Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
BigCityAccountant said:
Why would they carry the gun to the other bedroom to take a picture of it...
Click to expand...

Why did they do a lot of things ... LOL

Seriously... even if you are on the "he's guilty" side. Why wasn't the bedding and bed tested? or was it and it wasn't favourable? I think Mystic is right and it wasn't tested at all IIRC. It could only have made their case better, right? or were they already pretty sure she wasn't in that trailer? but if that's the case.... how ethical was that news conference? It's just bad all around, and the more I see and read... the worse it seems, if I'm being honest.

I know you think he's guilty BCA, and I do like that you are still here discussing it and willing to go... WTH? LOL He can be guilty AND the investigation can still be horrible. One is not dependent on the other. Even the planting of evidence, if it happened... He can still be guilty AND they planted evidence.

ETA: maybe it's a different gun? I only recall 2 being mentioned.
 
Where is this Memory Card? And don't the side of that light look smashed in?
attachment.php
 
MysticJynx said:
Where is this Memory Card? And don't the side of that light look smashed in?
attachment.php
Click to expand...

Why was her memory card back there anyway? Wouldn't that be something in a camera bag or purse or wallet?

I wonder if that is the pen/pencil she was using that day? If so, would that mean she had it in her hand at the time?

The damage to the light is in the picture---
 

Attachments

  • Where is the memory card.jpg
    Where is the memory card.jpg
    92.3 KB · Views: 13
MysticJynx said:
Where is this Memory Card? And don't the side of that light look smashed in?
attachment.php
Click to expand...


Is that even a memory card?

Part of the turn signal lamp is still attached to the bumper cover. The right side of it shows the damage from it being separated. JMO
 
Ok...I'm taking a break...evidently I can't type and now I can't read...Sorry Mystic--I thought you said --where is the damage on the light...
 
BigCityAccountant said:
Sounds like a great idea! But, first I've been neglecting my family--so I have to go feed them!!
Click to expand...

pffft, you feed your family? don't they know there is a case to solve here? hahaha

I had the whole family here tonight for my youngest's bday and ordered chinese LOL
 
missy1974 said:
Why did they do a lot of things ... LOL

Seriously... even if you are on the "he's guilty" side. Why wasn't the bedding and bed tested? or was it and it wasn't favourable? I think Mystic is right and it wasn't tested at all IIRC. It could only have made their case better, right? or were they already pretty sure she wasn't in that trailer? but if that's the case.... how ethical was that news conference? It's just bad all around, and the more I see and read... the worse it seems, if I'm being honest.

I know you think he's guilty BCA, and I do like that you are still here discussing it and willing to go... WTH? LOL He can be guilty AND the investigation can still be horrible. One is not dependent on the other. Even the planting of evidence, if it happened... He can still be guilty AND they planted evidence.

ETA: maybe it's a different gun? I only recall 2 being mentioned.
Click to expand...

I agree with this...I have always said I am not completely certain of SA's innocence, as well. My only problem with this concept is if SA did do it, why on earth did they have to go to such lengths to completely disregard ANY type of LEGITIMATE investigation into this matter? No looking into ALL suspects in order to rule ppl out, a lot of forensic evidence that could have been tested and wasn't (such as the 8 fingerprints found on the RAV4 that were never tested for anyone but SA), why wasn't the crime scene processed properly with the correct forensic specialists allowed to document, examine, and recover evidence correctly? I don't know, it just seems like to me if SA HAD done this even partly as they said he did, why did they have to go to so much trouble to make it LOOK like he did it. Shouldn't Some of the evidence been there without them having to mess with EVERYTHING the way it looks like they did?
 
MysticJynx said:
only other time it is mentioned.
attachment.php
Click to expand...

I have done a lot of reading Mystic.... I do not think it was looked at, or if it was, it was nothing worth mentioning. Or who knows.... is there a chance that it was agreed upon earlier to not bring it up? (kinda like blurring the numbers on the phone bills or not putting them up during the trial) Pre-trial motions... deciding what they will agree on, what is inadmissible, etc.
 
