Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[MaxManning]

Looks like that "box" may have been kicked around enough to have some tape slapped on it. You know.....keeping it handy until a victim of some sort showed up.

moo

Yeah, it might be good to see a few pictures of other boxes of blood evidence. Just saying if they all look like that, it's not as curious.

You have to remember that this is the same county where they shake things from furniture instead of meticulously handling each individual thing on that furniture to ensure they don't taint anything.

 

[missy1974]

Max ~ I'm with you, there are a lot of questions I have too I can only guess that SA's lawyers would have been all over it if there was any record of how much blood was originally in that tube vs how much was found at the scene.

MysticJynx ~ you should go share that photo in the key thread, http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?298333-The-Key-Planted-or-Not-Impact/page9

I have posted 2 of those photos... but having a 3rd just makes me question it even more!

 

[stephsb]

Maybe a mod can answer this question, but would it be possible to start a thread about alternate theories as to what happened to Teresa if Steven/Brendan didn't kill her? I know that we can't name people, but can we use initials? What exactly is the protocol on this?

 

[stephsb]

Was checking out this article today -- http://www.convolutedbrian.com/photographs-through-tinted-automobile-windows.html

Was hoping that maybe there's some crazy chance that it'd be possible for their to be photos through the rav4 windows before it was opened.

Significance would be that we'd expect to see the blood stains that were attributed to Steve Avery.

Most believe that the planting would likely happen before it arrived at the scene, others believe that it could have happened after. Would be nice to rule out the latter if possible.

In reading about what would be possible to see through the windows, based on the tinting, Brian also mentions the curious aspect of why they wouldn't open the vehicle immediately.

If she was still a missing person at this point, and you can't see in the car, wouldn't you want to get inside to look for clues to lead you to her if she is still alive ?

Why was it believed at this point, that she had to be dead ? One good answer would be , if you knew she was dead and the rav4 was empty.

As pointed out in this article, it seems there was greater concern about the door not being opened, than gleaning information on a missing person.

Yes, I do think this is suspicious.

Will have to check trial transcripts when they get released to maybe get a better explanation. But seems clear to me that If I thought there was a possibility she was alive, I'd open the door immediately.

My understanding was why the vehicle was not immediately opened was because they wanted it to be processed by people who knew what they were doing (crime scene investigators). This would be important in both missing and presumed dead persons- you would want to be sure any possible evidence was preserved to help get an arrest/clues to what happened to her. I don't find this very strange at all, rather it seemed pretty smart.

 

[MaxManning]

My understanding was why the vehicle was not immediately opened was because they wanted it to be processed by people who knew what they were doing (crime scene investigators). This would be important in both missing and presumed dead persons- you would want to be sure any possible evidence was preserved to help get an arrest/clues to what happened to her. I don't find this very strange at all, rather it seemed pretty smart.

Is it smart if someone is inside and possibly dying ? sorry, can't agree with this.

A live person is going to yield far more evidence than a dead one.

What reason did they have to believe she was NOT in there ? If they knew she was NOT in there, I get your point.

 

[MaxManning]

My understanding was why the vehicle was not immediately opened was because they wanted it to be processed by people who knew what they were doing (crime scene investigators). This would be important in both missing and presumed dead persons- you would want to be sure any possible evidence was preserved to help get an arrest/clues to what happened to her. I don't find this very strange at all, rather it seemed pretty smart.

The point of that article seemed to be that they said they couldn't see inside the vehicle. So maybe it's more about to glean other evidence, yet they were sure there was no one in the vehicle, potentially in need of life preserving help

"John Ertl of the State Crime Lab was dispatched to the scene. He testified that he used a flashlight to look inside, but could not see much due to the tinting on the windows. (1)"

I think the real question, which maybe gets answered in trial directly :

"Could you confirm that there was not a person, in the vehicle ?"

I think if you see a body, you have to kind of assume it could be alive unless you see enough detail to confirm they are deceased. I'd personally err on the side of potentially being wrong about her being alive.

 

[stephsb]

Is it smart if someone is inside and possibly dying ? sorry, can't agree with this.

A live person is going to yield far more evidence than a dead one.

What reason did they have to believe she was NOT in there ? If they knew she was NOT in there, I get your point.

