Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

[leslievernon]

yes, i agree that someone with a history of violence (towards anybody) is more likely to commit a crime. animal cruelty is psychopathic behaviour. my personal believe, at least.
so yes, i am not ignorant, or blind, to those things. but like i said, this case seems so completely off that i cannot help but think that he was framed, i can't help it.

reg. evidence:
anybody could put anything in that barrell, as well as anybody could take that gun, shoot the victim, even somewhere completely else let's say, and then put the fragments there, which, again, were missed by avery when he was cleaning the garage... what a shame.. actually the most damnig piece(s) of evidence.
i know it all points towards avery but technically, there's no proof he put all of that, electronics, whatever, in a burn pit/barrel. so this is a debatable point.

reg. fires:
don't know about averys believes but it was halloween after all.. i'm just reading the trial testimony of 18 year old Blaine Dassey, and he says when he came back trick or treating at 11pm oct. 31st, he saw a bonfire behind the garage, and a person standing there in front of ca. 5 feet high flames, but he didn't know if it was avery or not. he first said avery but when kratz asked again it was just a person (which i find interesting somehow).

if it was avery at the bonfire, then i will admit that he was talking BS in all of his interviews reg. the time he went to sleep. he said about 9, 9:30 - correct me if i am wrong - and of course no mentioning of a bonfire. so it seems avery wasn't too much into that halloween thing. instead, he was watching a sex movie and went to sleep....
anyway:
earlier that day, at ca. 3:45pm when blaine arrived with the bus, he saw avery putting a plastic bag into the burning barrel, but didn't talk to him.

reg. *advertiser censored* on dasseys pc:
"gutter *advertiser censored*", i didn't even know that term (i don't speak english normally), you mean like real dirty, mysogynistic *advertiser censored*..?
i don't know, sadly, this seems to be not so much a thing anymore in 2018.. women getting (fake) strangled during sex... i don't get it. anyway, from what i've read, they found pretty gory stuff..

ETA:
if you and your friends, being 18,20 years old, come across some gory pics, like on rotten, and you "dare" looking at it, through the slits of your fingers... that is innocent. that's what we did too, back then.

if that is the case, then i call the dassey pc evidence BS. if it is not at all the case, then we can talk again about it. the details are important here.

 

[leslievernon]

reg. where she was last:
this is what joellen zipperer actually said at the trial:

On the 31st of October, 2005, do you
15 remember having contact with a young lady at your
16 residence?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. First of all, could you tell the jury about what
19 time you had contact with this young lady?
20 A. Mid-afternoon.
21 Q. Do you know any closer time to that, anything
22 more specific, or do you not recall?
23 A. Not exactly, I think it was maybe around 3:00.
24 I'm not sure exactly. I was outside working, so.
25 Q. Do you know for sure, or are you guessing, Mrs.
130
1 Zipperer?
2 A. I'm just estimating that it was around
3 mid-afternoon.

here.

let's say she didn't stay at avery long, i can see why he might have creeped her out a bit, so 5 or max. 10 minutes, no small talk. and as i saw on a map, the avery salvage yard is not so far away from the zipperer residence, how many km..? teresa halbach knew where averys residence was because she had been there before. but she had problems finding the zipperer residence..
joellen also says this:

All right. When you had contact with this young
14 lady, how long was it that you spoke with her?
15 A. About 15 minutes she was there.

and the car she wanted to take a picture of wasn't even there, here:

and
23 she asked me if it was okay if we took a picture
24 of the car. And then I showed her how to get to
25 it. And then she went by herself to take the
135
1 picture.

so she had to get somewhere else even, after all that...
i don't know, this looks to me like avery was not the last person to see her alive.