Jaiddie said:
I agree with this...I have always said I am not completely certain of SA's innocence, as well. My only problem with this concept is if SA did do it, why on earth did they have to go to such lengths to completely disregard ANY type of LEGITIMATE investigation into this matter? No looking into ALL suspects in order to rule ppl out, a lot of forensic evidence that could have been tested and wasn't (such as the 8 fingerprints found on the RAV4 that were never tested for anyone but SA), why wasn't the crime scene processed properly with the correct forensic specialists allowed to document, examine, and recover evidence correctly? I don't know, it just seems like to me if SA HAD done this even partly as they said he did, why did they have to go to so much trouble to make it LOOK like he did it. Shouldn't Some of the evidence been there without them having to mess with EVERYTHING the way it looks like they did?
Click to expand...

I agree Jaiddie. There isn't one piece of evidence that I look at and can say ... oh yep, no way that was tampered with or it wasn't a result of incompetence. Everything from the bones.... to the photographs.... to who unlocked the dang door on the RAV4, and when, and who was there, and who had access... grrrrrrr so frustrating LOL
 
missy1974 said:
I have done a lot of reading Mystic.... I do not think it was looked at, or if it was, it was nothing worth mentioning. Or who knows.... is there a chance that it was agreed upon earlier to not bring it up? (kinda like blurring the numbers on the phone bills or not putting them up during the trial) Pre-trial motions... deciding what they will agree on, what is inadmissible, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't know. Was swabbed for DNA but never tested why? It had her name on it, so I wonder if this was a work Compact Flash Card she would overnight to them after her shoots to get them in the magazine on time? Why would the case be in the front and the disk in the back. such an odd place for a lone disk to be lying don't you think? Could someone have deleted what was on it before pulling it from the camera? could the deleted information be pulled from it? Just one of those odd pieces of evidence.

If it wasn't worth mentioning, maybe that is why that journal was never mentioned again either.
 
Jaiddie said:
I agree with this...I have always said I am not completely certain of SA's innocence, as well. My only problem with this concept is if SA did do it, why on earth did they have to go to such lengths to completely disregard ANY type of LEGITIMATE investigation into this matter? No looking into ALL suspects in order to rule ppl out, a lot of forensic evidence that could have been tested and wasn't (such as the 8 fingerprints found on the RAV4 that were never tested for anyone but SA), why wasn't the crime scene processed properly with the correct forensic specialists allowed to document, examine, and recover evidence correctly? I don't know, it just seems like to me if SA HAD done this even partly as they said he did, why did they have to go to so much trouble to make it LOOK like he did it. Shouldn't Some of the evidence been there without them having to mess with EVERYTHING the way it looks like they did?
Click to expand...

Agree completely!! Im not sure of his guilt or innocence but it seems as though the investigation wasnt done properly which makes me question whether they were hiding things or planting them. You guys/gals on here are like super sleuths and I love reading over these forums and getting new info I previously didnt know [emoji4]
 
MysticJynx said:
Yeah I don't know. Was swabbed for DNA but never tested why? It had her name on it, so I wonder if this was a work Compact Flash Card she would overnight to them after her shoots to get them in the magazine on time? Why would the case be in the front and the disk in the back. such an odd place for a lone disk to be lying don't you think? Could someone have deleted what was on it before pulling it from the camera? could the deleted information be pulled from it? Just one of those odd pieces of evidence.

If it wasn't worth mentioning, maybe that is why that journal was never mentioned again either.
Click to expand...

I was thinking she was thrown back there with her purse and the disk and the pen fell out of her purse. What do you think?
 
If the RAV4 was moved to the pit area on 10/31, why didn't Allan, Chuck, or Earl notice it all week as they were out in the yard and possibly near the crusher ? Or maybe they did ...

As I understand it, Chuck didn't leave for Crivitz until Thursday after work and Allan normally went up on Thursday as well. Not sure about Earl ...

It is entirely possible that the call from SA to Chuck on 10/31 around 6pm was to solicit Chuck's help in the coverup and Earl also knew what had transpired. Usually blood is thicker than water ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 162 more.
Total: 3,972 (members: 163, guests: 3,809)

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
3,809
Total visitors
3,972
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,685
Messages
17,957,463
Members
228,586
Latest member
chingona361
Back
Top