Another thing about the bonfire... Other people were supposed to be attending the bonfire that night. They all ended up cancelling but I don't think there's anything on the record about what time they all cancelled.
Bones
- Thread starter Tawny
- Start date
Another thing about the bonfire... Other people were supposed to be attending the bonfire that night. They all ended up cancelling but I don't think there's anything on the record about what time they all cancelled.
So here's my dilemma with the "someone put the bones there" to 'frame' SA theory. SA was tending to the fire pit, he was seen by the burn barrels by witnesses - the 'bonfire' was seen by members of the family, and by seen I mean they saw it, knew it existed...so what is the theory exactly, that the bones were dispersed when? Has there been suggestion? Speculation? I do not see much of who could have put it there and/or when was it probably placed there - just a generic "The bogey man put it there" *insert scary music* type insinuation. When he was asleep? When? Because he had a dog named Bear and there is photographic evidence of this dog and I am not 100% sure but he does not look like a lap dog to me. I am thinking surely, if there was an 'intruder' like say the stalker ex-bf, I suspect the dog would have alerted the auto lot residents, no?
I think I have far greater doubts about 'the boogey man' theory because teeth fragments were also found at/in the pit - (SA Criminal Complaint). Hence, my theory or opinion is he burned her at the burn pit and moved the bones.
I think I have far greater doubts about 'the boogey man' theory because teeth fragments were also found at/in the pit - (SA Criminal Complaint). Hence, my theory or opinion is he burned her at the burn pit and moved the bones.
missy1974
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 10,142
- Reaction score
- 31,355
That's a good point about the dog eve. I wonder if the dog was always tied up?
The dog would be familiar with other family members on the property, but most likely would alert to a "stranger".
It just does not make sense to me that other bones were found in another burn barrel and by the quarry. If SA was going to leave the majority of the bones in the fire pit, why bother moving some?
The dog would be familiar with other family members on the property, but most likely would alert to a "stranger".
It just does not make sense to me that other bones were found in another burn barrel and by the quarry. If SA was going to leave the majority of the bones in the fire pit, why bother moving some?
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
MaxManning
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,438
- Reaction score
- 8
I think in order of probability as to who would be source of bones in the pit via burning/moving it would be :
#1 Avery
#2 Someone at the junkyard with some access -- Chuck, Earl, Scott Tadych, Bobby
#3 Police
#4 Ex Boyfriend
Is #2 enough for reasonable doubt that there wasn't a proper investigation ?
Earl had a cadaver dog hit on the golf cart he was driving around that day with a rifle, shooting rabbits.
Tadych/Bobby - have a burn barrel that had bones either moved there or left behind from moving
Would the dog likely know everyone at the junkyard ? sure.
Bones are found in 3 locations, everyone at junkyard has access to all 3.
#3 is lower probability, but consider that the bones weren't found until after the dog was taken care of. right ? So is there proof that the bones were there at that point even ?
I agree that I don't think the police could have snuck on the property BEFORE the search warrant and planted bones.
I think that #4 is very unlikely.
But if ex-boyfriend was involved, he likely never is on the property but kills her after she leaves the property -- propane guy saw her leave, so that matches.
If ex-boyfriend was the killer, and the vehicle/teresa were found off the avery property. Then #3 is the explanation that fits the colburn plate call before rav4 was found.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,875
- Reaction score
- 178
Or... SA moved them there, himself, after burning them in the quarry.
I am not opposed to the theory that TH was burned at the quarry first - so if this is the original burn site (and I lean towards SA being the perp) he moved the cremains to the burn barrel 2 and burn pit behind his trailer - and if that was the course of action, is it not odd that fragments of teeth were only discovered at the burn pit? And so I am trying to figure out when the clothes were burned? Was she wearing them when she was burned, hence the discovery of "rivets" from her jeans at the fire pit. Or were the clothes also planted to be burned?
