Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?

Madeleine74 said:

The initial seal of red tape put on the box and then being opened is not hinky. That's how evidence is then accessed for testing after a sample is collected from the beginning.

The weird part is who used scotch tape to seal the box and when and why? Was that box opened more than once after the initial testing done? Obviously protocol wasn't followed which is bad. Doesn't mean someone planted 10 year old blood in TH's SUV, but it sure gives the defense something to argue.

Click to expand...

Who knows, we are talking about something that could have happened 30 years ago. But the blood evidence could easily be put to rest. Blindly submit all six blood samples from the RAV4. plus six separate swabs from the vial. if the FBI can properly sort which is which, fine. If not, you have to throw out ALL of Steve's blood evidence.

It couldn't have happened 30 years ago since the blood was drawn 1995-ish and he was arrested in 2005.

Not passing a specific test doesn't mean you toss out evidence. It means you look at what may well be a faulty test. The test itself has to be verified.

Madeleine74 said:

It couldn't have happened 30 years ago since the blood was drawn 1995-ish and he was arrested in 2005.

Not passing a specific test doesn't mean you toss out evidence. It means you look at what may well be a faulty test. The test itself has to be verified.

Click to expand...

I agree. The blood tests need much more testing. wwot

What I find fascinating is that there were was an active thread on this case during the trial and posters were very aware of the prosecution's evidence. They also expressed their opinions on the defense team's planting theory and if this forum took a poll back in 2007, the overwhelming response would be that Steven Avery was guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach. It was on that very thread where I discovered that two women had accused Avery of raping them only a year before Halbach's murder.

Fast forward to 2016, and despite no real change in the arguments put forth by the prosecution/defense, the worm has turned. Why is that? IMO, the only salient explanation is that the Netflix documentary has served as a cognitive eraser to what occurred at the trial and speaks to how a slick, but slanted documentary can elevate emotion over critical thought. I would be interested to hear from posters who followed the trial in regards to their impressions of the Netflix documentary. I didn't follow the trial, so if I was appalled by the laundry list of inculpatory evidence the filmmakers left out, I can only imagine how followers of the Avery trial felt when watching this piece of propaganda.

Sustained said:

I'd like to know if Steven used *67 on any calls prior to 10/31. IMO, wiping the key with your hit would not remove all of TH's DNA.
Also, why did it take LE 4-5 searches of Steven's bedroom to find the key in a such a tiny room ?

Click to expand...

I understand how people read about 5 prior searches and not finding the key until the 6th one. But when you look at the chain of events, without hindsight, it actually proves that the investigators went where the evidence was taking them. It wasn't a perfect investigation, but it wasn't what the documentary make it appear.

Teresa's car was found at approximately 10am on Saturday 5th November and it was around 3.30pm that same day that a search warrant was granted and they began searching SA's trailer and garage.

Saturday November 5th - Search #1

LE did a "sweep search" of both SA's trailer, lasting 10 mins, and garage lasting 8mins. Keep in mind only her RAV4 had been located at this stage and they didn't know if she was dead or alive. Also, I am only referring to searches of these 2 dwellings in this post. They were searching for obvious signs of Teresa Halbach only.

Saturday November 5th - Search #2

At approximately 7.30pm there was another search of the trailer lasting 2 and a half hours which resulted in them collecting approx 50 pieces of evidence.

Sunday November 6th - Searches 3 & 4

Collecting weapons, vacuum cleaner and bedding from spare room.

Initial search by the State Crime Lab for trace evidence of blood.

Monday 7th November - Search #5

For the limited purpose of retrieving the serial number for SA's computer

Tuesday November 8th - Search #6 This search is the basis of SA's court challenge

This search lasted approximately 1hr and resulted in finding the key. By this stage, they had found Teresa's remains behind the garage, shell casings in the garage and confirmation that SA's blood was found in the RAV4. Obviously, with all this evidence streaming through, plus off site interviews they were conducting which were contradicting SA's statement, this search was to be their most exhaustive yet. Nothing was to be left unturned. It was while they were moving the bookshelf next to his bed they located the key.

I have only discussed the searches of the trailer and garage. You have to keep in mind that other searches were happening at the time including aerial searches that included the clients she had previously been to that day and even her own house. It was a huge area. The documentary makes it seem as if they were searching his trailer the whole time. This isn't the case at all.

Sustained said:

If Avery was so obviously guilty, why did 7 of 12 jurors initially vote for not guilty ? Were they asleep during the trial and the State's overwhelming evidence ? Obviously, a jury and appeals courts thought him guilty the 1st time around until NEW EVIDENCE was presented. I'm willing to wait and see what Ms. Zellner comes up with ...