If they had seen a person in the vehicle, then yeah, they're opening it right away-even if they are dead, just to check for a pulse. No question. In Teresa's case, they would have known she wasn't in the vehicle, as you can see inside the trunk from windows. They would have immediately known she wasn't in the car, thus no urgency in opening it and contaminating the scene.

If this was a standard car where the trunk was not visible w.o being opened, then they could have checked to see if she was in the vehicle, and if she wasn't they could leave the vehicle unopened and open only the trunk (hopefully w. gloves on) to see if she was possibly inside. I would imagine LE would open the trunk prior to techs getting there to make sure there was not someone alive inside of it.

 

[stephsb]

The point of that article seemed to be that they said they couldn't see inside the vehicle. So maybe it's more about to glean other evidence, yet they were sure there was no one in the vehicle, potentially in need of life preserving help




I think the real question, which maybe gets answered in trial directly :

"Could you confirm that there was not a person, in the vehicle ?"

I think if you see a body, you have to kind of assume it could be alive unless you see enough detail to confirm they are deceased. I'd personally err on the side of potentially being wrong about her being alive.

There's a difference between "not being able to see much" and "not being able to see anything" Ertl isn't there to look for a body, he's looking for blood/trace evidence. Whether or not a body was in the car should have been determined prior to him arriving. There are pictures of her car online, and its clear the windows are tinted, but they are still able to be seen through somewhat (enough to identify if a body is in it or not)

 

[diesel]

Could someone clarify please. LE locked the car before the crime scene investigators arrived?

 

[Jaiddie]

http://www.twincities.com/localnews...panel-oks-higher-payouts-wrongful-convictions

Maybe a step in the right direction?

 

[dexter75]

Now now now

They indeed were EXTREMELY meticulous when approaching that RAV4!
( let's give credit where credit is due )

Instead of BUSTING IN that bad boy to find Teresa, and check to see if she were ok.

They did wait very PATIENTLY, for the vehicle to be PROCESSED:waitasec:

Yeah, it might be good to see a few pictures of other boxes of blood evidence. Just saying if they all look like that, it's not as curious.

You have to remember that this is the same county where they shake things from furniture instead of meticulously handling each individual thing on that furniture to ensure they don't taint anything.

 

[dexter75]

THANK YOU FOR STATING THIS! :yourock:

I have tried stressing this before, ALL were INVITED to participate.

If folks truly did their research, the interview is out there EXPLAINING the motives behind this documentary.
( Just as you say, there are indeed numerous cited references )

Please do watch the other episodes, if for nothing else, it is a good artifact of film making and the creation of a new genre of documentary/drama. In terms of auteur bias, the directors have claimed in numerous cited references that they had no interest in SA's innocence or guilt. This piece was a depiction of a systemic failure...they did invite the prosecution actors to partake for added perspective but they declined. There was a number of facts/evidence left out on both sides - and there is a thread here that will help you with these gaps. Enjoy.

 

[dexter75]

Was, uh, an um, expert that a, gave this, um, a, testimony?
Thanks btw!

"Virtually, um, every other bone in the body was represented by at least one fragment, and in some -- in some cases, many more fragments.....There was a second location, away from the burn pit, uh, and closer to the, um --what was then refered to as the Janda - Dassey/Janda property, uh, one of four burn barrels contained, uh, human bone fragments. In, um, the burn barrel identified as Burn Barrel No.2, there were human -- burned human bone fragments from the spine, from the shoulder blade, or what we call the scapula, a possible hand bone fragment, what we call a metacarpal, um, and fragments of long bones that could have been, uh, from leg bones or from arm bones" Leslie Eisenberg testimony in BD Trial Day 4: 19 April 2007 (PP 49-98).

 

[MaxManning]

If they had seen a person in the vehicle, then yeah, they're opening it right away-even if they are dead, just to check for a pulse. No question. In Teresa's case, they would have known she wasn't in the vehicle, as you can see inside the trunk from windows. They would have immediately known she wasn't in the car, thus no urgency in opening it and contaminating the scene.

If this was a standard car where the trunk was not visible w.o being opened, then they could have checked to see if she was in the vehicle, and if she wasn't they could leave the vehicle unopened and open only the trunk (hopefully w. gloves on) to see if she was possibly inside. I would imagine LE would open the trunk prior to techs getting there to make sure there was not someone alive inside of it.