It seems implausible that the 'mover of the bones' was meticulous with collecting (scooping) teeth fragments and rivets and left somewhat larger pelvic bone fragments. Unless you're being burned within a 'container' of sorts then tipped out - more plausible, no?
Some other mind boggling facts - if I run with the theory that the bones were planted by someone else other than SA (ie someone or persons from the Avery compound) - first, when framing SA, would they not want these bones and other incriminating evidence to be discovered, yes? If this was the intention, why dump the bones, phone, camera and shovel in the pit and burn barrel (that had fires already burning) - given these fires could potentially reduce the evidence to ash.
Am I making sense at all? I welcome any perspective and correction
missy1974
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 10,142
- Reaction score
- 31,355
I am not opposed to the theory that TH was burned at the quarry first - so if this is the original burn site (and I lean towards SA being the perp) he moved the cremains to the burn barrel 2 and burn pit behind his trailer - and if that was the course of action, is it not odd that fragments of teeth were only discovered at the burn pit? And so I am trying to figure out when the clothes were burned? Was she wearing them when she was burned, hence the discovery of "rivets" from her jeans at the fire pit. Or were the clothes also planted to be burned?
It seems implausible that the 'mover of the bones' was meticulous with collecting (scooping) teeth fragments and rivets and left somewhat larger pelvic bone fragments. Unless you're being burned within a 'container' of sorts then tipped out - more plausible, no?
Am I making sense at all? I welcome any perspective and correction
Makes sense eve.
It is also possible that they didn't find the original burn site, and who knows what could have been found there (more teeth? more bone fragments? the other rivet? bullets?)
There is so much about this case that I have questions about.
Yes, absolutely because we are still missing the bullets. If as the expert/s claim that she was shot in the head, and most of the bone fragments have been discovered, where are these elusive bullets?
I haven't seen this in anything I've read..
How did the bones happen to be found in the quarry? Who found them and why were they looking in the quarry? Was the site the quarry bones found in a burn site, or just a random dumping of burnt materials that included the pelvic bone fragments.
And how big were these fragments?
Edit:
I see from this site http://www.convolutedbrian.com/testimony-notes-1-march-2007.html that Brandon Dassey mentioned SA dumping a bucket of bones in the quarry.
I wondered if the bones were found before BA "confessed" this or after?
How did the bones happen to be found in the quarry? Who found them and why were they looking in the quarry? Was the site the quarry bones found in a burn site, or just a random dumping of burnt materials that included the pelvic bone fragments.
And how big were these fragments?
Edit:
I see from this site http://www.convolutedbrian.com/testimony-notes-1-march-2007.html that Brandon Dassey mentioned SA dumping a bucket of bones in the quarry.
I wondered if the bones were found before BA "confessed" this or after?
After.
Hmmm... Four days to subdue a dog. Lol... Was he Megatron dog? Does Manitocowo have no dog catcher? Humane society? Tranquilizers? Steak laced with Ambien? Come on... Raise your hand if you're stupid enough to believe it took four days to subdue the dog. Anyone?
That's interesting, and it can be taken in two different ways. (That I can think of)
1. BD's statement to police gave them a tip on looking for bones in the quarry. If this is true, then that doesn't bode well for either BD or SA
2. That like so many other parts of BD's statement, he was lead there by investigators. I will have to take another look at BD's statement when I get a chance. That possibility lends its self to the police planting evidence theory.
The bones in the quarry were discovered well before any "interviews" with Dassey. Make sure you read every one starting with the first through the end. If you do, you will note that by page five the investigators were telling him where Halbach's SUV was supposed to be. It just gets worse from there.
"Come on Brendan... We know he did something with the bones after he burned them just tell us and we'll have your back. We will go to bat for you. Just tell us... Where did Steven move those bones to?"
"... A pond?... buried right in front of the pit?... My gym locker?... Just tell me where you want me to say and I'll say it... How do you spell detective? Rack? This says print name... Does that mean cursive? Could I call my girlfriend and tell her I couldn't come today?"