 

[Boomstick]

reg. where she was last:
this is what joellen zipperer actually said at the trial:

On the 31st of October, 2005, do you
15 remember having contact with a young lady at your
16 residence?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. First of all, could you tell the jury about what
19 time you had contact with this young lady?
20 A. Mid-afternoon.
21 Q. Do you know any closer time to that, anything
22 more specific, or do you not recall?
23 A. Not exactly, I think it was maybe around 3:00.
24 I'm not sure exactly. I was outside working, so.
25 Q. Do you know for sure, or are you guessing, Mrs.
130
1 Zipperer?
2 A. I'm just estimating that it was around
3 mid-afternoon.

here.

let's say she didn't stay at avery long, i can see why he might have creeped her out a bit, so 5 or max. 10 minutes, no small talk. and as i saw on a map, the avery salvage yard is not so far away from the zipperer residence, how many km..? teresa halbach knew where averys residence was because she had been there before. but she had problems finding the zipperer residence..
joellen also says this:

All right. When you had contact with this young
14 lady, how long was it that you spoke with her?
15 A. About 15 minutes she was there.

and the car she wanted to take a picture of wasn't even there, here:

and
23 she asked me if it was okay if we took a picture
24 of the car. And then I showed her how to get to
25 it. And then she went by herself to take the
135
1 picture.

so she had to get somewhere else even, after all that...
i don't know, this looks to me like avery was not the last person to see her alive.

What?? How is that she was going somewhere else..... but not Avery’s when she specifically said she was in the area of the Zipperer housr at 2:15, and on her way to Avery’s at 2:27? Really, again, how much beneift of the doubt can you give Avery?

Just have a look at the direct testimony of Mrs. Zipperer. She said she had no idea of he time and that it could have been as early as 1:30 or something of ad late as 3. On top of that, if I recall correctly, her initial account was that Teresa had been there between 1:30 and 2:30, or 2-2:30 or something like that.

 

[Boomstick]

yes, i agree that someone with a history of violence (towards anybody) is more likely to commit a crime. animal cruelty is psychopathic behaviour. my personal believe, at least.
so yes, i am not ignorant, or blind, to those things. but like i said, this case seems so completely off that i cannot help but think that he was framed, i can't help it.

reg. evidence:
anybody could put anything in that barrell, as well as anybody could take that gun, shoot the victim, even somewhere completely else let's say, and then put the fragments there, which, again, were missed by avery when he was cleaning the garage... what a shame.. actually the most damnig piece(s) of evidence.
i know it all points towards avery but technically, there's no proof he put all of that, electronics, whatever, in a burn pit/barrel. so this is a debatable point.

reg. fires:
don't know about averys believes but it was halloween after all.. i'm just reading the trial testimony of 18 year old Blaine Dassey, and he says when he came back trick or treating at 11pm oct. 31st, he saw a bonfire behind the garage, and a person standing there in front of ca. 5 feet high flames, but he didn't know if it was avery or not. he first said avery but when kratz asked again it was just a person (which i find interesting somehow).

if it was avery at the bonfire, then i will admit that he was talking BS in all of his interviews reg. the time he went to sleep. he said about 9, 9:30 - correct me if i am wrong - and of course no mentioning of a bonfire. so it seems avery wasn't too much into that halloween thing. instead, he was watching a sex movie and went to sleep....
anyway:
earlier that day, at ca. 3:45pm when blaine arrived with the bus, he saw avery putting a plastic bag into the burning barrel, but didn't talk to him.

reg. *advertiser censored* on dasseys pc:
"gutter *advertiser censored*", i didn't even know that term (i don't speak english normally), you mean like real dirty, mysogynistic *advertiser censored*..?
i don't know, sadly, this seems to be not so much a thing anymore in 2018.. women getting (fake) strangled during sex... i don't get it. anyway, from what i've read, they found pretty gory stuff..

ETA:
if you and your friends, being 18,20 years old, come across some gory pics, like on rotten, and you "dare" looking at it, through the slits of your fingers... that is innocent. that's what we did too, back then.

if that is the case, then i call the dassey pc evidence BS. if it is not at all the case, then we can talk again about it. the details are important here.

Well, I’d just say millions of other people felt the same way after Making a Murderer. Such is the effect of a dishonest presentation.

Anyone could have out those things in the barrel? But not Avery? I don’t get that. Consider the full context and weight of the ohysical evidemce that support that it was Avery. Consider the circumstantial evidence that supports that it was him. Consider his own series of lies, that were obviously designed to remove himself from the scene and suspicion.

Then consider that 3 witnesses gave accounts that support that specific barrel of where the electronics were found, was on fire during that early time period 3:45, a mere hour after Teresa was last seen, and he was seen putting something in that can.

