What it would take for Steven Avery to be innocent

[scipio_usmc]

1) Someone had to be stalking Halbach and would have had to follow her after she left Avery's property, ran her off the road, kidnapped her leaving her vehicle where she run off the road and took her someplace else to rape and kill her.

2) The person would have to have killed Halbach and decided to burn her property as well as her body in order to eliminate any potential DNA evidence and in the most amazing coincidence in all of human history, at the same time she was being killed Steven Avery just happened to have a fire in his burn barrel and shortly thereafter had a huge bonfire near his garage of intensity and duration to be capable of destroying a human body.

3) For the first time ever in recorded history someone killed and burned a victim and then spent hours excavating the burned remains in dozens of buckets, doing such a good job as to capture even the tiny rivets from the victim's burned jeans, with the intention of planting them elsewhere to frame someone else even though: 1) no one knew the victim had been with the perpetrator, no one saw this fire, no one ever located the burn site and leaving the remains in the location where the burning took place would not have resulted in the killer being caught.

4) Somehow the person knew Steven Avery had a fire in his burn barrel and took the time and effort to separate Halbach's burned electronics from the ash containing her remains and planted the burned electronics in Avery's burn barrel without anyone seeing him do it.

5) Somehow the person knew Steven Avery had the fire near his garage and transported dozens of buckets of ash containing fragments from virtually every bone in Halbach's body and planted it in the pit without anyone seeing him do this and without Avery's dog that was tied to the garage and sitting on that burn pit

biting the person or barking to alert anyone. Not only did no one see him transporting dozens of buckets to Avery's pit, Avery didn't notice his pit looked different than when he raked it out to flatten it the day before.

6) For no rational reason the person decided to plant some of the remains in 1 of the Janda burn barrels as well and accomplished this without being seen either.

7) Either:

A) the person had to steal Steven Avery's gun to use to shoot Halbach with and put the gun back in his trailer and tossed numerous spent casings throughout the garage and placed 2 rounds that exited or grazed Halbach in the garage or

B) Police found 2 fired bullets somewhere on the grounds, hoped and prayed they were fired by Steven Avery's gun and that ballistics would be able to prove it and though uncertain they were fired from Avery's gun decided to take a chance and decided to go to great lengths to somehow obtain Halbach's DNA to plant on the bullets but only managed to get her DNA on one of them and then planted these in his garage

8) Though there was no reason to relocate Halbach's vehicle in order to escape liability for the murder because she was run off the road in a place unconnected to the killer, the killer decided to take the enormous risk of being caught driving her vehicle while police were actively looking for said vehicle in order to drive it to Avery Salvage to frame Avery.

9) The killer somehow knew which area in the pit that Steven Avery used for his old discarded vehicles and decided to plant Halbach's vehicle among them to try to frame him and managed to get it there without anyone seeing him do it and either had a long walk home or someone helped him and drove him home.

10) The killer disconnected the battery and somehow managed to plant Avery's DNA on the hood latch and his blood in her vehicle then locked it. He also planted Avery's DNA on the key somehow and planted that in Avery's trailer without being seen. He also removed her plates and folded them in thirds the way Steven Avery was known to fold old plates but instead of planting those in Avery's trailer or garage for some inexplicable reason he tossed them in a station wagon near the work buildings without anyone seeing him do it.

Not even in the movies has anything so crazy happened. No court is going to believe the above happened without reliable evidence proving it happened. There is no evidence to prove such happened and thus I don't believe it did and no court has any reason to believe it did.

In order to believe Avery is innocent one has to suspect the above happened but suspicion is not evidence and means little. Proof the above happened is key and there is no evidence because there is no way the above happened.

 

[Zabble]

This was an interesting read, thanks for posting

 

[LadyL]

thank you

 

[wilkeysau]

Yes - I agree. I don’t necessarily subscribe to the ‘way’ things happened according to police & prosecutor theories, however I do believe that to pull off a ‘set up’ (such as the defendant and his legal team puts forward) would take a lot more than the local police force or even Avery-haters would be capable of doing without error.

it would take a lot to convince me that SA is not guilty of the murder of TH, though I do not agree that BD was as involved as SA.

 

[Lorenathered]

I never got through all of the documentary but the amount of people that would have to be involved in the conspiracy is insane. You then have to further suspend reality and believe that none of the huge amount of people involved in the coverup has never once uttered a word or let something slip. The problem with documentaries is that they all have an agenda, especially crime related ones. If you don't look at all the evidence and just take the word of the documentary, you only get the side of the story they want you to hear. They play on your emotions.

 

[mcrow]

I'm not 100% convinced one way or the other on this case. However, considering how many people were involved in setting him up and covering up the setup in his rape trial I don't find the amount of involvement needed for him to be innocent in the murder trial to be far-fetched.

 

[mcrow]

After rewatching the documentary I found a potential hole in the defense's argument. They find the vial of blood from the earlier rape case with broken steals on the box it was in. Then they show the vial with a hole in the cap. Now they state they believe the hole in the top is proof blood was taken from the tube. However, I have several years of experience working in medical labs, that hole in the top is most likely from when they drew his blood.

Typically when we draw blood you would put the needle in the vein then press the tube into the collection device. The collection device has a need that pierces the top of the tube and allows the blood to flow from the vein into the tube. So if, in fact, blood was removed from the tube they could have just removed the top of the tube and removed blood without leaving a hole in the top. So the hole in the top was likely from the initial blood draw but that doesn't mean blood couldn't have been taken out of the tube to use as planted evidence.

