Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[diesel]

Does anyone remember the DATE the eight day search of the whole property started? When the whole family was asked to leave for the eight days? Am I remembering this correctly?

 

[MaxManning]

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!

I will agree, I am assuming that there is such a thing as sweat DNA. haha

But isn't saliva what is used for buccal dna test ? Someone wipes their mouth with fingers, and saliva gets on it ? How much is needed for DNA ?

I honestly don't know, but I'd imagine the defense scrutinized it more in trial than we are right now! So would be good to understand exactly how that gets presented in avery trial.

If you have cloth gloves on, it's impossible to leave fingerprints.

Avery had a very short haircut, so hairs is unlikely. I also don't see no hair evidence as odd regardless.

I find it more likely that there was just no hair/prints evidence via gloves being worn and short haircut, than someone cleaning the whole vehicle after getting their prints, hair etc all over the place. right ?

I honestly have no idea how common it is to find hair evidence in a crime like this. But I do know that they chose not to test alot of things for prints or dna, because they were instructed what to test. So everything they weren't instructed to test, wasn't tested. So maybe there was hair or something from another individual, but it wasn't found. That's possible given what I read in dassey trial transcripts.

That to me, seems like a horrible process

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Maybe from this..

" This rifle, hanging over Avery's bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa's DNA on it. The bullet had to be fired before Nov. 5."

http://www.people.com/article/steve...kratz-says-netflix-series-forgot-key-evidence

 

[MaxManning]

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!

I have lived in a rural area before, and I do remember hearing gunshots even though it's common and not something that was alarming. But I don't know much about guns and how loud a .22 is, so you likely know more than I do about that.

If I did hear 10-12 in succession, I would certainly make note of that.

Either way, I don't think it happened myself, but I do question no one hearing this occurrence if they are loud enough. It wouldn't be someone in the junkyard that would hear it, but someone neighboring. Avery's trailer is near the edge of the property if I recall correctly. So it would just need to be heard by someone across the street or whatever.

 

[ziggy]

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!

From what I could find, different bodily fluids present differently for DNA analysis. They are either excreted or secreted. Touch DNA is used for skin cells.

Notice sebum and sweat are in the same category. Sebum could be found on a comb or brush that comes in contact with an oily scalp.

[h=4]Types of Bodily Fluid[/h]Bodily fluids are broken down into two categories: excreted and secreted.Within these categories you will find the following:

• Excreted: Sweat, Breast Milk, Cerumen (Earwax), Faeces (included because faeces are often covered in a mucus membrane to enable travelling through the bowel), Chyme (found in the stomach), Bile, Vomit, Aqueous Humour (a watery substance that covers the eye), Sebum (Skin Oil)
• Secreted: Cowper's Fluid (Pre-ejaculatory fluid), Blood or Plasma, Semen, Saliva, Female Ejaculate, Serum, or Urine.

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/bodily-fluids-in-forensic-science.html

 

[MaxManning]

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!

Checked salvage yard out on google maps. Not many neighbors at all. So really depends on how loud the shots are.

But, as with everything else in this case, you won't ever know unless you ask. If they have statement from brendan saying he witnessed 10-12 shots , they likely weren't interested in looking for anyone to back him up or dispute that. Someone saying they didn't hear anything wouldn't strengthen their case.

 

[katydid23]

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.

But isn't dousing the family pet with gasoline and tossing them into a fire pit, a bit more than the usual 'animal abuse' we hear about? That is extremely horrific and cold hearted. I cannot believe that any 20 yr old that could do that would ever become a compassionate human being. He was not a child when he did that brutal act.

 

[AutumnDawn]

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.

Actually there is a guy on youtube that states that he saw Avery at the store that evening. I won't post the link to it on here though, because it is a random video with many "questionable claims" about various activities in that town. You could search for "secret clubs Avery case", and might be able to pull it up. Not sure how I ended up on there, but I did

 

[MaxManning]

From what I could find, different bodily fluids present differently for DNA analysis. They are either excreted or secreted. Touch DNA is used for skin cells.

Notice sebum and sweat are in the same category. Sebum could be found on a comb or brush that comes in contact with an oily scalp.