Sure anyone could have. Anyone COULD do anything, really. But what evidence or reason is there that anyone else did? Other than wanting to believe Avery, despite all the factors that work against that?

The *advertiser censored* stuff, really, has not been linked to the case in slightest.

 

[leslievernon]

read my #502 post - there's a quote and a link to her trial testimony. please don't just read over it.

at 2:12 she called the zipperer house... saying she cannot find it. but she knew where avery was.
yeah, zipperer - avery is a how many minute ride?
and where was the car that she had to drive to? it wasn't parked at the zipperer residence. seriously, was that mentioned at the trial.. where that car was parked?


"Anyone could have out those things in the barrel? But not Avery? I don’t get that."
this is a strange sentence. yeah, anybody but avery could have done it. nothing is concealed, everything's in the open. or is the barrel standing in the garage?
we don't know what was in those plastic bags, that he put in the barrel at ca. 3:45pm, but i guess we can agree that it wasn't a body part, at that time... he would have been right in the middle of the act at that time, the kill and torture act.
what did they have to prove that there was any rape going on? nothing, except dassey's statements. or had the bones any signs that a knife or a hacksaw was used? i don't know. where there any signs?

 

[proudfootz]

IIRC the bullet fragment recovered was thought to come from the same model of gun that Bobby was trying to sell after Teresa's disappearance.

Whether a fragment can reliably be linked to a specific weapon is questionable:

... the erroneous expert testimony [regarding the alleged ability to identify specific firearms] in Marlon Williams’ murder trial was “more than regrettable. It [was] alarming,” akin to “the vision of a psychic” with “foundationless faith in what he believes to be true.”

D.C. Judge Rejects Junk Science But The Law Is Slow To Follow | HuffPost

It may be that this 'gun matching' will go the way of the 'hair matching' voodoo that helped put Steven in prison for Gregory Allen's crimes.

AFAIAC this bullet fragment is moot since the forensic testing was botched by the lab nullifying any confidence is the results, and subsequent examination shows no evidence the fragment ever struck a person (let alone Teresa Halbach).

All MOO

 

[proudfootz]

I don't have time to respond to all of the posts, but I just wanted to say...

The rifle was NOT Steven's, it was Roland Johnson's, the owner of the trailer.

IIRC they did NOT find prints or DNA on the rifle.

I don't recall any evidence being presented that the rifle in question had been fired or cleaned recently.

There is nothing to link this weapon to the disappearance of Teresa.

MOO of course.

 

[leslievernon]

@proudfootz
now i remember.. how are they doing it normally, when they actually find a bullet after a murder, and then they compare it to the gun barrel of a possible murder weapon, looking for any characteristics, under the microscope, to determine if that bullet came out of that barrel. they can be very specific, this way.
but with a fragment... yeah, i can see why this is questionable.

 

[Boomstick]

read my #502 post - there's a quote and a link to her trial testimony. please don't just read over it.

at 2:12 she called the zipperer house... saying she cannot find it. but she knew where avery was.
yeah, zipperer - avery is a how many minute ride?
and where was the car that she had to drive to? it wasn't parked at the zipperer residence. seriously, was that mentioned at the trial.. where that car was parked?


"Anyone could have out those things in the barrel? But not Avery? I don’t get that."
this is a strange sentence. yeah, anybody but avery could have done it. nothing is concealed, everything's in the open. or is the barrel standing in the garage?
we don't know what was in those plastic bags, that he put in the barrel at ca. 3:45pm, but i guess we can agree that it wasn't a body part, at that time... he would have been right in the middle of the act at that time, the kill and torture act.
what did they have to prove that there was any rape going on? nothing, except dassey's statements. or had the bones any signs that a knife or a hacksaw was used? i don't know. where there any signs?

I read exactly what she said. What you have done is leave out the entire context that was provided by everything else she said. Look up the rest of her testimony. I’m trying to give you a clearer picture based on further info. You provided one statement which ambiguously supports what you are trying to say. I am referring you to multiple statements from the same source that support what all the actual evidence says.

And you are ignoring that she told a coworker she was on her way to Avery’s, then was seen arriving. That would require that she called the Zipperers, left a message saying she was currently looking for their house so that she could take the photos, decided to abandon that for some reason, and instead go over to Avery’s? Then left Avery’s(ignoring every single bit of evidence) go back to the Zipperers, where she was killed(leaving absolutely no evidence) ?

