Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

BigCityAccountant said:

Just thought of something...if whoever put the car where it was was bleeding....let's say it is SA for arguments sake, wouldn't that person be bleeding when they placed the items around and on top of the TH's vehicle? Would there not be DNA or blood on those?

Click to expand...

You would think so. Or the battery cable that was disconnected. Or the license plates that he crumpled up while bleeding and threw into a car. Or the door handles of the SUV. Or the steering wheel that he would have had to touch while driving it there. How about the lock.... he had to have hit the lock button if the vehicle was locked. It could be argued that he cleaned some of it up.... but if you clean some up, why not all?

From what I understand, there was drop (or drops) of blood found behind the rear passenger seat, I've seen it described as where the lever would be to lift the seat. I am right handed, I have a SUV, when I go to my passenger side of the vehicle and release that lever, or reach into there, I would use my left hand, not my right. It seems like an odd spot for a drop of blood. SA had a cut on his right hand, and this is the presumed cut that he was bleeding from.

Tawny said:

They never turned her remains over to her family?

Click to expand...

I know right!!!! I was surprised to see that, but I guess they were evidence, and if for some reason there is a new trial, experts may need to examine them.

Regardless of what I think about this case, that makes me sad for her family.

BigCityAccountant said:

Just thought of something...if whoever put the car where it was was bleeding....let's say it is SA for arguments sake, wouldn't that person be bleeding when they placed the items around and on top of the TH's vehicle? Would there not be DNA or blood on those?

Click to expand...

Great observation! Especially when you consider the junk car hood... being a heavy item, needing two hands to manipulate... The weight of it would have caused an open to wound bleed more profusely, I would think. Surely there would be some blood in amongst the branches, or wherever, outside that car.

If he was bleeding constantly and if he was the only one who helped move that vehicle and he was the only one who touched the items that were used to obscure the SUV, and he used his right hand to move those items into position, then yes.

Never read anything about those various items being tested though. It appeared the crime lab folks only seized the SUV.

Madeleine74 said:

If he was bleeding constantly and if he was the only one who helped move that vehicle and he was the only one who touched the items that were used to obscure the SUV, and he used his right hand to move those items into position, then yes.

Never read anything about those various items being tested though. It appeared the crime lab folks only seized the SUV.

Click to expand...

Actually think it was Ertl who testified that he noted the car had some damage at the front left head light area, He also testified to there being some damage behind the Rambler hood placed against her rear right panel. He said he looked on the branches for any physical evidence but did not think the rough surface would give finger prints, there was also a piece of cardboard that was placed on the RAV4's hood, He stated that he took the rambler hood and the cardboard. I do not think they produced any results on these items though. Or I should say I haven't seen any results with my own eyes.

missy1974 said:

You would think so. Or the battery cable that was disconnected. Or the license plates that he crumpled up while bleeding and threw into a car. Or the door handles of the SUV. Or the steering wheel that he would have had to touch while driving it there. How about the lock.... he had to have hit the lock button if the vehicle was locked. It could be argued that he cleaned some of it up.... but if you clean some up, why not all?

From what I understand, there was drop (or drops) of blood found behind the rear passenger seat, I've seen it described as where the lever would be to lift the seat. I am right handed, I have a SUV, when I go to my passenger side of the vehicle and release that lever, or reach into there, I would use my left hand, not my right. It seems like an odd spot for a drop of blood. SA had a cut on his right hand, and this is the presumed cut that he was bleeding from.

Click to expand...

I'm not so much concerned about the other locations---the cut could have happened while SA was moving the other items onto and around the vehicle, the blood on that latch to fold down the seat could have been left retrieving an item he remembered leaving back there, but if it was one of those actual items that were placed around the vehicle that caused the cut--then there should have been blood or DNA on it. I would think anyone who drove the vehicle would have wiped it down for fingerprints--or the blood left while wiping it down.

Another thing I'm curious to know is when the vehicle got to it's location that it was found it. For example, lets say it was the night of October 31st after everyone went to bed. It is so quite up there at night--that anyone in the vicinity would have heard the car start up or driving down the road. Someone on that property would have had to heard the vehicle passing their house if it was in the middle of the night--so that leaves us only the daytime--but--why risk it in the daytime when you could possibly be seen in the vehicle by family or customers. But that also leaves the question that if the vehicle was planted as some suppose--no one in the family saw or heard someone come onto the property? So that leaves me to believe it was someone at that property--was it SA, maybe, was it EA, maybe--were there 2 or more preps--maybe--could everyone at that property know---possibly.

http://imgur.com/DIwsqLF

The letter that Kratz wrote to SA last year that KZ is talking about....I get it now, he was wanting to write SA book!!! This man is unbelievable.