I'll see if I can determine when they make the determination the vehicle is empty. It's Ertl's comment that threw me off. But he might have simply been being questioned about if he saw blood stains inside, and that's far harder to determine than if you see something resembling a body.

I would agree, it makes sense that they should be able to see she wasn't in there. The comment threw me off, because it's not in the same context as my questioning.

 

[bessie]

Maybe a mod can answer this question, but would it be possible to start a thread about alternate theories as to what happened to Teresa if Steven/Brendan didn't kill her? I know that we can't name people, but can we use initials? What exactly is the protocol on this?

I've opened a new thread. Please be sure to read the opening post.

Alternate Theories

 

[dexter75]

Whether or not Brendan allegedly said it or different versions of events were fed to him;

His statements ever changing and filled with inconsistent EVERYTHING, we know this.

From the BEGINNING of this case. Starting with KRATZ/LE there has been a lot of this " changing of the mind "

Kratz was so confident he knew how it all went down, then of course " changed his mind " after all of the HARD facts & EVIDENCE were found so HIS story meshed with the " evidence " ( shook out, by men who weren't even suppose to be touching anything but hey, guess " minds were changed " about that too )

Kratz then " changed his mind " about where the crime took place, as we all have read/watched.

" Minds were changed " in that SA, in the Law's/Jury's eye's, DID NOT have enough evidence against him for the mutilation of a corpse charge.

Why wouldn't SA, per BD " change his mind " and decide to burn her instead? *insert sarcasm here* Certainly, nothing would make sense otherwise. ( This is in NO way pointed at you Madeleine74, just my take on things. )

Allegedly, and according to Brendan, she was put in the back of her vehicle because the first plan was to dump her body in the man-made body of water/pond that was somewhere on the property, but then SA changed his mind and decided to burn her instead.

 

[dexter75]

Was this " show " bias or one sided ?

Probably.."let me guess.....uummmm....Nancy Grace or HLN

 

[dexter75]

:welcome4:

Glad you chimed in!!

That's exactly right. I have several friends that are defense attorneys and I like to annoy them with my unintelligent questions about the justice system because I simply do not understand how these trials work. As sad as it is.... Justice departments want to close cases as soon as possible. There just isn't enough time or resources to search for a murderer at random. Once a suspect is chosen... It's crunch time to depict every little evidence that can be used to prove that this suspect is the killer. No matter the truths to the evidence. It honestly blows my mind. Anything that can possibly be used against Steven Avery will be used in order to convict him and move on with the case. Even if a crime lab found other conflicting evidence while running tests, it might not get noted because that's not what was being looked at specifically. The problem is no one ever finds out the truth and the media spreads biased views on the case. After watching this series on a binge over Christmas, I was pissed and immediately called my attorney friend. He sat on the phone with me and was going off too because the case made him so mad. BUT the documentary is shown from one side so we do feel sympathetic towards Steven. And the comment about him being a sociopath is more than likely true. Whether he committed the crime or not, his lack of emotion could definitely be a developmental disability. I have a degree in counseling and many of my psychology classes discussed the different level of sociopaths. Some are so brilliant that they know how to manipulate and fake their emotions in certain situations, but in reality do not feel anything. These high functioning sociopaths are scary because they can sometimes be our leaders in society...so smart and do not care to hurt anyone to get what they want. The other type of sociopath is one that never developed empathy due to a lack of a thriving environment during critical growth stages. Growing up in a neglectful home for example could possibly lead to sociopath tendacies. There are many other reasons also that can cause a person to not feel empathy. I guess I'm just "pro-counseling" but I wish Steven Avery would undergo a psych evaluation and therapy. Whether he has or not I'm not aware of it. I'd like to see what other professionals from an unbiased perspective had to say about Steven's traumatic circumstances and the reactions that he has towards handling his situations. Sorry for rambling on! This is my first post ever by the way. I'm obsessed with websleuths. Thanks for all of the interesting info and hard work that is put into this site.