Where the car was parked? I don’t know what you are getting at.

There were no body parts in THAT barrel that Avery was seen putting a bag, and then had smoke and fire coming from it. Teresa’s phone, camera and PDA were found burned in it.

No cut marks on those bones. There was nothing to indicate that she was dismembered, nor was that asserted.

 

[Boomstick]

I don't recall any evidence being presented that the rifle in question had been fired or cleaned recently.

There is nothing to link this weapon to the disappearance of Teresa.

MOO of course.

Other than the victim’s DNA on the bullet that matched that rifle, a statement that it was used in the murder? That the victim was never seen or heard from again? That her vehicle with her blood was found? With his blood in it? That her bones were found burned behind his garage in a place he had a large fire that night, but repeatedly claimed he didn’t? That he said she had only gone to the van to photograph it, then went back to her vehicle and left, safe and sound, only for tracking dogs to track her scent to his trailer and the garage, where the bullet that matched the rifle and with her dna was found?

Bobby was not selling a rifle. Scott was, and it was well after the murder.

 

[Boomstick]

(Whoops)

 

[Boomstick]

@proudfootz

(proudfeet!)

I mean, like any science, it isn’t exact, can be misinterpreted and abused.

Nonetheless, a ballistics expert, someone certified as an expert in the application determined that the bullet was fired from that one particular firearm, to the exclusion of all other firearm in the world.

The defense could counter that with an expert. Then and now.

Subsequent examinations have not determined that at all. All they determined were that the bullet did not pass through bone.

Being that the bullet had the victim’s dna on it, and all the other factors that support that it was used by Steven Avery to murder the victim.

The forensic testing that was botched was the negative control sample. Not the bullet fragment itself. And that was the lab tech introducing her own dna into the negative control. There would be no scientific explanation that could explain how contaminating a separate control would translate into a testable dna sample matching another person.

This is yet anither thing that Making a Murderer led people astray on.

 

[leslievernon]

no, man...
i find it somehow amusing, our little dialog. i don't know why.. cause both of us wants to be right of course

"I read exactly what she said. What you have done is leave out the entire context that was provided by everything else she said. Look up the rest of her testimony. I’m trying to give you a clearer picture based on further info. You provided one statement which ambiguously supports what you are trying to say. I am referring you to multiple statements from the same source that support what all the actual evidence says."

yes, she was watering down her statements reg. time. but we have the phone records as a reference point.
so... we can only count the time from 2:15 upwards for the zipperer visit, and my claim is, that she drove to avery in the meantime, knowing his address and all, and then, at the end... zipperer.

"And you are ignoring that she told a coworker she was on her way to Avery’s, then was seen arriving."
nein, i clearly mentioned the 2:27 call to dawn from auto trader more than once in my previous posts..

"That would require that she called the Zipperers, left a message saying she was currently looking for their house so that she could take the photos, decided to abandon that for some reason, and instead go over to Avery’s? Then left Avery’s(ignoring every single bit of evidence) go back to the Zipperers, where she was killed(leaving absolutely no evidence) ?"

she abandoned that for the reason of not finding it, but knowing the avery address. even if she was close to zipperers... she was lost. how could she know.

"Where the car was parked? I don’t know what you are getting at."
dude, the car that she wanted to make a picture of, was not parked at the zipperer residence. she had to drive to that car. joellen zipperer told her the way.

 

[Boomstick]

no, man...
i find it somehow amusing, our little dialog. i don't know why.. cause both of us wants to be right of course

"I read exactly what she said. What you have done is leave out the entire context that was provided by everything else she said. Look up the rest of her testimony. I’m trying to give you a clearer picture based on further info. You provided one statement which ambiguously supports what you are trying to say. I am referring you to multiple statements from the same source that support what all the actual evidence says."

yes, she was watering down her statements reg. time. but we have the phone records as a reference point.
so... we can only count the time from 2:15 upwards for the zipperer visit, and my claim is, that she drove to avery in the meantime, knowing his address and all, and then, at the end... zipperer.

"And you are ignoring that she told a coworker she was on her way to Avery’s, then was seen arriving."
nein, i clearly mentioned the 2:27 call to dawn from auto trader more than once in my previous posts..