Click to expand...

Says who? Most of them haven't spoken publicly.

Limaes said:

Says who? Most of them haven't spoken publicly.

Click to expand...

Says Dean Strang who spoke to a couple of the jury members. Why would they lie about the initial vote ?

Murtagh21 said:

What I find fascinating is that there were was an active thread on this case during the trial and posters were very aware of the prosecution's evidence. They also expressed their opinions on the defense team's planting theory and if this forum took a poll back in 2007, the overwhelming response would be that Steven Avery was guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach. It was on that very thread where I discovered that two women had accused Avery of raping them only a year before Halbach's murder.

Fast forward to 2016, and despite no real change in the arguments put forth by the prosecution/defense, the worm has turned. Why is that? IMO, the only salient explanation is that the Netflix documentary has served as a cognitive eraser to what occurred at the trial and speaks to how a slick, but slanted documentary can elevate emotion over critical thought. I would be interested to hear from posters who followed the trial in regards to their impressions of the Netflix documentary. I didn't follow the trial, so if I was appalled by the laundry list of inculpatory evidence the filmmakers left out, I can only imagine how followers of the Avery trial felt when watching this piece of propaganda.

Click to expand...

The best part of the MoM is the music. It is very captivating and draws you in to the exposure of the LE/State. :boohoo:

But, I hear the plate being called in, and this tells me they were on the Avery prior to it being "found" on a 40 acre by Ms. Sturm. Something is not right, and if they broke protocol SA and BD should get re-trial.

I did not follow the original trial.

Murtagh21 said:

What I find fascinating is that there were was an active thread on this case during the trial and posters were very aware of the prosecution's evidence. They also expressed their opinions on the defense team's planting theory and if this forum took a poll back in 2007, the overwhelming response would be that Steven Avery was guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach. It was on that very thread where I discovered that two women had accused Avery of raping them only a year before Halbach's murder.

Fast forward to 2016, and despite no real change in the arguments put forth by the prosecution/defense, the worm has turned. Why is that? IMO, the only salient explanation is that the Netflix documentary has served as a cognitive eraser to what occurred at the trial and speaks to how a slick, but slanted documentary can elevate emotion over critical thought. I would be interested to hear from posters who followed the trial in regards to their impressions of the Netflix documentary. I didn't follow the trial, so if I was appalled by the laundry list of inculpatory evidence the filmmakers left out, I can only imagine how followers of the Avery trial felt when watching this piece of propaganda.

Click to expand...

From what I can tell, the biggest difference is people didn't realize back then that Brendan's "confession" was so clearly coerced. Kratz and his press conference presenting the confession was hugely prejudicial. Now that people have seen the interviews with Brendan they can see how he was fed every bit of info they wanted him to say.

swedie said:

There has been a SA facebook page created and they have and are posting court transcripts and evidence reports. It's titled Steven Avery Project. Hope this is ok mods. If not, please delete my comment. I think it is helpful as there is a lot of information there from the trial there. MOO and HTH.

Click to expand...

IIRC, that is where I read that BDs IQ is 70 with an even slightly lower speech communication score. For this reason, I feel is why the SA did not call BD as a witness.

"IQ tests generally are reliable enough that most people ages ten and older have similar IQ scores throughout life.[14]"

Please refer to the various charts to have an understanding of an individual with an IQ score of 70 may indicate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#cite_note-Mackintosh2011p169-14

I feel, att, that BD knew this was a planned event by having previously been told of the intentions by his (psychopathic, jmho) Uncle. BDs curiosity urged him to attend, at least part, of the rape and murder then burning of the victim. While his IQ is low, I feel he knew the rape and murder was morally wrong and certainly against the law.

While this is merely my own opinion at this time; it is subject to change without prior notification.

I feel anyone who thinks Brendan was in any way involved should read each interrogation in order and find one key fact that Brendan came up with before the investigators either prodded him for a different answer or flat out told him the answer prior to him coming up with it.

ArianeEmory said:

I'll pose the opposite question: for those who believe he is innocent, how do you believe Teresa ended up dead and burned on his property? That question specifically.

Click to expand...

What safeguard said: she was killed elsewhere, burned elsewhere and moved to the burn pit. just like all the other evidence that i can see that points to SA.

Murtagh21 said:

What I find fascinating is that there were was an active thread on this case during the trial and posters were very aware of the prosecution's evidence. They also expressed their opinions on the defense team's planting theory and if this forum took a poll back in 2007, the overwhelming response would be that Steven Avery was guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach.

Click to expand...

