Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[stephsb]

Well, I think complicated in the sense that some would think they (chuck or earl) were planning to frame him.

But I think as others have said, it's possible that Chuck or Earl got really lucky in that the police wanted Steve so they weren't ever given much scrutiny.

You are right though, up to the point of murder it could be incredibly simple for Chuck or Steve or Earl.

I'm of the belief CA, EA, or ST (in order of most to least likely) took advantage of LE focusing on Steven, and there was no concrete plan to frame Steven (it came together after the fact).

Killers inserting themselves into the investigation is not unheard of, and it certainly appeared CA was very involved.

There was clearly reason to make Steven a prime suspect, my problem is they instead made him the ONLY suspect, ignoring their other potential prime suspects.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NothingClever]

Bolded section below was posted on reddit by someone else....thoughts?

The key that was "found" looks like it was just cut and never used. The images of the key found show clear lines in the metal from the cutter, lines that usually wear away with use. Perfectly explains why there was none of her DNA on it, she never touched it, never owned it, it was never in her possession. I believe they never found a key, as the real killer disposed of it, so they cut a fresh one to plant. https://www.dropbox.com/s/fhxf2mzup5jmrll/Key in Avery's Room 1.png?dl=0

I did look at my own car keys and there are cutting lines on my key but they are only back by the fob...not on the front part of the key. I don't believe a new key was cut to be planted but it does point more to the valet key theory if those are in fact lines from the key being cut.

 

[Boytwnmom]

nor was there any evidence they had been used at all never mind in connection with the victim. If I recall correctly of course!

Restraints were found in the home as stated in Brendan's criminal complaint


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlueShoe]

I'm curious about the bonfire. Does anyone know if SA (or other Avery's) had a regular burn schedule? For instance, if they burned trash every Tuesday, would others have knowledge of this? If so, that would make it easier to know when to plant bones (if that were done). Just so many strange coincidences. So far, every theory I've read has parts that seem a bit off to me.

 

[MaxManning]

I'm of the belief CA, EA, or ST (in order of most to least likely) took advantage of LE focusing on Steven, and there was no concrete plan to frame Steven (it came together after the fact).

Killers inserting themselves into the investigation is not unheard of, and it certainly appeared CA was very involved.

There was clearly reason to make Steven a prime suspect, my problem is they instead made him the ONLY suspect, ignoring their other potential prime suspects.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. Maybe my largest issue with accepting Avery as the killer is that the vehicle was found so easily on the property and was so horribly hidden.

It is akin to Earl avery "hiding under clothes" when police came to question him.

I think that SA would have certainly understood that police would suspect him and be coming around. CA/EA/ST would also understand that.

So, I struggle with exactly how dumb SA can possibly be. But they are all brothers, and I don't see anything sophisticated about any of them.

But whoever did this thought to burn a body, which isn't a rocket science type thing. But.... dealing with how to remove the charred bones or ensure that they were fully destroyed, might be something that might have been beyond their thought process. They might have thought - why would they think I burned her body ? Then a cadaver dog shows up.

I'm just guessing there, I am not sure how they actually discovered the bones. Would the cadaver dog have hit on the fire pit ?

 

[CoolJ]

So why not go about doing something about how you feel ?

Not quite clear on how you expect to solve any of your objectives by going onto a "web sleuths" website where people research a given case and theorize what might have happened based on evidence. That's kinda what the point of the site is.

I think 99% of the people here would agree with you on your opinion regarding the corruption. I could be wrong, but I don't think people are here to protest anything or invoke change. I just want to understand the case better, that's all.

I don't think it's about people opening their eyes or connecting any dots, it's about someone doing something. There are petitions etc. It sounds like that's what you should be doing.

I asked on my first post today, about how exactly the legal system or law enforcement would be scrutinized -- ie is there some kind of overseeing body that would investigate corruption. But I understand that this site is not the place to address whoever is in charge, because they likely ain't reading along.

But calling anyone who wants to discuss details of the case that you deem 'irrelevant', Ken Kratz, is kinda not how I'd go about achieving your objective of changing something about our legal system or law enforcement bodies.

jmo

I am speaking up. That's what I am doing. Trying to bring awareness to the corruption and here we have a case that perfectly paints the picture of how corruption works. It is about about Justice.