"That would require that she called the Zipperers, left a message saying she was currently looking for their house so that she could take the photos, decided to abandon that for some reason, and instead go over to Avery’s? Then left Avery’s(ignoring every single bit of evidence) go back to the Zipperers, where she was killed(leaving absolutely no evidence) ?"

she abandoned that for the reason of not finding it, but knowing the avery address. even if she was close to zipperers... she was lost. how could she know.

"Where the car was parked? I don’t know what you are getting at."
dude, the car that she wanted to make a picture of, was not parked at the zipperer residence. she had to drive to that car. joellen zipperer told her the way.

Yet there is literally no evidence than a will to come up with alternate interpretations for all the evidence that points to one outcome.

Most telling is that the very person you are citing in one instance saying it MAY have been as late as 3pm also said on several occasions that it may have been earlier. That is your best evidence, and wobbly at best. And countered by multiple facts, pieces of evidence, and that very same wobbly witness.

Why put so much bank in her 3pm “maybe”, but not that she left, or that she was there earlier?

There is literally nothing, other than the wholly disputed, inconsistent word Steven Avery, that suggests that she went to Avery’s and then Zipperers.

There is a whole list that says she went to the Zipperer’s and then Avery’s.

I guess I just can’t see the idea vehind needing to gice this guy the benefit of the doubt in every single instance so that *maybe* someone else can be accused. But without any of evidence of it, and a conspiracy to plant all of the evidence against Avery, which includes his own lies.

 

[proudfootz]

Other than the victim’s DNA on the bullet that matched that rifle, a statement that it was used in the murder?

As I wrote above:

AFAIAC this bullet fragment is moot since the forensic testing was botched by the lab nullifying any confidence is the results, and subsequent examination shows no evidence the fragment ever struck a person (let alone Teresa Halbach).

Since I already know that Culhane failed to prevent contamination in her lab I have no rational reason to suppose this fragment was ever involved in any crime against Teresa.

Bobby was not selling a rifle. Scott was, and it was well after the murder.

My mistake. There was another rifle of the same make that Bobby had access to in the Dassey home.

 

[leslievernon]

@Boomstick
this is... you just don't want to understand what i am trying to tell you since the last 5.000 posts...

2:15 message from TH that she can't find the zipperer house.
2:27 conversation with dawn from auto trader indicating that she will arrive at averys shortly.

your thinking is that she went to the zipperers in between that, am i right?

so you think in between 2:15 and 2:27... she went to the zipperers, had a conversation for 15 minutes, then drove to the car that she wanted to take a picture of, and then finally, got to averys? it is just a bit too late. avery always said 2,2:30 was when she arrived. even bobby dassey said he got up around 2 and saw TH at ca. 2:30 when he looked out of the window.

 

[Boomstick]

As I wrote above:

AFAIAC this bullet fragment is moot since the forensic testing was botched by the lab nullifying any confidence is the results, and subsequent examination shows no evidence the fragment ever struck a person (let alone Teresa Halbach).

Since I already know that Culhane failed to prevent contamination in her lab I have no rational reason to suppose this fragment was ever involved in any crime against Teresa.



My mistake. There was another rifle of the same make that Bobby had access to in the Dassey home.

That is a leap, regardless. There is no real mechanism that would explain how her dna in a negative control would somehow translate into Teresa Halbach’s in a separate test sample. If you haven’t, I think you should read how the process unfolds.

Unless you think she deliberately contaminated the bullet with Teresa’s dna, then somehow mistakenly contaminated the the control sample with her own.

Yes. Bobby, like most of them had a rifle, and that particular was common. Either way, there is still nothing that explains away the evidence against Avery, and somehow explains in Bobby. Not without it becoming an untenable conspiracy theory.

 

[Boomstick]

@Boomstick
this is... you just don't want to understand what i am trying to tell you since the last 5.000 posts...

2:15 message from TH that she can't find the zipperer house.
2:27 conversation with dawn from auto trader indicating that she will arrive at averys shortly.

your thinking is that she went to the zipperers in between that, am i right?

so you think in between 2:15 and 2:27... she went to the zipperers, had a conversation for 15 minutes, then drove to the car that she wanted to take a picture of, and then finally, got to averys? it is just a bit too late. avery always said 2,2:30 was when she arrived. even bobby dassey said he got up around 2 and saw TH at ca. 2:30 when he looked out of the window.

