Evidence List

New Posts

Missy -- I suppose speculation about the time of the collision is probably more important than anything else. Perhaps the cellphone records would show a call from TH to ....who knows? I imagine most people would make a call. Also, was there any testimony about a deer? When you take into consideration, the trajectory of the circled impact areas in BAC's photo, it certainly seems logical that a rather large object collided with the RAV4 and left some gunky looking organic stuff. I have to admit that some times I lost interest in the transcript and skimmed sections which bored me. So...I guess keywording "deer" is now in order, huh? :thinking:
 
ZOOL said:
BCA -- The gunk on the passenger's side windshield-vertical driver's side headlight compartment certainly seems suspicious. In addition, the trajectory of the circled impact points implies that the same, large object collided with the car. A deer would be a logical conclusion. I do not recall any testimony citing a detailed examination of the collision's marks. I suppose that testimony would have been part of the Nov 6 - 7 examinations.

View attachment 90909
View attachment 90910
View attachment 90911

*click individual image for enlarged view
Click to expand...

This is just a correction to my previous post due to my inability to edit within the allotted time frame. My earlier post foolishly described the first image's location.
 
I am sure the Deer back story is Red Herring. The key things for me are the first two interviews in the back of the O'Neill's police car, which were not under caution. Both Avery and Dassey are trying to formulate a narrative to throw officers off the scent.

I have posted this elsewhere, but listen to Dassey responding to questions and what he offers without prompting.

Dassey interview audio:[video=youtube;9zePg5OfvyU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zePg5OfvyU[/video]
Transcript:http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...dan-Dassey-Interview-Transcript-2005Nov06.pdf

I would urge people to listen whilst reading. The detail is damning and Brendan is not the 'Slow Kid' he becomes in later interviews.

And Avery can remember the exact details of the denomination of notes he uses to pay TH, but cannot describe what she looks like or the colour of her hair, nor what she or he was wearing that day?

Avery first conversation with O'Neill: https://youtu.be/m-5ZUFmV2lU
Written report: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...1/Steven-Avery-Interview-Report-2005Nov05.pdf

Guilty. The pair of them.
 
missy1974 said:
View attachment 89198

I don't think the red car was drivable, don't even think it had tires. This picture shows just how close it was to the car beside it.
Click to expand...

Missy ~ Rather than "towed", this image implies to me that the RAV4 was moved to that location with a flatbed wrecker, then left in a position with its rear opposite the red car's front. Such an inference would then explain why the investigation has Exhibit 63 -- that is, a picture of the Avery Junkyard flatbed. Thus it may also lead to further speculation that TH phoned Avery's Junkyard for road assistance. Consequently the phone records again become instrumental. For example, a call would have gone to the main office. This then suggests that either Earl or Charles could have become involved. So at that point the Denny third-party liability evidence which the Court (and the Appeal) refused on the grounds that a direct connection could not be made between the third person and the crime (see paragraph 38, page 19 State v Avery (Opinion) - 2011 - August - 24) becomes relevant provided that TH's cellphone record shows a call to Avery's Junkyard preferably sometime after 3:30 pm.

View attachment 90915
 
Hoosen_Fenger said:
I am sure the Deer back story is Red Herring...<SBM>
Click to expand...

Hooawn Fenger ~ At the moment, I tend to agree. According to Day 4, Trial Transcripts, ppg. 19 - 22, Bobby Dassey and Mike Osmunson acquired a fresh deer on the night of Nov 3. Under cross examination, Att. Strang confirms that date by drawing Bobby's attention to Exhibit 123, a deer tag dated Nov 4. The implication here is that their fresh road kill can not be a possible source of a collision between TH's RAV4 and a deer on the afternoon of Oct. 31.
 
I'm at work so can't look at documents (cuz my phone sucks lol). But wanted to make a few comments...
Her first appointment that day, Schmitz, testified her vehicle looked new (not indicating Anny damage)
There is no call to averys or anyone else the afternoon of the 31st, as per her cell records.

SA not knowing what she is wearing is not that out of the ordinary, I bet my husband couldn't tell you what I wore to work today and I sat and had coffee with him lol also.....RH couldn't even remember the time of day he last saw TH....couldn't even narrow it down to morning, afternoon, or night.
 
missy1974 said:
;Snipped By Me] I bet my husband couldn't tell you what I wore to work today and I sat and had coffee with him lol also.....
Click to expand...

Yes that is funny - we men do sometimes forget what women are wearing, but we never forget how great they look!

In all seriousness though, how SA claims he cannot remember what the girl he has seen 15 times looks like is a real Red Flag.
 
ZOOL said:
BCA -- The gunk on the passenger's side windshield-vertical certainly seems suspicious. In addition, the trajectory of the circled impact points implies that the same, large object collided with the car. A deer would be a logical conclusion. I do not recall any testimony citing a detailed examination of the collision's marks. I suppose that testimony would have been part of the Nov 6 - 7 examinations.

attachment.php

attachment.php

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Ok--so wow--you must have something that allows you to save pictures close up. That is exactly what I was talking about--if you look at the crack right above the lens--up close you can see bloody flesh. I'm glad you were able to zoom in a little better than I was. I'll have to go back and look at the windshield--I didn't zoom in on that area.
 
missy1974 said:
Zool ~ I do not think you will find a detailed examination. IIRC the only testimony about the damage was just acknowledging that it was damaged when the RAV4 sat for hours on the 5th on the Avery lot. I don't think there was any other testimony from the lab about any testing or really.... anything else about it. We do have another thread specific to the RAV4 if you are interested :) http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?300114-Rav4 We discussed the damage, the location, the contents of the RAV4, etc.
Click to expand...