Really good points, Murtagh21.

Even if one throws out everything BD said in all of his talks and interrogations with police, there is still the matter of the other evidence (her body, the fires, his blood, her RAV4 on the property, her blood, her personal effects in his burn barrel).

BTW, I read Avery's interview with police when they picked him up. He agreed to talk (3 or 4 times) that day. They kept asking him if he wanted to talk and he kept doing so, even after being read his rights and signing his rights. He never told them anything about what he was doing on Halloween afternoon/evening. Claimed he was sitting around watching TV, had lunch at his mom's, nothing happening later. He said nothing about a fire either in the burn pit or in the barrel.

Why did Avery lie about his activities on Oct 31 2005? Why lie if it was nothing suspicious? That stood out to me right away. Waving red flag right there.

Madeleine74 said:

The initial seal of red tape put on the box and then being opened is not hinky. That's how evidence is then accessed for testing after a sample is collected from the beginning.

The weird part is who used scotch tape to seal the box and when and why? Was that box opened more than once after the initial testing done? Obviously protocol wasn't followed which is bad. Doesn't mean someone planted 10 year old blood in TH's SUV, but it sure gives the defense something to argue.

Click to expand...

Well, i'm beginning to think that it was opened to get SAs DNA to compare to for his exoneration, and MCSO was sloppy.

Nope. They had his buccal swap (fresh) from the nontestimonial order by the court. During that visit they photographed various cuts and bruises on his body, along with "torch burns" (his words) on his body. They took his DNA (buccal swaps). And they photographed the infamous deep cut on the 3rd finger of his right hand. Each piece of evidence taken that day had a documented chain of custody.

Source: the investigation report and interview notes from the day SA was picked up on the felony weapons charge, which was obtained and published by the crowdsourcing folks. I read the whole thing this morning.

Also, trial testimony by several stated that no one touched TH's SUV when it was found on Avery's property. It was seized and taken to a secure crime lab facility to process.

ArianeEmory said:

I'll pose the opposite question: for those who believe he is innocent, how do you believe Teresa ended up dead and burned on his property? That question specifically.

Click to expand...

We don't know she died and burnt on his property. Where is her blood, behinds the back of the RAV4? Nowhere.

She could of been burnt somewhere else, and the remains moved. I believe the "move" occurred on Nov3; the same day the plates were called in.

Madeleine74 said:

Nope. They had his buccal swap (fresh) from the nontestimonial order by the court. During that visit they photographed various cuts and bruises on his body, along with "torch burns" (his words) on his body. They took his DNA (buccal swaps). And they photographed the infamous deep cut on the 3rd finger of his right hand. Each piece of evidence had a chain of custody.

Source: the investigation report and interview notes from the day SA was picked up on the felony weapons charge, which was obtained and published by the crowdsourcing folks. I read the whole thing this morning.

Also, trial testimony by several stated that no one touched TH's SUV when it was found on Avery's property. It was seized and taken to a secure crime lab facility to process.

Click to expand...

BBM ~ I wonder if there is a report as to what caused the damage to the front driver side? A deer?

I don't know and if she never reported anything then the only people who would know would be anyone she told about an accident with her SUV or perhaps if someone else causes that accident to her SUV. Might not be connected in any way to her disappearance and murder.

Some more interesting articles and videos at this site.

Phone calls between officers discussing the case
Was Zippers the last place TH actually visited? Interestingly enough, in the first video the person questioned from Zippers cannot recall the time TH was there.
Was TH actually seen pulled over on the side of the road, taking pictures of cows that evening as claimed by another witness?

IMO I think there is a lot of information regarding this case that people aren't even aware of, seen and/or heard yet, to come to the conclusion of guilt or innocence. We can all assume obviously, but without all the facts we cannot determine guilt or innocence. It could take just that one piece of evidence to blow this case wide open for the truth to come out just as it did for SA to be exonerated in 2003.

But IMHO a great deal of suspicion falls on the police/prosecution that they may have had SA tagged from the get go. I totally understand why people are suspicious of this team. Too many inconsistencies, questionable inaccuracy on the stand and coercing. That's not how the system is suppose to work and IMO the system has failed them miserably from what I have learned about this case. Both BD and SA deserve another trial. And a fair one at that. JMHO.

http://stevenaverycase.com/phone-calls-between-investigators#sthash.w4M41FPt.qMKqne4a.dpbs

Added: Timeline on that site is a plus. If it's right. Zippers and Avery visits differ from the police call video. Hmm.

http://stevenaverycase.com/timeline-of-halbach-case/#sthash.fmXaoB2z.dpbs