Ok, I admit I went too far when I said "Ken Kratz, is that you?". My apologies. But surely you recognize I was saying it tongue in cheek.

What I am trying to explain is that if we all agree(or 99% of us as you say) there was some serious corruption going on, then what is the point in discussing evidence? The corruption taints the evidence. Therefore, there is no evidence and nothing to discuss except how we are going to get these guys a new trial or exonerated altogether.
Do you get what I am saying now?

 

[MaxManning]

I'm curious about the bonfire. Does anyone know if SA (or other Avery's) had a regular burn schedule? For instance, if they burned trash every Tuesday, would others have knowledge of this? If so, that would make it easier to know when to plant bones (if that were done). Just so many strange coincidences. So far, every theory I've read has parts that seem a bit off to me.

This question has been posed as well as others. I kind of think that it's commonplace to have a fire going there, since every house has a burn pit and burn barrel. It is a junkyard, so probably not uncommon to burn whenever they see the need.

Unfortunately questions of this nature have not been answered or even asked, as far as I can tell.

Like, for example if SA shot Teresa 10-12 times. Did anyone hear those shots ?

I get that there is hunting out there, but I don't believe hunters rattle off 10-12 shots at a time. So, was anyone asked if they heard a flurry of gunshots that night ?

Also it's said that Chuck, Steve, Earl would set the sights on their guns in the pit, but even in that case, do they rattle off 10-12 shots ? Seems you would shoot once, and adjust the sights, repeat.

How close are closest neighbors ?

I doubt that 10-12 gunshots even happened. But doesn't seem as if that aspect was even investigated. They just accepted whatever brendan said, while rattling off anything he thought might possibly appease them.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I'd say that Steve Avery doing it, is the simplest explanation. It's not nearly as complicated if you don't confine yourself to what the prosecution has said about the crime.
Most don't believe prosecutions narrative of how it went down.

As you said, it's not even a fact that she was killed that night. What real evidence do we have that even says that ?


Jodi's phone call doesn't mean anything imo. If Steve is in the garage and hears the phone ring, he could just go in and answer it, and come right back to the garage. So that aspect is not a big deal to me.


But I also don't think it's complicated to rape her in the house, move her to the garage and kill her via pillow on head (no splatter), move her to the rav4 to transport her to the fire (back it up to firepit), clean garage, move rav4 to location, gather tires or whatever for the fire, and go to bed.

Not saying I believe that's what happened, but that's relatively simple and doesn't take any great complication and doesn't require her to be taken offsite.

It's just a flow of events. Rape, Kill, move body, clean, burn, hide car.

I think Chuck/Earl/Scott/Tadych/ex boyfriend/roommate/stranger would all seem to add complication to the process.


What complicates this case is that they wanted Dassey to be the evidence and so they were using what they coerced out of his mouth to create a narrative that doesn't make alot of sense imo. Trying to frame someone could get very complicated. But it doesn't erase that the crime itself could have been very simple, right ?

I think the simplest explanation above makes sense. Add to my above theory that Dassey helps him clean the garage, not knowing what the blood was from, and then helping him with a bonfire and maybe seeing body parts in the fire.


Again, not saying that's what I believe, because there might be an even simpler explanation with a proper investigation of all these characters.

FINALLY! Someone takes the most likely approach to this. People tend to want to believe the most dark sided, outrageous story. It's almost always Occams Razor - No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary. None of the outlandish, conspiracy theory stuff needs to even come into play if the murder could have been committed and explained simply. You just did that.

 

[shadowraiths]

Out of curiosity... Someone always mentions occam's razor... How would you interpret it when applied to this case?

Imho, Occam's razor, as applied to this case, doesn't really clarify the "whodunnit." However, it does clarify that she was never in, much less, murdered, in SA's home or garage. Why? Because the total lack of forensic evidence, the single bullet w/Halbach's DNA, not withstanding.