BigCityAccountant ~ IMO the truck would have been locked (blood drops already inside) when stuff was put around it. I guess he could have moved the stuff away and put it back though.

There is a back way into the property, if someone drove it there, or even if SA hid it for hours or a day or whatever, it could have been driven through the back, and not by any of the homes there. Noted in some summaries, (and in Brendan's very first recorded interview) by the investigators is.... on the Thursday, Nov 3rd, SA and his brother Charles were leaving the property, SA thought he seen tail lights by his trailer, he turned around, got a flashlight and had a look, didn't see anyone/anything. Charles, on Friday Nov 4th when leaving the property to go to the cabin, said he seen head lights "up behind his place", he called SA, and SA went and looked, didn't see anything (not sure how long it was after Charles seen the lights, from Brendan's interview, it sounded like Charles called SA, but SA didn't call him back for 10 minutes or so)

What I find the most interesting is...... it was reported in the news on Nov 3rd that she was missing, was SA on the news that night? was it on the local news that she had been there that day?

This has been bothering me to...why would SA call at 4:35 pm to ask TH to take a picture of another car? It was 6 minutes before sunset. For reference, this picture was taken 11-28-2015 north of Manitowoc at 4:46pm. You would not be able to see the vehicle in the pictures that she would have taken...so I don't believe SA about the reason he called her.

On that point BigCity,

SA claims (in his statement to police Nov 2005) that TH arrived somewhere around 2:30pm or so and only stayed about 5 minutes--just long enough to say hi, bye, take the pictures, and get payment. By his account that would have her gone from Avery's Yard by 3pm or so.

But then he calls her cell phone 90+ minutes later at 4:35pm? For what reason? He didn't leave a message, did he?

It was too late for her to come back and photograph another car, and he would have known that, since he said she had come out a bunch of times before that Oct 31 date. He didn't call Auto Trader again either (to request her to come back and take more pictures) after her 2:30pm-ish visit.

So what was the purpose of that 4:35pm call the day she goes missing?

it is absolutely possible that he left a message but no one will know (except the person who erased the message) because someone DID erase at least one message. That was testified too. Her mailbox was full..... at some point after the 31st, it was NOT full, the only LOGICAL explanation for that is that someone erased at least one message to free up space. Her brother testified that he accessed her voicemail, we don't know if anyone else did, if they did, they didn't admit it.

Here are some things I just wanted to get out before they stopped tumbling in my head. In one of the ST statements he mentions that BJ tried to go over to her place early on after the Junk Yard had been seized, To get her DOG. The dog that officers state they could not search that Burn Pit earlier than they did because he was aggressive. They had opportunity to get that dog off the property when BJ stopped there to get him. They should have been able to escort her close enough to get this dog on a leash and off the property so they could search it right? I believe even the Court thought the excuse of not getting closer to that pit earlier on was not an excuse at all IIRC. What was the big deal about picking up that dog. Did they say they eventually brought in Animal Control to remove the dog? how many days later was that. Who was feeding the dog for 3 days? they just let the dog roam around the yard while they were doing the searches? Confused.

So then I got to thinking, Yeah Why would they wait so long? Wait so long to do any thorough search of his property. At this point during the first 2 days of searches they knew that they only had the property for that long. Unless they produce evidence to extend the warrant. Which makes me wonder why they keep saying they didn't really do thorough searches until the 8th when everything starts popping up. They only had the first warrant for 2 days. I understand its a 40acre lot but you had 200 people involved with that search. So why wouldn't you search the residences first while you were there, that first 2 days. Thoroughly to get other evidence to use for additional searches? I think after the end of that initial search warrant that seems to have lasted till Nov 7 2005, they weren't able to find anything, The 2 officers weren't alone long enough to plant that key. So get another warrant. Had they not have produced evidence to continue that search after the 7th through the 12th, they would never have found anything other than her car right?

By Nov 7th what evidence did they have against him to continue searching his property for 7-8 days?

missy1974 said:

BigCityAccountant ~ IMO the truck would have been locked (blood drops already inside) when stuff was put around it. I guess he could have moved the stuff away and put it back though.

