomplice? Please, do not take this post in the wrong way too, as I am just trying to clarify things for myself and understand how things work here, so I can make sure I conduct myself properly without hurting anyone's feelings in the future.

**I know I probably should have put this to a moderator to clarify things, but I wanted to post this to the whole forum so that people who took offense to my statement would understand that I did not mean anything in a negative way. I also wanted to humbly apologize that I said something that deeply affected some people and assure them that it was not my intention to do so. :sorry:
Click to expand...

I will try my best to answer your question as I believe I know what post you're talking about.

From Websleuths rules http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is relevant to the case.

The "victim friendly" rule extends to the family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, and others who have not been designated as suspects is not allowed. Don't make random accusations, suggest their involvement, nor bash and attack them. Posting their personal information, including names, addresses, and background data -- even if it is public -- is not allowed. That does not mean, however, that statements made by family members and other third parties cannot come into discussion as the facts of the case are reported in the media.

It was because of this rule I thought I couldn't post the tweet from Zellner on the other thread, where she clearly points to someone.

I believe saying someone has a kind of mental illness or learning condition that isn't verified isn't allowed but I can't find it here in the rules but it might fall under random accusation. And posting a testimonial from him might be considered sleuthing.

I think that's why your post was given a warning or was taken the wrong way, or whatever it was happened. As for accusing MH, I think it's because people are talking about his behaviour in relation to his case, which is allowed, and he has given his statements to the media. I don't recall anyone saying MH committed the murder, just that his behaviour seemed a bit odd and maybe that he knew more than he says.

Not trying to be mean or anything. Hope it didn't come across that way. :)

But anyone else feel free to clarify better. I'm not that good on the rules myself.
 
hoshizora said:
I will try my best to answer your question as I believe I know what post you're talking about.

From Websleuths rules http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is relevant to the case.

The "victim friendly" rule extends to the family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, and others who have not been designated as suspects is not allowed. Don't make random accusations, suggest their involvement, nor bash and attack them. Posting their personal information, including names, addresses, and background data -- even if it is public -- is not allowed. That does not mean, however, that statements made by family members and other third parties cannot come into discussion as the facts of the case are reported in the media.
It was because of this rule I thought I couldn't post the tweet from Zellner on the other thread, where she clearly points to someone.

I believe saying someone has a kind of mental illness or learning condition that isn't verified isn't allowed but I can't find it here in the rules but it might fall under random accusation. And posting a testimonial from him might be considered sleuthing.

I think that's why your post was given a warning or was taken the wrong way, or whatever it was happened. As for accusing MH, I think it's because people are talking about his behaviour in relation to his case, which is allowed, and he has given his statements to the media. I don't recall anyone saying MH committed the murder, just that his behaviour seemed a bit odd and maybe that he knew more than he says.

Not trying to be mean or anything. Hope it didn't come across that way. :)

But anyone else feel free to clarify better. I'm not that good on the rules myself.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification, and I understand your point. I had been thinking my statement fell with in those rules as I had not meant for it to be a "bashing" in any way, but rather a possible defense or explanation for the subject's questionable behavior. I will drop this subject now, and try to refrain from posting those types of "thoughts" in any future postings. :)
 
Tssiemer said:
Someone posted that thought LE did it. Why? What motive??

I think ST did it and knew it would be easy to frame SA due to his relationship with the police at that time.


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

Yes, I did say I think someone in LE did it. I am surprised you ask why and what motive cause its really just logic. But here ya go! I am assuming that you know that Manitowoc County LE realized that they had evidence exonerating Mr. Avery 8 years prior to him getting out of prison and did nothing. The circumstances with him even going to prison in the first place was questionable as well but it happens. Anyhow, I also assume that you are aware that Mr. Avery was very possibly going to get a large settlement for false imprisonment? In the three weeks before Ms. Halbach disappeared LE were being deposed on the coverup of exonerating evidence, creating false documents relating to the Avery case. It wasn't just Manitowoc County that could be sued but members of LE could be sued personally due to LE knowingly being Negligent. In such a situation the Insurance Company of Manitowoc county would not have to pay. There was a foundation named after Steven Avery that was gonna help him sue everyone.

So you have members of LE being deposed and they had tons of evidence of the coverup if you saw the show. They were most assuredly gonna lose their jobs, probably be sued, maybe lose their pensions for all I know. You'd almost have to wonder if they could ever get a job in LE again. So what is probably the only thing that saves them and their careers, financial well being? Yup, 3 days after the depositons Teresa Halbach goes missing at Steven Avery's house. Do I need to go any further? And to put the cherry on the top we know another LE group from another county is to be doing the investigation. Who finds virtually ALL the evidence even though they shouldn't even be there?
 
I have been very slowly reading some of the new documents that got dumped last night. In a pre-trial hearing, RH testifies. For anyone that is suspicious of him.... I doubt this testimony will make you feel any better. lol It's about what searches he organized/did... the whole Pam thing, when he had contact with LE and who, etc. He drops Pagel's name so many times in his testimony, it reminded me of a preteen girl that just met Bieber JMO

Oh and the other thing that struck me as odd so far... the mentioning that cell phone coverage in the area is horrid, and when he used his cell phone "out there" calls got dropped, but he'd never been to the Salvage Yard before. Pg. 84-85

Aug 9 motion hearing part 1
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...2/Partial-Motion-Hearing-Part-1-2006Aug09.pdf

taken from this link:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/hearingtranscripts/
 
Jaiddie said:
http://fox6now.com/2016/02/21/she-w...g-the-halbach-investigation-what-did-she-see/

I am soooo looking forward to watching this...I wonder if this is one of the deputies who got in trouble in 2006 for posting a video on FB about setting an effigy with a sheriff's uniform and name tags on fire? Does this mean people are starting to crack, or is this another media attempt to cement the guilty verdicts? I will definitely be tuning in. :drumroll::skip:
Click to expand...

I can't find this anywhere on my tv... Is this a local only channel/viewing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 196 more.
Total: 3,526 (members: 197, guests: 3,329)

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
3,329
Total visitors
3,526
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,308
Messages
17,967,112
Members
228,739
Latest member
eagerhuntress
Back
Top