Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder? #2

Having debated the minutia of all of the above on many forums, I have zero desire to do so again. Someone else may care to engage and there are plenty of past posts here that do the same. Bottom line, he's been in prison for the Halbach murder for 14+ years and supposedly the best appellate attorney on the planet can't get him out. He is guilty as hell and deserves to rot in the same.

This is the same response I get every single time, without fail, I question the evidence. Moving on.

I look forward to debating with anyone on this forum who can discuss actual hard evidence (given this is a discussion board).

I would prefer if comments of rotting in hell were not thrown around here.
 
I am yet to see hard evidence on any of those points.

DNA - zero concrete evidence here
Blood/Hood latch - Again none of the analysis stacks up as sound scientific evidence
RAV4 - what a mess
Key - don’t get me started!
Burn pit - what a set up
Cell phone - an even bigger mess

I honestly believe the only reason Avery is in prison is because if his verdict got overturned, boy oh boy what a lot of trouble certain people would be in.

All just my own opinion and I am very open to being convinced of SA’s guilt but for that to happen hard evidence needs to materialize.

Not jumping on the cold-blooded killer bandwagon (yet)

BBM

On seeing the documentary I thought there was a fair possibility Steven had something to do with whatever happened to Teresa. It was only on further reflection and study of trial materials and other evidence that I came to the conclusion he was most likely altogether innocent.

The State's case, such as it is, seems to consist of all weak links.

MOO
 
Last edited:
BBM

On seeing the documentary I thought there was a fair possibility Steven had something to do with whatever happened to Teresa. It was only on further reflection and study of trial materials and other evidence that I came to the conclusion he was most likely altogether innocent.

The State's case, such as it is, seems to consist of all weak links.

MOO

BBM

Yep, the State's case is so weak the best appellate lawyer in the country can't put together a legal and convincing appeal to even get Avery a hearing. How long has she been on the case now ?
 
This is the same response I get every single time, without fail, I question the evidence. Moving on.

I look forward to debating with anyone on this forum who can discuss actual hard evidence (given this is a discussion board).

I would prefer if comments of rotting in hell were not thrown around here.

<modsnip>

Avery was convicted because of a mountain of evidence and the only way for him to be innocent is if things that never even occurred in crazy movies

What it would take for Steven Avery to be innocent

had occurred here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having watched this program when it aired, I was back and forth on Avery's guilt - up until they found Theresa's remains in a firepit not 20 feet from Avery's front door. Furthermore, Brendan stated Avery started the fire with tires, and melted radials from said tires were found on her charred remains. I would find it very unlikely the police burned her in this pit in the same manner Brendon stated, and even more unlikely that they stumbled across her body elsewhere burned in the same manner as Brendan described without alerting anybody, identified it via DNA, and packed it up to transport to Avery's farm in order to set him up for the murder.

This is really where it begins and ends for me.
 
Having watched this program when it aired, I was back and forth on Avery's guilt - up until they found Theresa's remains in a firepit not 20 feet from Avery's front door. Furthermore, Brendan stated Avery started the fire with tires, and melted radials from said tires were found on her charred remains. I would find it very unlikely the police burned her in this pit in the same manner Brendon stated, and even more unlikely that they stumbled across her body elsewhere burned in the same manner as Brendan described without alerting anybody, identified it via DNA, and packed it up to transport to Avery's farm in order to set him up for the murder.

This is really where it begins and ends for me.
Guilty imo. How is the evidence “planted”? At one time? Little by little? And they never knew people were inside their house?
 
<modsnip>

Avery was convicted because of a mountain of evidence and the only way for him to be innocent is if things that never even occurred in crazy movies

What it would take for Steven Avery to be innocent

had occurred here.

Can assure you I’m not ignoring evidence, I’m trying my hardest to find any.

I keep hearing these comments of “mountains of evidence” and yet I’ve asked for one example and still not come across one person who has been able to give any solid scientific evidence to show how this terrible murder happened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can assure you I’m not ignoring evidence, I’m trying my hardest to find any.

I keep hearing these comments of “mountains of evidence” and yet I’ve asked for one example and still not come across one person who has been able to give any solid scientific evidence to show how this terrible murder happened.
Very well said, Lass!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IDK
This is the same response I get every single time, without fail, I question the evidence. Moving on.

I look forward to debating with anyone on this forum who can discuss actual hard evidence (given this is a discussion board).

I would prefer if comments of rotting in hell were not thrown around here.
I don't mind debating the evidence. There is no chance whatsoever that Avery is innocent; the evidence against him is overwhelming.

Let's start with the proof of his psychopathy. When he was younger, Avery participated in burning a kitten alive on a grill for fun. That is not something that he denies. His conduct reflects a complete lack of empathy. Only a psychopath would do that, drunk or sober. Any non-psychopath would have intervened instead of gleefully participating. In my opinion, animals should have the same rights as humans, so I would be fine with his receiving life in prison for that offense.