There is a back way into the property, if someone drove it there, or even if SA hid it for hours or a day or whatever, it could have been driven through the back, and not by any of the homes there. Noted in some summaries, (and in Brendan's very first recorded interview) by the investigators is.... on the Thursday, Nov 3rd, SA and his brother Charles were leaving the property, SA thought he seen tail lights by his trailer, he turned around, got a flashlight and had a look, didn't see anyone/anything. Charles, on Friday Nov 4th when leaving the property to go to the cabin, said he seen head lights "up behind his place", he called SA, and SA went and looked, didn't see anything (not sure how long it was after Charles seen the lights, from Brendan's interview, it sounded like Charles called SA, but SA didn't call him back for 10 minutes or so)

What I find the most interesting is...... it was reported in the news on Nov 3rd that she was missing, was SA on the news that night? was it on the local news that she had been there that day?

Click to expand...

It could have gone either way--park the car, place the stuff around it--go back into the car and make sure you didn't leave anything that could identify you--make sure car is wiped down--double check--this is murder after all--and then lock it up---or lock it up and then place the stuff around it...

I've kind of dismissed anything Brendan has said as unreliable.

missy1974 said:

it is absolutely possible that he left a message but no one will know (except the person who erased the message) because someone DID erase at least one message. That was testified too. Her mailbox was full..... at some point after the 31st, it was NOT full, the only LOGICAL explanation for that is that someone erased at least one message to free up space. Her brother testified that he accessed her voicemail, we don't know if anyone else did, if they did, they didn't admit it.

Click to expand...

This just my theory or thought. but maybe the person deleting those messages knew that her box was full by the time he went to leave his ALIBI message and in order to do so he had to delete a few. Possibly the ones they themselves left on Oct 31. Also they may have known once her box was full that people would question her picking up her voice mail and they needed another day to destroy whatever evidence they may have had. JMO

Bobby Dassey had a dog, a 2 month old lab puppy. That's the dog who was living in the Jasey home and that's the dog I read about that the Jasey boy(s) were concerned about.

If Bear the aggressive German Shepard was guarding that pit in the back, then how exactly did outsiders (like LE, for example) come and "plant" TH's remains in his yard?

Madeleine74 said:

Bobby Dassey had a dog, a 2 month old lab puppy. That's the dog who was living in the Jasey home and that's the dog I read about that the Jasey boy(s) were concerned about.

If Bear the aggressive German Shepard was guarding that pit in the back, then how exactly did outsiders (like LE, for example) come and "plant" TH's remains in his yard?

Click to expand...

Just curious why you keep calling it the Jasey home?

Madeleine74 said:

Bobby Dassey had a dog, a 2 month old lab puppy. That's the dog who was living in the Jasey home and that's the dog I read about that the Jasey boy(s) were concerned about.

If Bear the aggressive German Shepard was guarding that pit in the back, then how exactly did outsiders (like LE, for example) come and "plant" TH's remains in his yard?

Click to expand...

If Bear the aggressive German Shepard was guarding the pit in the back, then why did they not call animal control that very first day they seized the property? They were conducting a 48 hour search warrant.

Jaiddie said:

http://imgur.com/DIwsqLF

The letter that Kratz wrote to SA last year that KZ is talking about....I get it now, he was wanting to write SA book!!! This man is unbelievable.

Click to expand...

What hubris! I can't believe that Kratz is so completely lacking in self awareness.

Madeleine74 said:

If he was bleeding constantly and if he was the only one who helped move that vehicle and he was the only one who touched the items that were used to obscure the SUV, and he used his right hand to move those items into position, then yes.

Never read anything about those various items being tested though. It appeared the crime lab folks only seized the SUV.

Click to expand...

Wonder why? Guess the investigators already knew none of Avery/Dassey biological material or prints would be found on those items. It's almost inexplicable how it was decided which items should be tested and which items were ignored.

MysticJynx said:

Actually think it was Ertl who testified that he noted the car had some damage at the front left head light area, He also testified to there being some damage behind the Rambler hood placed against her rear right panel. He said he looked on the branches for any physical evidence but did not think the rough surface would give finger prints, there was also a piece of cardboard that was placed on the RAV4's hood, He stated that he took the rambler hood and the cardboard. I do not think they produced any results on these items though. Or I should say I haven't seen any results with my own eyes.

Click to expand...

I remember reading part of his testimony that the branches found on the SUV were unremarkable other than that they didn't appear similar to the other brush and branches in the area.