Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

Status
Not open for further replies.

AutumnDawn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
114
Reaction score
381
If Steven killed her and burnt her body....
her to
1.He would have had to murder her at his home and have something to contain the blood with so it did not splatter or get on everything. He was then able to stop all of her bleeding so that he could carry her out the house....down the porch....across the yard....and into the garage where he shot her multiple times. Then he stopped the bleeding again and carried her to the vehicle. Oh wait, I forgot, first they sat down to watch tv, and talk for a few minutes. Somehow her blood/DNA did not get on them or anywhere on the furniture in the home.

2. Put her in the back of her vehicle the Rav4, she was bleeding but astonishingly only a little of her blood was found in the back, although he slashed her throat and shot her multiple times in the garage. BA goes home to play video games, no blood on him though.

3. Drove out to the quarry and burned her body. He either bought the burn barrel with him, or took one from the quarry.

3. Stayed at the quarry for 1-3 hours....picked up her remains and placed them in the burn barrel. He missed a few pieces though because they were later recovered from the site. Loads the burn barrel back into the RAV4 and takes it back to his property.

4. He then calls BA over to because because he participated in earlier events according to BD, and jurors apparently believed part of that story. Avery has taken the burn barrel out of the back of the RAV4 and dumped the remains into his own backyards fire pit. BD looks into the fire pit and sees her forehead, stomach, and toes. Not sure how he saw this if she was already burned at one site and then transferred back to the house. SA then uses a "rake and a shovel" to break apart the remains of a human corpse. I suppose she was not all the way burned at the quarry and he wanted to be closer to home. Somehow he got her partially, but still identifiable remains into the burn barrel.

5. While a human body is burning in the pit they drive the RAV4 to the spot where it was found a few days later. No one on the entire property sees this except for SA and BD. SA takes off the license plates, and disconnects the battery, so that no one could drive it off the property, is my guess. Then he covers it with some branches and stuff and they walk back.

6. While the body is burning in the pit they go clean the invisible blood in the garage with bleach that BD got on his pants, and he throws the key that becomes invisible by the cabinet until days later when LE finally spots it.


7. They go get a golf car and drive around the property for things to add to the fire.

8. BD goes home, and SA stays outside at the fire pit.

9. SA leaves the remains in his backyard and when LE came he let them in. LE sees nothing in the home that is alarming, but misses the fact that a fire had been going on in the backyard a few days prior and a girl is missing.

10. Colborn calls in the plate and make of the car that he saw in his head.

11. November 10th someone FINALLY notices the burn pit in the backyard and it has bones.

This evidence makes no sense at all......or Avery is the dumbest criminal alive.
 

AutumnDawn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
114
Reaction score
381
There is the whole question about the hour that is missing when she told her co worker she was 10 minutes from Avery's but was not seen there for another hour. I would guess Avery called because she was not there at the time but has anyone even seen what time she was supposed to be there?Was she an hour late for the van photo's?

That is my question too.....bus driver says she saw her around 3:40 taking pictures. What was she doing?
 

Staceysauer

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Agreed. Seems strange she says this after 5 months. How do you know she truly said it just because they said she did. Especially given their history.
 

Itsmevkb

Active Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
162
Reaction score
183
This is how I feel as well. Why in the world would he put his newly gained freedom in jeopardy. No way......no how.

I'm going in the direction that a vehicle with a lone woman was seen exiting the junkyard.

The person/persons who saw TH leaving the photo shoot set SA up. Big time.

A) Jealousy ?

B) Financial ?

C) karma ?


Do you have any idea how many people who are released from prison end up back there? Each has newly found freedom and yet quite a few of them will re-offend and end up back in prison. Clearly it's not a huge motivation for many people.

The same question could be asked why after robbing the bar he then proceeded to burn a cat alive and THEN ran a woman off the road and brandished a rifle at her. That's two times he had the ability not to continue committing crimes but chose to do so anyway, not to mention the opportunity to just never commit any crime in the first place. He was married with four young children. If that isn't motivation enough to not get thrown in jail or prison I'm not sure why anyone would think motivation to not return to prison would work the fourth time around.

If anything, I think the wrongful conviction for the rape made him feel he had a free pass.
 

Really?

South Jersey USA
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
4,851
Reaction score
4,527
Do you have any idea how many people who are released from prison end up back there? Each has newly found freedom and yet quite a few of them will re-offend and end up back in prison. Clearly it's not a huge motivation for many people.