So that brings me back to wondering how they happened to search the quarry, why they searched it, who found the quarry bones, and was that a burn spot?
MaxManning
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,438
- Reaction score
- 8
I'll see if I can figure this out.
But, based on the description I have seen about this location, it's loaded with animal bones. I believe it was a location where after killing/butchering a deer or other animal, this is where they'd bring the carcass and burn it maybe.
So would seem to be a great place to search, if you are looking for a body and are aware of how the quarry was used by the Avery's. I've also seen it noted that the Avery's would go down there to shoot to adjust sighting on their guns. Another good reason to go and check for potential evidence.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
Who's claiming that?
MyTinkieGirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,673
- Reaction score
- 1,290
IMO, maybe the bones support the "trade off" comments made by the one juror. The jury heard ad nauseam about bones and burning of bones and locations of bones and types of bones and pieces of bones.
The jury found him "NOT GUILTY" of mutilating a corpse. Bones and such were found in the different locations. How in the world did the jury think these bones/fragments just showed up in all those places??
IDK, but, wouldn't a more "logical" thing to accept, during deliberations, is that a body would be cut up in order to find these pieces of bones in the different places? Yea, I said "logical"..LOL
Since they didn't believe the body was in pieces to find remains in the different places - those in the pit, finger bones and some rib and shoulder bones in burn barrel 2 and the quarry ones - then, it would seem that they had to believe the remains were spread out AFTER they were burnt. That it was burnt as a "whole" body.
Therefore, the jury, must have had to believe Steven ran around and dumped the remains/fragments in all these places.
This stuff doesn't make much sense.
How could they have found him NOT GUILTY of the most obvious charge given the evidence??
I can't even figure why someone would go thru the trouble to gather up the remains, THEN put them around THEIR own house. If you're gonna go thru with moving the remains around, why not just put them in one bag and take them to a dump? SA could NOT have been that stupid after so many years in prison.
AND, this is coming from someone who is pretty sure he did this.
The jury found him "NOT GUILTY" of mutilating a corpse. Bones and such were found in the different locations. How in the world did the jury think these bones/fragments just showed up in all those places??
IDK, but, wouldn't a more "logical" thing to accept, during deliberations, is that a body would be cut up in order to find these pieces of bones in the different places? Yea, I said "logical"..LOL
Since they didn't believe the body was in pieces to find remains in the different places - those in the pit, finger bones and some rib and shoulder bones in burn barrel 2 and the quarry ones - then, it would seem that they had to believe the remains were spread out AFTER they were burnt. That it was burnt as a "whole" body.
Therefore, the jury, must have had to believe Steven ran around and dumped the remains/fragments in all these places.
This stuff doesn't make much sense.
How could they have found him NOT GUILTY of the most obvious charge given the evidence??
I can't even figure why someone would go thru the trouble to gather up the remains, THEN put them around THEIR own house. If you're gonna go thru with moving the remains around, why not just put them in one bag and take them to a dump? SA could NOT have been that stupid after so many years in prison.
AND, this is coming from someone who is pretty sure he did this.
missy1974
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 10,142
- Reaction score
- 31,355
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/making-a-murderer-sudbury-scott-fairgrieve-forensics-1.3393200
Interview with Dr. Scott Fairgreave, he testified for the defense. He points out that there was no anthropologist at the scene (including the prosecutions witness) and in his opinion the investigation was done haphazardly. He also briefly discusses the bones and whether there is a possibility of them being moved.
Interview with Dr. Scott Fairgreave, he testified for the defense. He points out that there was no anthropologist at the scene (including the prosecutions witness) and in his opinion the investigation was done haphazardly. He also briefly discusses the bones and whether there is a possibility of them being moved.
I was struck by his stating how poorly done the evidence collection on the bones had been, in such a way that there was really no way to discern where the burn had happened.
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 151
- Guests online
- 3,241
- Total visitors
- 3,392