Types of Bodily Fluid

Bodily fluids are broken down into two categories: excreted and secreted.Within these categories you will find the following:

• Excreted: Sweat, Breast Milk, Cerumen (Earwax), Faeces (included because faeces are often covered in a mucus membrane to enable travelling through the bowel), Chyme (found in the stomach), Bile, Vomit, Aqueous Humour (a watery substance that covers the eye), Sebum (Skin Oil)
• Secreted: Cowper's Fluid (Pre-ejaculatory fluid), Blood or Plasma, Semen, Saliva, Female Ejaculate, Serum, or Urine.

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/bodily-fluids-in-forensic-science.html

so useful to note is the fact that not all bodily fluids contain sufficient information to gain a DNA comparison. This happens when the individual is what is described as a 'non-secretor'. A 'non-secretor' will not have sufficient levels of protein in their bodily fluids to determine a match between blood and bodily fluids found at a crime scene. Of course the percentage of 'non-secretors' among the populous as opposed to 'secretors' is very small indeed.

I will agree, I have no idea what DNA can be extracted from. If someone told me they could get DNA from sweat, I'd believe them, because it can be obtained from other fluids.

Maybe the point of contention is one of semantics where someone said "Sweat DNA", which might not be a term, yet one might agree that DNA could be obtained from sweat?

Maybe someone can clear this up, but this article suggests that excreted fluids can contain DNA, depending on whether there is "sufficient information". So it could vary from person to person possibly ?

 

[scapa]

I wonder if, given the various hunters on and around the property, there isn't a simpler explanation that doesn't involve a deliberate rape/murder but does account for the shot in the head.

What if TH is shot accidentally -- found and burned in order to dispose of the evidence, which is then planted out in front of the SA place? It accounts for the key and the bones, and (if SA is involved) the blood too.

If SA is involved, then he can truthfully claim innocence of murder, while realizing that he's very much in the frame. The odd behaviour of SD/Bobby D and the brothers might be accounted for under this scenario, without sole responsibility for the evidence planting lying with LE.

Anyway, there's my off-the-top-of-my-head shot.

best,

s

 

[AutumnDawn]

That is what I read as well, no such thing as sweat DNA, but there is touch DNA. I read that touch DNA can be controversial at time, because people can transfer DNA. If you touch something, and another person touches it, and then they go and touch something else, like the latch on her vehicle, it has the potential of transferring the DNA. To analyst it will look like you were at the scene, but you never really were. This is my understanding of reading upon DNA transfer and touch DNA.

 

[AutumnDawn]

I keep wondering was the claim that she was shot in the head a definite, or did the piece that was examined look like a piece that COULD have been from a gun shot.

And that I think about it, if she was shot, we can't tell if it was really from the .22. That is only what LE claims, but couldn't it have been any gun?

 

[steveml]

What I don't understand is if there was his blood on/near the ignition, it implies he was doing something with the ignition, like yanking the keys from it or starting the car or something. And bleeding, enough to leave blood. Why, then, didn't those keys found in his bedroom have his blood on them?

Even more baffling is the State's reasoning for not finding any of Steven Avery's fingerprints in the car... 'because he must have used gloves'. Okay, so he was clever enough to be 'gloved up' to eliminate any traces of prints within the vehicle, but luckily for the prosecutors he must have wore woolen mittens or socks on his hands (essentially something porous enough to allow a few convenient traces of blood to smear onto a couple of key areas inside the car). Hmm...

 

[MaxManning]

I wonder if, given the various hunters on and around the property, there isn't a simpler explanation that doesn't involve a deliberate rape/murder but does account for the shot in the head.

What if TH is shot accidentally -- found and burned in order to dispose of the evidence, which is then planted out in front of the SA place? It accounts for the key and the bones, and (if SA is involved) the blood too.

If SA is involved, then he can truthfully claim innocence of murder, while realizing that he's very much in the frame. The odd behaviour of SD/Bobby D and the brothers might be accounted for under this scenario, without sole responsibility for the evidence planting lying with LE.

Anyway, there's my off-the-top-of-my-head shot.

best,

s

Now this is worthy of a Fargo series!

I think she would have had to have been shot on the property. There is mention in the Avery appeal transcripts about Earl Avery and Fabian hunting rabbit on the property that day.

Not crazy, ya know

 

[ziggy]

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.

I respectfully request you do some research if you are genuinely concerned about what the actual truth is.