Iirc, Teresa left the message at 2:12. She said she was in the area and *looking for their house*. Over the next 15 mins she finds the house, takes pics and is on her way to Avery’s as she said in a call, to arrive there sometime between 2:35-2:40.

This is supported by all the evidence, the witnesses, including Avery. It is supported by Avery lying, and changing his story over and over. It is supported by the inactivity on Teresa’s phone. She had consistently made calls, and checked her voicemail all day long. In fact, she had made 10 calls up to thT point of the day.

From that moment on she made ZERO.

For his part, Avery had a conveniently corresponding period of inactivity. He made no calls until 4:35, when, for some reason, he called Teresa Halbach. Only, this one time, he called her with no block on his caller ID.

So in a time period where he said he had intended to go back to work, but instead he stayed home to make calls, he made zero calls.

This is the same time period where he said his mother came with his mail. That his brother had dropped by with a friend, and that he had gone to his sister’s house.

These are all things that didn’t happen that day. These are all things he has changed his tune on and no longer says happened.

So to recap, his story is *still* changing all these years later to account for the inconvenient circumstances , much of which he provided while being questioned facing arrest for a murder.

So, yes, I get what your trying to say. What I’m saying is that there is nothing to base it on.

 

[proudfootz]

@proudfootz

(proudfeet!)

I mean, like any science, it isn’t exact, can be misinterpreted and abused.

Nonetheless, a ballistics expert, someone certified as an expert in the application determined that the bullet was fired from that one particular firearm, to the exclusion of all other firearm in the world.

The defense could counter that with an expert. Then and now.

They could do that. Or we can apply the knowledge we have now. There was at least one other rifle of the same model on the property.

Mr. Kratz wants to argue that there was proof that that bullet came from the .22 rifle that was found in Mr. Avery’s trailer, but that’s not really the case. It was similar, but they could not completely exclude any other gun.

‘Making a Murderer’: Steven Avery’s Lawyer on the Evidence Left Out – Rolling Stone

Subsequent examinations have not determined that at all. All they determined were that the bullet did not pass through bone.

No bone, no blood, no human tissue. There is no evidence this fragment struck anything other than wood.

Being that the bullet had the victim’s dna on it, and all the other factors that support that it was used by Steven Avery to murder the victim.

As I have already expressed my conclusion based on the evidence, we will simply have to disagree on this.

The forensic testing that was botched was the negative control sample. Not the bullet fragment itself. And that was the lab tech introducing her own dna into the negative control. There would be no scientific explanation that could explain how contaminating a separate control would translate into a testable dna sample matching another person.

My thinking is that if the forensic laboratory technician could not prevent the contamination of a control sample, I have zero confidence that they could prevent the contamination of other evidence. For similar reasons I wouldn't feel safe eating food prepared in a kitchen infested with rats.

This is yet anither thing that Making a Murderer led people astray on.

I was never lead astray.

 

[proudfootz]

That is a leap, regardless. There is no real mechanism that would explain how her dna in a negative control would somehow translate into Teresa Halbach’s in a separate test sample. If you haven’t, I think you should read how the process unfolds.

There is no 'leap' required - I'm not arguing Culhane's DNA transformed into Teresa's DNA. I am pointing out that the lab is unreliable because it is abundantly evident they cannot keep samples from becoming contaminated.

Unless you think she deliberately contaminated the bullet with Teresa’s dna, then somehow mistakenly contaminated the the control sample with her own.

The lab is fraught with problems, from sloppy work as exemplified in this case, to drunkenness on the job, to outright fraud. Maybe it's just me, but I can't trust important work like this to people who have no pride in their work and don't show that they care about how their incompetence impacts on others.

Yes. Bobby, like most of them had a rifle, and that particular was common. Either way, there is still nothing that explains away the evidence against Avery, and somehow explains in Bobby.

What I am demonstrating is that the so-called 'evidence' is dubious at best.

Not without it becoming an untenable conspiracy theory.

No one AFAIK has proposed any untenable theory (except Kratz).