 

[Tawny]

This question has been posed as well as others. I kind of think that it's commonplace to have a fire going there, since every house has a burn pit and burn barrel. It is a junkyard, so probably not uncommon to burn whenever they see the need.

Unfortunately questions of this nature have not been answered or even asked, as far as I can tell.

Like, for example if SA shot Teresa 10-12 times. Did anyone hear those shots ?

I get that there is hunting out there, but I don't believe hunters rattle off 10-12 shots at a time. So, was anyone asked if they heard a flurry of gunshots that night ?

Also it's said that Chuck, Steve, Earl would set the sights on their guns in the pit, but even in that case, do they rattle off 10-12 shots ? Seems you would shoot once, and adjust the sights, repeat.

How close are closest neighbors ?

I doubt that 10-12 gunshots even happened. But doesn't seem as if that aspect was even investigated. They just accepted whatever brendan said, while rattling off anything he thought might possibly appease them.

Well, .22's are relatively quiet. They aren't huge booms when fired. In a junkyard like that, I could reasonably believe no one heard or took any note of 10-12 shots from a .22 (even though I don't believe that happened, mind you).

Also, in rural areas like that, people who enjoy shooting will do it anytime and no one in the area will be alarmed. Just my experience!

 

[CoolJ]

I just had a friend tell me this. They don't care if he's guilty or innocent because of the cat incident. I have a cat and love them as much as the next guy. I do believe that cruelty to animals leads to cruelty to humans. I do wish the laws were stricter on animal cruelty 20 yrs ago , but they were not. If they had given him 50 yrs for intentionally killing the cat, I think I would be delighted . But that is not the what this is about.

ETA ohmy, what have I done. Meant to quote coolj and utterly flubbed it. Sorry all.

I am an animal lover. I think cruelty to animals is a very disturbing thing. But I can guarantee that cruelty to animals, especially by children and those with lower IQ's does not necessarily lead to cruelty to humans. There are a lot of factors at play here. Many children abuse animals and grow up to be compassionate human beings. Sometimes it is those incidences of abuse that teach them compassion.

 

[LibertyandJustice4]

I have seen many people assuming that if you have a glove on, it's keeps anything from soaking through.

I posted earlier on this thread an example of typical work gloves. Some have cloth around the knuckles, and some even are completely cloth.

If you are bleeding on your knuckle, it's going to be absorbed in the the cloth of the glove. If you are bleeding really badly, it might still drip, but far less since the glove itself is absorbing the blood.

Now, in terms of sweat DNA. I have used work gloves and wiped my brow with the gloves on. That sweat will be on the outside of the glove. Either the back of the hand or on the inside of the fingers, depending on how you wipe your brow. Yes, your sweat will be absorbed by the fabric of the glove. If you touch something with a wet or bloody glove, yes, that will transfer to a surface. Try it yourself.

So if someone grabs the latch, yes, maybe some sweat DNA transfers and leaves no print.

So I see no inconsistency.

Nothing complicated here, try it yourself with a cloth work glove.


Not using this to say this is what happened, but I don't think you can discount it happening this way and using it as a "See, it's impossible, because there are no prints yet there is blood and sweat evidence".

But I find it odd that they don't test the battery cables etc. It's not like they wouldn't have discovered the battery was disconnected until questioning brendan 6 months later. They likely knew the battery was disconnected day one. Isn't it kind of obvious that the killer likely disconnected them !?!?

From what I understand, there is no such actual thing as sweat DNA. It's skin cells. I would think that it is reasonable to say even cloth gloves would have absorbed skin cells. I just can't picture a scenario where he is dripping blood and sweat through gloves heavily enough to leave his DNA everywhere, but no fingerprints, hairs, or other evidence. Perhaps I am wrong!

 

[LibertyandJustice4]

I'm not on any bandwagon, I'm still not sure where I stand on this, besides standing upwind because the whole thing stinks, but couldn't he have been wearing gloves, and wiped sweat from his brow, then touched other stuff? Thus leaving sweat but no fingerprints.

The blood for me is a strange one, I don't have any good explanation as to how it got there, and wasn't cleaned up if it was indeed SA.

Ok, THAT I could see. That could be.