 

[mcrow]

Another thing that occurred to me. How can they go through this entire trial and not even speculate his motive for killing Halbach? What motive would Steven Avery have for killing her? I don't think it was ever mentioned. Then on top of it Steven had to know people knew she was going to his place. Something just doesn't add up to me. Makes me really wonder if someone else in the Avery clan did it.

Maybe he did do it but seems like there's a lot missing here.

 

[Lisamaria72]

1) Someone had to be stalking Halbach and would have had to follow her after she left Avery's property, ran her off the road, kidnapped her leaving her vehicle where she run off the road and took her someplace else to rape and kill her.

2) The person would have to have killed Halbach and decided to burn her property as well as her body in order to eliminate any potential DNA evidence and in the most amazing coincidence in all of human history, at the same time she was being killed Steven Avery just happened to have a fire in his burn barrel and shortly thereafter had a huge bonfire near his garage of intensity and duration to be capable of destroying a human body.

3) For the first time ever in recorded history someone killed and burned a victim and then spent hours excavating the burned remains in dozens of buckets, doing such a good job as to capture even the tiny rivets from the victim's burned jeans, with the intention of planting them elsewhere to frame someone else even though: 1) no one knew the victim had been with the perpetrator, no one saw this fire, no one ever located the burn site and leaving the remains in the location where the burning took place would not have resulted in the killer being caught.

4) Somehow the person knew Steven Avery had a fire in his burn barrel and took the time and effort to separate Halbach's burned electronics from the ash containing her remains and planted the burned electronics in Avery's burn barrel without anyone seeing him do it.

5) Somehow the person knew Steven Avery had the fire near his garage and transported dozens of buckets of ash containing fragments from virtually every bone in Halbach's body and planted it in the pit without anyone seeing him do this and without Avery's dog that was tied to the garage and sitting on that burn pit

biting the person or barking to alert anyone. Not only did no one see him transporting dozens of buckets to Avery's pit, Avery didn't notice his pit looked different than when he raked it out to flatten it the day before.

6) For no rational reason the person decided to plant some of the remains in 1 of the Janda burn barrels as well and accomplished this without being seen either.

7) Either:

A) the person had to steal Steven Avery's gun to use to shoot Halbach with and put the gun back in his trailer and tossed numerous spent casings throughout the garage and placed 2 rounds that exited or grazed Halbach in the garage or

B) Police found 2 fired bullets somewhere on the grounds, hoped and prayed they were fired by Steven Avery's gun and that ballistics would be able to prove it and though uncertain they were fired from Avery's gun decided to take a chance and decided to go to great lengths to somehow obtain Halbach's DNA to plant on the bullets but only managed to get her DNA on one of them and then planted these in his garage

8) Though there was no reason to relocate Halbach's vehicle in order to escape liability for the murder because she was run off the road in a place unconnected to the killer, the killer decided to take the enormous risk of being caught driving her vehicle while police were actively looking for said vehicle in order to drive it to Avery Salvage to frame Avery.

9) The killer somehow knew which area in the pit that Steven Avery used for his old discarded vehicles and decided to plant Halbach's vehicle among them to try to frame him and managed to get it there without anyone seeing him do it and either had a long walk home or someone helped him and drove him home.

10) The killer disconnected the battery and somehow managed to plant Avery's DNA on the hood latch and his blood in her vehicle then locked it. He also planted Avery's DNA on the key somehow and planted that in Avery's trailer without being seen. He also removed her plates and folded them in thirds the way Steven Avery was known to fold old plates but instead of planting those in Avery's trailer or garage for some inexplicable reason he tossed them in a station wagon near the work buildings without anyone seeing him do it.

Not even in the movies has anything so crazy happened. No court is going to believe the above happened without reliable evidence proving it happened. There is no evidence to prove such happened and thus I don't believe it did and no court has any reason to believe it did.

In order to believe Avery is innocent one has to suspect the above happened but suspicion is not evidence and means little. Proof the above happened is key and there is no evidence because there is no way the above happened.

He is guilty AF . A lot was left out of the series

 

[Springrain]

He is guilty AF . A lot was left out of the series

I will always believe he is guilty unless something earth-shattering comes out at this point. JMO.

 

[lonewanderer]

Some things about the parts of the trial I saw just didn't sit well with me.

The prosecutor (like many of them) came off as a condescending jerk. When he was downplaying the significance of an officer possibly taking a toothbrush, I would have rolled my eyes as a juror had I been one. Is it really THAT hard to imagine one of the officers who already did not like him, saying to himself "eff this guy" and quickly stuffing the toothbrush into his pocket? The prosecutor tried to make it sound like it would be some over-the-top cartoonish movements to pull it off.

The alibis for Scotty Tadych and Bobby Dassey were absolutely fishy and unbelievable. They passed each other on a road at a highly suspicious time and noted the time? This set off massive alarms in my mind. It has crossed my mind before that ST and BD may have killed TH together, possibly intentionally and possibly by accident. If ST and BD were being extremely irresponsible with a gun, they may have accidently shot her and went through huge lengths to cover it up. There is the really REALLY strange story about ST just wondering around a hunting lodge for no reason at all, and then frantically trying to sell a rifle the next day.

On the flip side, one segment of Kathleen Zellner's practical application had me REALLY rolling my eyes.

The scene where her assistant is simulating beating in a skull with a hammer. The man is wearing a SUPER white dress shirt, and is obviously trying very hard not to get any of the fake blood on himself. If this was not a reenactment, I find it incredibly impractical to use as a simulation.