The same question could be asked why after robbing the bar he then proceeded to burn a cat alive and THEN ran a woman off the road and brandished a rifle at her. That's two times he had the ability not to continue committing crimes but chose to do so anyway, not to mention the opportunity to just never commit any crime in the first place. He was married with four young children. If that isn't motivation enough to not get thrown in jail or prison I'm not sure why anyone would think motivation to not return to prison would work the fourth time around.

If anything, I think the wrongful conviction for the rape made him feel he had a free pass.



Did not "re-offend"
 

LemonMousse

Former Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
939
Reaction score
0
Do you have any idea how many people who are released from prison end up back there? Each has newly found freedom and yet quite a few of them will re-offend and end up back in prison. Clearly it's not a huge motivation for many people.

The same question could be asked why after robbing the bar he then proceeded to burn a cat alive and THEN ran a woman off the road and brandished a rifle at her. That's two times he had the ability not to continue committing crimes but chose to do so anyway, not to mention the opportunity to just never commit any crime in the first place. He was married with four young children. If that isn't motivation enough to not get thrown in jail or prison I'm not sure why anyone would think motivation to not return to prison would work the fourth time around.

If anything, I think the wrongful conviction for the rape made him feel he had a free pass.

Did he spend 18 years locked up for the burglary or cat incident? Did he pose for photo ops with prominent politicians afterwards? Was he in line for a £36m payout?

Apples and oranges.
 

ziggy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
4,750
Reaction score
18
Website
Visit site
To be fair, there are cases like this all across the U.S., in States where they do have to take the Bar and MPRE. Check out some of the death row exonerations that came out of Orleans parish under DA Harry Connick. These prosecutors said under oath they didn't know the meaning of the word "exculpatory evidence" Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama have also had egregious cases of prosecutorial misconduct and lack of ethics that have led to people being sent to death row- in some cases they are still on it, or have actually been executed. These are just cases I can think of off the top of my head, I'm sure there are dozens more.

I'm not trying to defend what these prosecutors or Dassey's defense attorney did, their behavior is inexcusable. Dassey's attorney should have been disbarred without question, I've said on here multiple times it's sick people actually pay for him to defend them (he is now in private practice in Appleton). I don't think it's right that WI does not have students take the bar, and for me personally, it was the number one reason I chose to attend law school in Illinois. That being said, I had to take two classes on ethics and that was just for a paralegal studies degree. These *advertiser censored**holes took the classes, they would have had to pass them to graduate, the problem is the people, not WI. A simple search of the Innocence Project or the Equal Justice Initiative will show that wrongful convictions are unfortunately a problem for the entire United States.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair point. There's always the state bar ethics hotline as well. It's just a lot harder to believe a lawyer who had to sit for the Bar and MPRE, who says they don't know what exculpatory evidence is. It removes any plausible deniability.

For instance, if you don't practice civil law in the federal system, you might not remember every detail of FRCP 11 or the 12b motions - simply because you had it in class and passed the exam. Yes, you could look them up.

How he escaped disbarment is beyond belief.
 

TheDuchess

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
601
OK - wow - just finished the entire documentary and couldn't take my eyes from it. I have been watching cases like this for a very long time and have NEVER seen anything like this. And I don't care how much they say this was skewed, or one-sided, etc...but their entire case was skewed and one-sided from the get go.

Bottom line - they want us to believe that the tag team duo of Brandon and Steve managed to pull off the most elaborately planned torture, rape and murder of this woman and managed to pretty much cover it up other than very slight evidence that was all found suspiciously??? And that these 2, each with an IQ of about 70, managed to do this??? To rape, torture, stab, slit the throat and shoot this woman umpteen times and still manage to burn the body so beyond recognition in a burn pit and leave NO evidence of her DNA in the bedroom, throughout the trailer or in that MESS of a garage??? There would have been blood in every crack and crevice of all the crap in that garage.

Then add to that such a horrible excuse for an attorney that Brandon had and that awful grin of his? Uck!

And then to top it all off, that blowhard of a prosecutor??? Sexually harassing victims of sexual assault???

I honestly have not seen a more preposterous case since the daycare abuse cases of the 80s where preposterous claims were made of hidden tunnels, satanic rituals, etc... This entire case is an absolute JOKE, except not a very funny one!
 

Itsmevkb

Active Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
162
Reaction score
183
Did not "re-offend"

Actually, he did, and did so three times - the cat, the incident with the woman and killing Teresa. He was a convicted felon at the time he was falsely imprisoned for rape. This idea that he wasn't a criminal prior to the wrongful conviction is false unless you believe he was also set-up for those three crimes PRIOR to the rape conviction.
 