 

[AnnaCabana]

In this video when he called into Nancy Grace she asked him what time he saw Theresa leaving his place and he says 2:30, between 2-2:30...??? I thought she didn't even get there until after 2:30?
One other comment when she asks if he ever saw Theresa drive back past his home or back into where her vehicle was found, he said no he didn't, but him & his brother had to run to Menards that night and then he saw headlights coming down the road. When he turned back to look for a car there wasn't one there.

Anyone heard this claim of him going to Menards that night? Just curious if these statements are in court testimony, I don't recall hearing that in the documentary either.

 

[MaxManning]

I am speaking up. That's what I am doing. Trying to bring awareness to the corruption and here we have a case that perfectly paints the picture of how corruption works. It is about about Justice.

Ok, I admit I went too far when I said "Ken Kratz, is that you?". My apologies. But surely you recognize I was saying it tongue in cheek.

What I am trying to explain is that if we all agree(or 99% of us as you say) there was some serious corruption going on, then what is the point in discussing evidence? The corruption taints the evidence. Therefore, there is no evidence and nothing to discuss except how we are going to get these guys a new trial or exonerated altogether.
Do you get what I am saying now?

I do get what you are saying. But there are things that are not something police could have planted.

ie

a message from teresa halbach on barb janda's message machine
a bleached pair of brendan's pants found 5-6 months later via barb janda telling police about a conversation with brendan the night of the alleged murder.
a bus driver saying she saw Teresa taking photos at 3:45
teresa telling coworkers she was uncomfortable with Steve Avery
multiple phone calls by avery the day of the alleged murder and calling under a fake name (b.janda)

Nothing is a smoking gun but rather evidence that could have value, but do I believe this is all planted by police and irrelevant ? nope.

If Avery is innocent, he likely is happy that people are scrutinizing every detail as maybe one minor piece of truth uncovers lies.


ie - that valet key. What if there is crime lab evidence that was in the Rav4 ? I've never heard it mentioned that it wasn't the primary key for the vehicle.

I think it's good for people to question it all, without a preconceived notion of what the actual truth is.

 

[MaxManning]

In this video when he called into Nancy Grace she asked him what time he saw Theresa leaving his place and he says 2:30, between 2-2:30...??? I thought she didn't even get there until after 2:30?
One other comment when she asks if he ever saw Theresa drive back past his home or back into where her vehicle was found, he said no he didn't, but him & his brother had to run to Menards that night and then he saw headlights coming down the road. When he turned back to look for a car there wasn't one there.

Anyone heard this claim of him going to Menards that night? Just curious if these statements are in court testimony, I don't recall hearing that in the documentary either.

what video ? Nope, never heard about menards. Who said this ?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I hate to see people wrongly accused or convicted but this case seems to have a lot of wonky questions for me and the prosecutor has come and said the documentary ignored some substantial evidence..

That bothers me. I am hoping to sit and watch it this weekend and see what I think after some research. What I saw today was that her blood was on the bullets in his gun. I don't know if that is true or not yet..

I love a good case to dig into but I hate rabbit holes.

 

[Tawny]

I hate to see people wrongly accused or convicted but this case seems to have a lot of wonky questions for me and the prosecutor has come and said the documentary ignored some substantial evidence..

That bothers me. I am hoping to sit and watch it this weekend and see what I think after some research. What I saw today was that her blood was on the bullets in his gun. I don't know if that is true or not yet..

I love a good case to dig into but I hate rabbit holes.

??? Where did this come from?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

??? Where did this come from?

I have to think because I was not paying attention but it was either Msnbc or Cnn discussing the case.. It just made me snap and think " well that would be a problem."

Like I said I am hopefully watching this weekend. It has been a horrendous month and I am looking forward to some down time and good tv.

 

[Tawny]

I have to think because I was not paying attention but it was either Msnbc or Cnn discussing the case.. It just made me snap and think " well that would be a problem."

Like I said I am hopefully watching this weekend. It has been a horrendous month and I am looking forward to some down time and good tv.

I would think so too since blood being on bullets IN a gun is just weird as a concept in general