Sorry--we have now highjacked your evidence thread to talk about the car...LOL :D
 
ZOOL said:
Missy -- I suppose speculation about the time of the collision is probably more important than anything else. Perhaps the cellphone records would show a call from TH to ....who knows? I imagine most people would make a call. Also, was there any testimony about a deer? When you take into consideration, the trajectory of the circled impact areas in BAC's photo, it certainly seems logical that a rather large object collided with the RAV4 and left some gunky looking organic stuff. I have to admit that some times I lost interest in the transcript and skimmed sections which bored me. So...I guess keywording "deer" is now in order, huh? :thinking:
Click to expand...

It's always great to get new perspectives. :) I wonder if it was possible the TH left and upon leaving hit the deer and ST saw her or BoD and called Avery's to help her out and things went downhill from there.
 
missy1974 said:
I have thought about her hitting a deer many times.... and a few weeks ago, one of the guys at work hit a deer on his way to work (on a highway). He had a bit more damage, and dang, I wish I had taken a picture! LOL There was little deer hairs stuck on the vehicle.... totally made me think of you BCA LOL
Click to expand...

Unoffically--now Deer Hair Accountant.....LOL When you think of Deer Hair you think of me...LOL
 
ZOOL said:
Hooawn Fenger ~ At the moment, I tend to agree. According to Day 4, Trial Transcripts, ppg. 19 - 22, Bobby Dassey and Mike Osmunson acquired a fresh deer on the night of Nov 3. Under cross examination, Att. Strang confirms that date by drawing Bobby's attention to Exhibit 123, a deer tag dated Nov 4. The implication here is that their fresh road kill can not be a possible source of a collision between TH's RAV4 and a deer on the afternoon of Oct. 31.
Click to expand...

I'm open to the possibility that there could have been 2 deer hit on that road within a few days.
 
BigCityAccountant said:
Ok--so wow--you must have something that allows you to save pictures close up. That is exactly what I was talking about--if you look at the crack right above the lens--up close you can see bloody flesh. I'm glad you were able to zoom in a little better than I was. I'll have to go back and look at the windshield--I didn't zoom in on that area.
Click to expand...

BCA ~ I do not believe there is anything on the windshield. My remark about that was a mistake... (although the dusting of the entire front end by the fingerprint analyst seems to imply a trajectory of something reaching that level from the collusion!) With regard to my "zoom": I merely used Windows Snipping Tool on your original images which I guess came from here. Once there, click the chosen image, then click it again to enlarge, then one more time to magnify via Windows "automatic image resizing/IE Options/Advanced Tools/multimedia". Once it is enlarged use your cursor to refine a selected area, and then use Snipping Tool to drag around the area.
 
missy1974 said:
LOL I suspect at some point, shadowraiths will swoop in and move them LOL Was just trying to save some time ;-) LOL
Click to expand...

Missy ~ In all fairness to this thread, it would be my opinion that moving remarks about the RAV4 is a mistake: we were discussing the evidence and that is the heading of this thread. My remarks upstream about the "Avery Salvage Yard flatbed wrecker" were derived from your image of the placement of the RAV4 against the red car.

How that juxtaposition evolved is a very curious factor. As a member pointed out, if someone drove the RAV4 into that position, the driver would then need to crawl out via the passenger door. This is a relevant fact.

As far as hijacking one thread or another, it seems to me that often by page 4 or 5 most of the threads become hijacked (engulfed) in speculation about everything under-the-Manitowoc-murder of Teresa, and who-dun-it....
 
ZOOL said:
Snipped By Me :) by page 4 or 5 most of the threads become hijacked (engulfed) in speculation about everything under-the-Manitowoc-murder of Teresa, and who-dun-it....
Click to expand...

Let me get it back on topic. :thinking: No one knows if her car hit anything before it got to the Yard. Yes there is damage, but that could easily be from SA driving it in a hurry to it's final resting place, (or it equally could not be.) There is no evidence for either scenario. So, we have to assume that it is just something not relevant to TH's disappearance, IMHO.

SA would not be able to shed any light on it either way. If you recall in his first conversation in the Patrol Car with O'Neill, he said he did not know what type of car it was. Despite it saying Rav 4 on the back and him seeing it 15 times in the past......
 
Zool - I was perhaps being a little flippant in my original post. My reference to the 15 times, was meant to show that I do not believe SA. He actually said it in two different conversations and whether they were used in evidence or not, shows how clearly was being very misleading when discussing TH & her disappearance.

Slightly off topic, but I wonder if MaM 2 is going to go the other way. i.e.: put together a show biased the other way this time which shows everyone just how guilty he actually his.... :laugh::laugh:
 
Hoosen_Fenger said:
Zool - I was perhaps being a little flippant in my original post. My reference to the 15 times, was meant to show that I do not believe SA. He actually said it in two different conversations and whether they were used in evidence or not, shows how clearly was being very misleading when discussing TH & her disappearance.

Slightly off topic, but I wonder if MaM 2 is going to go the other way. i.e.: put together a show biased the other way this time which shows everyone just how guilty he actually his.... :laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...

Hoosen ~ Thanks for the link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 210 more.
Total: 3,662 (members: 211, guests: 3,451)

Online statistics

Members online
211
Guests online
3,451
Total visitors
3,662
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,252
Messages
17,966,205
Members
228,733
Latest member
jbks
Back
Top