Itsmevkb

Active Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
162
Reaction score
183
Did he spend 18 years locked up for the burglary or cat incident? Did he pose for photo ops with prominent politicians afterwards? Was he in line for a £36m payout?

Apples and oranges.

He was not in line for $36 million dollar payout. Just because a plaintiff makes a demand in a civil complaint for a certain amount of money doesn't mean he's going to get it. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, they don't.

And no, he didn't spend 18 years in prison for his previous crimes but he did spend time in prison for them. Six years for the incident with the rifle, he was sentenced to two years for the robbery but only served 10 months in jail for it but then it took him a mere 5 months to commit the cat crime and get sent to prison for 9 months. So, that's roughly eight years of prison sentences completely separate from the rape. Additionally, those three crimes happened within a fairly short time span given that part of the time in between them he was incarcerated. He committed a crime, spent 10 months in jail, went 5 months before committing another and then going to prison for 9 month. Then, it was about two years before the incident with the woman and rifle (which is technically two crimes because he was a felon in possession of a firearm.) Given the escalation in his crimes and the time span, why is it so hard to think he'd be able to go about two years out of prison before re-offending? To me it fits his previous pattern.

Additionally, even if he didn't kill Teresa, he should still be in prison today. He was sentenced to ten years for being yet again a felon in possession of a firearm so with or without the murder, he would be in prison until 2017.
 

Itsmevkb

Active Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
162
Reaction score
183
OK - wow - just finished the entire documentary and couldn't take my eyes from it. I have been watching cases like this for a very long time and have NEVER seen anything like this. And I don't care how much they say this was skewed, or one-sided, etc...but their entire case was skewed and one-sided from the get go.

Bottom line - they want us to believe that the tag team duo of Brandon and Steve managed to pull off the most elaborately planned torture, rape and murder of this woman and managed to pretty much cover it up other than very slight evidence that was all found suspiciously??? And that these 2, each with an IQ of about 70, managed to do this??? To rape, torture, stab, slit the throat and shoot this woman umpteen times and still manage to burn the body so beyond recognition in a burn pit and leave NO evidence of her DNA in the bedroom, throughout the trailer or in that MESS of a garage??? There would have been blood in every crack and crevice of all the crap in that garage.

Then add to that such a horrible excuse for an attorney that Brandon had and that awful grin of his? Uck!

And then to top it all off, that blowhard of a prosecutor??? Sexually harassing victims of sexual assault???

I honestly have not seen a more preposterous case since the daycare abuse cases of the 80s where preposterous claims were made of hidden tunnels, satanic rituals, etc... This entire case is an absolute JOKE, except not a very funny one!

Except that in this case there is an actual dead woman. No-one made that up.

As for the prosecutor, I'm just stunned by how often his texting of sexual assault victims is brought up as some sign of the type of guy he is, his morality, he perhaps being the sort of person who would perpetuate a set-up of Avery, etc. and yet Steven Avery burnt a cat alive in addition to actually assaulting a woman but we aren't supposed to consider that when considering if he could have killed Teresa.
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
How do we know she was raped/sexually assaulted? That came from Brendans confession which I believe is false

Brendan's confession is certainly false, but the notion of sexual assault was introduced by LE to Brendan- not something he came up with on his own. I'm not saying that it is certain, but I think it's a reasonable motive considering the crime. Certainly better than "Steven wanted to go back to jail" which is the motive Brendan gave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TheDuchess

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
601
Except that in this case there is an actual dead woman. No-one made that up.

As for the prosecutor, I'm just stunned by how often his texting of sexual assault victims is brought up as some sign of the type of guy he is, his morality, he perhaps being the sort of person who would perpetuate a set-up of Avery, etc. and yet Steven Avery burnt a cat alive in addition to actually assaulting a woman but we aren't supposed to consider that when considering if he could have killed Teresa.

One is an average citizen accused of a crime after being wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years. The other is suppose to be an upstanding trusted officer of the court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

LemonMousse

Former Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
939
Reaction score
0
He was not in line for $36 million dollar payout. Just because a plaintiff makes a demand in a civil complaint for a certain amount of money doesn't mean he's going to get it. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, they don't.