1. There was a message on Barb Janda’s machine. This is about the only thing that is correct in your post.

2. The jeans with bleach spots were introduced at Brendan’s trial. There were small spots on both left and right pocket areas and some on the bottom of legs. No blood or blood stains were found.

3. The garage was sprayed with Luminol. Mostly small spots 1 to 1.5 inches diameter were found. One smear approx.. 3’ x 4’ was found behind the riding mower. Bleach will glow under Luminol examination. NONE OF THE SPOTS TESTED POSITIVE FOR BLOOD.
Source for the above: Brendan Dassey trial transcripts. http://pastebin.com/S1DERiFb

4. I’ll check, but I don’t think Brendan or his mom ever tried to delay turning over the clothes he wore on Oct. 31. Maybe the jeans were collected later. Thanks for reminding me to check that fact – or perhaps you can give us a link?

5. Other testimony contradicted the bus driver timeline. The bus driver did say she saw Teresa taking photos at a later time than Teresa should have been there, according to the time it takes to drive between the last stop she made at the Zipperer’s and Avery Salvage. This testimony was stipulated to in BD’s trial transcripts:

“That if called to tref -- testify, JoEllen Zipperer would testify that on October 31, 2005, Teresa Halbach came to the Zipperer property to take a photo of a vehicle for AutoTrader Magazine.

Zipperer would indicate that Halbach was at her residence between approximately 2 to 2:30 p.m. Was there for approximately ten minutes. Was wearing a white top, waist-length
jacket, and blue jeans.

Zipperer would state that before leaving, Halbach provided her with the latest AutoTrader-Magazine and a bill of sale. Left her
property and drove away in her SUV.

Zipperer would finally state that Avery Salvage Yard is no more than a ten-minute drive from her residence in Manitowoc County.”

6. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT TERESA TOLD CO-WORKERS SHE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH STEVEN AVERY? From what I’ve found, this was not introduced into trial. But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. It may have been in a pre-trial motion, but was considered unreliable hearsay with no exception.

Did you know Teresa had been to the Avery yard FIVE TIMES prior to Oct 31[SUP]st[/SUP]?

7. SA called twice prior to TH’s arrival using *67, and once after she took photos without the *67.

8. SA didn’t call under the fake name B. Janda, The receptionist knew it was SA calling and he made the appointment under the name B. Janda. It was B. Janda’s van that was the object of photography and sale in the Auto Trader magazine.

Teresa knew she was headed to Avery Salvage that day – so any imagined attempt by SA to fool her with the B. Janda appointment is silly, it would never have worked because of the address and her previous 5 trips to the property.

Blank bills of sale and the latest issue of Auto Trader were left with the two previous stops that day – exactly as SA described TH’s visit to him that day.

HERE ARE THE FACTS PRESENTED at BD’s trial, (wish SA’s transcripts were available, but they used much of the evidence in Brendan’s trial).

These are the stipulations on the record regarding Teresa’s co-workers…


Brendan Dassey Trial Transcript / Day 4
Pages 183-185
Stipulations in lieu of testimony of Auto Trader co-worker(s):

“Number two. That if called to testify, Angela Schuster would testify that Teresa Halbach was hired as a photographer for AutoTrader in October, 2004, and continued in that employment through October 31, 2005.

Schuster would further state that Teresa Halbach had performed photo shoots at the Avery salvage business on five occasions prior to October 31 in 2005, including June 20, October 22, October or, excuse me. Let me start again. June 20, August 22, August 29, September 19 and October 10.

Number three. That if called to testify, Dawn Pliszka would testify that on October 31, 2005 she received a phone call from Steven Avery at approximately 8:12 a.m., at which time Avery requested that, quote, the same girl that had been out here before, end quote, come to his property to take photos of a van he had for sale.

Pliszka would further state that Avery made the appointment under the name, quote, B. Janda, end quote, and that Pliszka left a voicemail for Teresa Halbach at 9:46 a.m. asking if she could make the appointment.

Number four. That if called to testify, Dawn Pliszka would further testify that at 2:27 p.m. she did speak with Teresa Halbach on Teresa's cell phone at which time Ms. Halbach indicated that she was, quote, on her way, end quote, to the Avery property from her previous appointment.

That is the entirety of that stipulation. It will be marked as Exhibit 205?”
______________________________________________________________________________________________

I’m trying to be a good example of a WS poster here. Let’s not stoop to spreading the unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo the other forums do. If you want to discuss the facts, then please spend some time helping me parse out facts versus things that may be unsubstantiated rumor or evidence deemed too unreliable to be admitted. I could use the help. It’s time consuming.