 

[stephsb]

For anyone interested in Brendan's testimony regarding Teresa being in the back of the jeep/garage/changing plans of disposal, here are certain aspects of it from the 3/1 confession. IMO, this is some of the most confusing testimony Brendan gives

pg 592
W: Was she ever in the garage?
B: No
W: OK, so you carry her to the side of the garage and you guys shoot her, and Steve shoots her or you shoot her?
B: He does

pg 595-597
F: Ok Brendan, we gotta, I think, I think you're doing a real good job up to this point of coming forward and stuff, but you bring her out of the house, you just said that, after you put her on the, on the fire, then, then you wanted to get the car, help get the car out of the garage and stuff. Again, we have, we know that some things happened in that garage, and in that car, we know that. You need to tell us this so we know you're telling us the truth. I'm not gonna tell you what to say, you need to tell us.
B: That he, he was gonna put
B: He was gonna put her in the jeep in the back of the jeep.
B: And we were gonna take her down in the pit and throw her in that water
F: OK
B: We, he came up w. burning her. So he set her back on the floor and then, that's when he threw her on the fire
F: Ok, now let's back up, so Mark can hear this too. You bring her out of the house, you, you're gonna take, you took her in the garage? Tell me what happened so Mark can hear this
B: Well he put her in the back of the jeep and he said he was gonna go down in the pit and throw her in the water in the pond and that's when he came up w. burning her.
W: Who?
F: Earlier you said this fire was going already
B: Yeah
F: It was?
W: So you take her, where is she shot then?
F: Tell us where she was shot?
B: In the head
F: No, I mean where, in the garage
B: Oh
F: Outside, in the house
B: In the garage
F: OK
W: Was she on the garage floor or was she in the truck?
B: In the truck
W: Come on now, where was she shot? Be honest here
F: The truth
B: In the garage
W: Before she was put in the truck or after?
B: After
F: So she's in the truck and that's when he shoots her? (Brendan nods yes) How many times?
(pause)
F: Remember we got a number of shell casings that we found in that garage. I'm not gonna tell you how many but you need to tell me how many times, about, that she was shot.
W: We know you shot her too. Is that right. (Brendan shakes head no) Then who did?
B: I don't know
W: Who shot her?
B: I didn't even touch the gun
W: Ok. How many times did Steven shoot her?
B: About ten
F: And she was in the back of the truck or the SUV that whole time that he shot her?
B: She was on the, garage floor
W: She was on the garage floor, OK
F: All right
W: That makes sense. Now we believe you.

pg 599
W: So let me just back up again, so you bring her into the garage, you put her in the truck initially?
B: (nods yes)
W: Then you take her out of the truck?
B: (nods yes)

JMO, but I don't think there is anything useful from this. His story is completely inconsistent, he initially says she is shot in the bedroom, then the side of the garage, then the jeep, then the garage, after being slowly led to that answer.

 

[dexter75]

Thank you!

This IS a discussion board BUT geesh, norest, you can single ME out if it'll make you feel better:blushing:

I have stated I'm not convinced SA is guilty. I have said " because he didn't do it " I have said " the truth will come out, it always does"

Does THIS help?
Can't do anything about anyone else's words though, just things I have typed.

And if SA is given a FAIR and JUST shot ( pun intended ) at being PRESUMED INNOCENT
And if indeed he is CONVICTED, I'll accept it. Absolutely

Actually, you didn't. You said "people" was a general term to refer to those outside of this forum that are frustrating you because they seem to base their opinion on the documentary only. I get that. But why do you keep belaboring that point, here, where people are considering other options and ARE open to other opinions and ARE basing their opinions on other things other than the documentary?? It seems kind of a wast of a post to keep belaboring a point that seems to be irrelevant in THIS forum. If you are frustrated with THOSE people on OTHER forums, take it up with them. Many of us here have expressed our frustration at your continued belittling of those of us who simply don't agree with your opinion.

We get it. You believe he is guilty. That's great. Good for you. We can continue to go back and forth and give our opinions as to why we respectfully disagree, but none of us are interested in being considered close-minded sheep who only base our opinions on one documentary. There are people here who have very valid concerns about how this investigation was handled and feel they have some reasonable doubts as to whether or not these men are guilty. There is a LOT of information out there to discover and share and that is why we are all here. If you have figured it all out already, then what else is there for you to discuss or learn? Unless you are here to listen to other people's opinions, consider the evidence that others are putting forward, I have to ask you why you are even here to begin with?