And no, he didn't spend 18 years in prison for his previous crimes but he did spend time in prison for them. Six years for the incident with the rifle, he was sentenced to two years for the robbery but only served 10 months in jail for it but then it took him a mere 5 months to commit the cat crime and get sent to prison for 9 months. So, that's roughly eight years of prison sentences completely separate from the rape. Additionally, those three crimes happened within a fairly short time span given that part of the time in between them he was incarcerated. He committed a crime, spent 10 months in jail, went 5 months before committing another and then going to prison for 9 month. Then, it was about two years before the incident with the woman and rifle (which is technically two crimes because he was a felon in possession of a firearm.) Given the escalation in his crimes and the time span, why is it so hard to think he'd be able to go about two years out of prison before re-offending? To me it fits his previous pattern.

Additionally, even if he didn't kill Teresa, he should still be in prison today. He was sentenced to ten years for being yet again a felon in possession of a firearm so with or without the murder, he would be in prison until 2017.

He was suing for $36m so he was at least hopeful of a large payout. His release from prison wasn't just another convict having done his time....he was on the news and famous. So, sorry...but no way is it comparable. No way.

That he had previously offended says nothing whatsoever about whether or not he committed this crime. There is a reason such information is withheld during court cases....because it is irrelevant.

And, to be honest, your assumption that he must have been "escalating" is the reason that juries are not told information like this....because they'll jump to illogical and judgemental conclusions like you have.

SA may have done it....he may not. Past behaviour says nothing either way. If you think it does, then I hope you are using the same logic to consider all the Avery brothers and Scott Tadych.

I have to say that it annoys me intensely that people keep going on and on and on about this cat. Horrible, horrible thing to do.....but how the hell does it compare with the brutal murder of a fellow human being? I also remain unimpressed with the jumping out with an empty gun business. That woman's statement was falsified, she clearly hated him and without her bad-mouthing him all over the place, it is unlikely to have happened at all. It is not at all the same thing as the motiveless MURDER of Theresa.

Oh...and he'd still be in prison now? So what? He wouldn't be facing the rest of his life in there and we wouldn't be discussing the case at all.
 

LemonMousse

Former Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
939
Reaction score
0
Except that in this case there is an actual dead woman. No-one made that up.

As for the prosecutor, I'm just stunned by how often his texting of sexual assault victims is brought up as some sign of the type of guy he is, his morality, he perhaps being the sort of person who would perpetuate a set-up of Avery, etc. and yet Steven Avery burnt a cat alive in addition to actually assaulting a woman but we aren't supposed to consider that when considering if he could have killed Teresa.

Yes, there is an actual dead woman. That's what makes this crime so incredibly DIFFERENT to anything Steven did before.

No, the sexting stuff is not what Kratz is condemned for. How about that disgraceful press conference? Leading a witness in a lie on the witness stand? Managing to advance two theories regarding one case in order to secure two convictions?
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
If Steven killed her and burnt her body....
her to
1.He would have had to murder her at his home and have something to contain the blood with so it did not splatter or get on everything. He was then able to stop all of her bleeding so that he could carry her out the house....down the porch....across the yard....and into the garage where he shot her multiple times. Then he stopped the bleeding again and carried her to the vehicle. Oh wait, I forgot, first they sat down to watch tv, and talk for a few minutes. Somehow her blood/DNA did not get on them or anywhere on the furniture in the home.

2. Put her in the back of her vehicle the Rav4, she was bleeding but astonishingly only a little of her blood was found in the back, although he slashed her throat and shot her multiple times in the garage. BA goes home to play video games, no blood on him though.

3. Drove out to the quarry and burned her body. He either bought the burn barrel with him, or took one from the quarry.

3. Stayed at the quarry for 1-3 hours....picked up her remains and placed them in the burn barrel. He missed a few pieces though because they were later recovered from the site. Loads the burn barrel back into the RAV4 and takes it back to his property.

4. He then calls BA over to because because he participated in earlier events according to BD, and jurors apparently believed part of that story. Avery has taken the burn barrel out of the back of the RAV4 and dumped the remains into his own backyards fire pit. BD looks into the fire pit and sees her forehead, stomach, and toes. Not sure how he saw this if she was already burned at one site and then transferred back to the house. SA then uses a "rake and a shovel" to break apart the remains of a human corpse. I suppose she was not all the way burned at the quarry and he wanted to be closer to home. Somehow he got her partially, but still identifiable remains into the burn barrel.

5. While a human body is burning in the pit they drive the RAV4 to the spot where it was found a few days later. No one on the entire property sees this except for SA and BD. SA takes off the license plates, and disconnects the battery, so that no one could drive it off the property, is my guess. Then he covers it with some branches and stuff and they walk back.