 

[Sleuther87]

Avery absolutely should have been investigated, just like these 4. That's the problem. Investigators are giving CA inside information on the investigation against Steven.

1. Sorry, it seems I missed whatever was being discussed about CA and inside info. What inside info did CA receive?

2. Do we actually know how much CA, ST, etc. were investigated? It seems like everyone was interviewed and had their DNA taken early on.

 

[ziggy]

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.

BBM. I'm going to be confident and say that is not true. Her DNA was on a bullet fragment found in the garage in approx. the 8th search of the garage. This fragment was found by Manitowac LE who were not supposed to be investigating due to conflict of interest. For that reason, the DNA is suspect. Also, if this bullet was believed to have gone through the skull of TH, blood or tissue should have been present. It was only reported that her DNA was there, not blood or tissue. That also makes some suspicious of this bit of evidence.

If you have a source to some new evidence regarding your claim please share!!!

 

[stephsb]

1. Sorry, it seems I missed whatever was being discussed about CA and inside info. What inside info did CA receive?

2. Do we actually know how much CA, ST, etc. were investigated? It seems like everyone was interviewed and had their DNA taken early on.

It is mentioned in one of the points under the CA section of the post-conviction motion. I'm at work ATM so don't have my doc handy, but can post the information they allege he received when I get home.

My understanding is everyone was interviewed early on (including Brendan) , although how thoroughly and in what context is anyone's guess. I can't say for certain on DNA, but believe you are probably correct (at the very least, they came looking for EA's, since he was hiding under clothes)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steveml]

I wonder if, given the various hunters on and around the property, there isn't a simpler explanation that doesn't involve a deliberate rape/murder but does account for the shot in the head.

What if TH is shot accidentally -- found and burned in order to dispose of the evidence, which is then planted out in front of the SA place? It accounts for the key and the bones, and (if SA is involved) the blood too.

If SA is involved, then he can truthfully claim innocence of murder, while realizing that he's very much in the frame. The odd behaviour of SD/Bobby D and the brothers might be accounted for under this scenario, without sole responsibility for the evidence planting lying with LE.

Anyway, there's my off-the-top-of-my-head shot.

best,

s

That's certainly a possibility.

I'm leaning towards a few LE officers using the victim as an opportunity to frame SA, (purely from the evidence and information I've seen so far), however I have got reservations regarding a possible intentional murder by LE officers. I couldn't say it never happens, but the level of complicity required by the officers etc. would be so much greater if the murder of TH was premeditated by themselves. Not to mention the potential sentences involved for such a crime.

The idea of LE officers taking a human life to frame somebody would be seen by any society as one of the most heinous crimes ever committed, and I'm not sure that the burden of such a crime could be easily disguised.

 

[Angelo]

I'm not going to say SA is not guilty, I haven't even begun to reach my verdict. I have questions swirling in my head, and I have the answers but they just do not seem to fit. If we took out the people who were not suppose to insert themselves in this case, Lenk and Colburn, things would be quite different. They should of backed off, let the other LE do the job. Now we have to ask why they inserted themselves in this case when they should of known better.

In MAM they showed a clip of SA talking to a news lady at night time, at his trailer. I think this was the day Teresa was called in to be missing. I can't remember but did anyone see his hand? I wondered if it was bandaged?

I have never seen a bandage on SA's finger or hand. There is no bandage during the two different interviews at his trailer after Teresa was reported missing. There is no bandage during SA's interview while at his parents cabin after the Rav4 was found, and no bandage during the police interviews after his arrest. There does not seem to be any attempt by SA to hide that hand/finger during the interviews.

Interesting that this was printed in the media;

"Avery was at the cabin in Crivitz helping to install a tin roof and butchering chickens on the day Halbach’s car was found. The case immediately became national news. Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren highlighted the story. CNN’s Nancy Grace interviewed Avery by telephone. He denied any foul play and suggested that he’d been set up. “I got nothing to hide,” he said over and over again to news outlets from Manitowoc to Green Bay to Milwaukee.

Avery returned to Manitowoc County in a friend’s car three days later, a thick bandage conspicuously wrapped around his right hand."


http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/