6. While the body is burning in the pit they go clean the invisible blood in the garage with bleach that BD got on his pants, and he throws the key that becomes invisible by the cabinet until days later when LE finally spots it.


7. They go get a golf car and drive around the property for things to add to the fire.

8. BD goes home, and SA stays outside at the fire pit.

9. SA leaves the remains in his backyard and when LE came he let them in. LE sees nothing in the home that is alarming, but misses the fact that a fire had been going on in the backyard a few days prior and a girl is missing.

10. Colborn calls in the plate and make of the car that he saw in his head.

11. November 10th someone FINALLY notices the burn pit in the backyard and it has bones.

This evidence makes no sense at all......or Avery is the dumbest criminal alive.

Of course the evidence DOESNT (edited) make sense, the bulk of what you cited came from an almost certainly false confession.

1. Was not claimed in Steven's trial that Teresa was shot. This came from Brendan's confession, which they did not use at Avery's trial. They went w. The theory she was shot in the garage.

2. Assuming you mean Brendan when you say BA, again, the slashing of the throat came from Brendans's confession.

3+4 Brendan's confession, with the toes in the fire pit, was not used against Steven, nor do I remember Brendan saying anything about a quarry.

5. Brendan states in his 2/27 interview that the car was driven past Chuck's, and when asked if Chuck knew, he said probably. He stuck to the story about Chuck, as well as seeing Chuck and Steven together in the garage the next day.

6. This is obviously false as chlorine bleach would not stop LE from detecting blood w. Luminol, since it doesn't remove hemoglobin. The State tried to insinuate that a different kind of bleach was used, one that removes hemoglobin, however, that would not have bleached Brendan's pants

7. EA was also using the golf cart that day. There was a cadaver dog hit on it, according to the defense

8. No reason why this couldn't be true.

9. Teresa had not yet been reported missing if I understand your timeline correctly. Initial searches of the junkyard were done w. Permission from EA, not Steven.

10. No problems with this one. It is suspicious

11. Burn pit was located on Nov 8th. Search of Stevens bedroom was done Nov 6th, property and garage searches conducted through the 8th. Per Dassey criminal complaint.

I do agree the evidence makes no sense, however, that doesn't necessarily make Steven innocent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
He was suing for $36m so he was at least hopeful of a large payout. His release from prison wasn't just another convict having done his time....he was on the news and famous. So, sorry...but no way is it comparable. No way.

That he had previously offended says nothing whatsoever about whether or not he committed this crime. There is a reason such information is withheld during court cases....because it is irrelevant.

And, to be honest, your assumption that he must have been "escalating" is the reason that juries are not told information like this....because they'll jump to illogical and judgemental conclusions like you have.

SA may have done it....he may not. Past behaviour says nothing either way. If you think it does, then I hope you are using the same logic to consider all the Avery brothers and Scott Tadych.

I have to say that it annoys me intensely that people keep going on and on and on about this cat. Horrible, horrible thing to do.....but how the hell does it compare with the brutal murder of a fellow human being? I also remain unimpressed with the jumping out with an empty gun business. That woman's statement was falsified, she clearly hated him and without her bad-mouthing him all over the place, it is unlikely to have happened at all. It is not at all the same thing as the motiveless MURDER of Theresa.

Oh...and he'd still be in prison now? So what? He wouldn't be facing the rest of his life in there and we wouldn't be discussing the case at all.

If he had taken the stand in his own defense, he would have had to reveal is prior felonies. I imagine that had a large part in why he didn't. The prosecution would have impeached his prior record for credibility.

The reason people keep mentioning the cat is because of the animal abuse and arson, two of the best signs of future homicidal tendencies. I have never said his past criminal behavior makes him guilty of murder, but I think it makes him a great suspect. Along w. CA, EA, and ST, all frequently inhabiting the property, all prior violent crimes like Steven. I have from the beginning asked for all of them to be investigated- they all certainly should have from the beginning, especially CA with no alibi.

Frankly, I am sick of people representing Steven as this great person turning his life around with no motive for this crime. This guy was a felon, convicted of violent crimes, just like his brothers. He deserved to be investigated as a suspect. That doesn't excuse the poor investigation and clear framing by LE, and it certainly does not excuse what happened to Brendan, but I don't understand for a second why this is a "motiveless crime." Any of those salvage yard residents could have had a motive, just because we don't know it doesn't mean there was none.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top