So as a starting point, we have a suspect who is a known psychopath, and according to recent research, about 4.5% of people in the general population are psychopaths. That's about 1 person out of 22, so right out of the gate our suspect is someone far more likely than the average person to commit a sexual homicide. Let's not lose sight of that while examining the evidence.

As far as questioning the evidence goes, feel free to share your thoughts. It's fairly easy to to challenge any one piece of evidence, but when there are many pieces of evidence that you need to challenge, you have to ask yourself, "How likely is it that every one of these pieces of evidence isn't saying what it appears to say?"

Let's discuss Theresa Halbach's car. It was found in the Avery's family's salvage yard, so a reasonable conclusion is that someone with a direct connection to the property is responsible for Theresa Halbach's death. That's a fairly short list, and it is reasonable to start with the known psychopath at that address as the prime suspect.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind debating the evidence. There is no chance whatsoever that Avery is innocent; the evidence against him is overwhelming.

Let's start with the proof of his psychopathy. When he was younger, Avery participated in burning a kitten alive on a grill for fun. That is not something that he denies. His conduct reflects a complete lack of empathy. Only a psychopath would do that, drunk or sober. Any non-psychopath would have intervened instead of gleefully participating. In my opinion, animals should have the same rights as humans, so I would be fine with his receiving life in prison for that offense.

So as a starting point, we have a suspect who is a known psychopath, and according to recent research, about 4.5% of people in the general population are psychopaths. That's about 1 person out of 22, so right out of the gate our suspect is someone far more likely than the average person to commit a sexual homicide. Let's not lose sight of that while examining the evidence.

As far as questioning the evidence goes, feel free to share your thoughts. It's fairly easy to to challenge any one piece of evidence, but when there are many pieces of evidence that you need to challenge, you have to ask yourself, "How likely is it that every one of these pieces of evidence isn't saying what it appears to say?"

Let's discuss Theresa Halbach's car. It was found in the Avery's family's salvage yard, so a reasonable conclusion is that someone with a direct connection to the property is responsible for Theresa Halbach's death. That's a fairly short list, and it is reasonable to start with the known psychopath at that address as the prime suspect.

But regardless (as horrible as it was) what he did to the cat in his earlier years, this doesn’t act as evidence in this case ie. how Teresa was murdered?
Also with the car, it being found on the property doesn’t act as legitimate proof either?
I’m not debating the fact there are lots of signs that may point towards SA, my question is where the actual scientific evidence is.
For example, the case was won based on TH being slaughtered in the trailer. Yet not one drop of blood was found. How is this possible? Where is the (actual scientific evidence) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened that way?
 
But regardless (as horrible as it was) what he did to the cat in his earlier years, this doesn’t act as evidence in this case ie. how Teresa was murdered?
Also with the car, it being found on the property doesn’t act as legitimate proof either?
I’m not debating the fact there are lots of signs that may point towards SA, my question is where the actual scientific evidence is.
For example, the case was won based on TH being slaughtered in the trailer. Yet not one drop of blood was found. How is this possible? Where is the (actual scientific evidence) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened that way?
There's a presumption in your post that needs to be addressed. You mentioned wanting to know how Theresa was murdered, but it isn't necessary to know that in order to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether Avery murdered her.

Because her body was burned, it isn't possible to know the cause of death. In many cases of homicide with a sexual motive, which seems likely, the cause of death is manual strangulation, but she could have been bludgeoned, she could have been strangled with a garotte, etc. However, the cause of death is irrelevant. The fact that her body was burned points towards homicide as the manner of death.

We also can't know the precise location. It could have been in the trailer, but it also could have been outdoors. The prosecution might offer one scenario of how the murder could have occurred, but the jury doesn't need to accept that scenario in order to find Avery guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Think of a situation where a husband and wife live alone, and then nobody sees the wife for a while. The husband has a history of domestic violence and never reports his wife missing. He lies to her family members about where she is. Eventually law enforcement investigates and finds her body buried in the back yard, but her body is too badly decomposed for a cause of death to be determined.

Cases like that have occurred many, many times, and the prosecution usually doesn't bother to offer a particular scenario because there is no way to know—but it doesn't matter. The circumstances are easy enough to read, and juries find murderers guilty in situations like that all the time. Scientific evidence isn't necessary; circumstantial evidence is often just as powerful.
 
There's a presumption in your post that needs to be addressed. You mentioned wanting to know how Theresa was murdered, but it isn't necessary to know that in order to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether Avery murdered her.

Because her body was burned, it isn't possible to know the cause of death. In many cases of homicide with a sexual motive, which seems likely, the cause of death is manual strangulation, but she could have been bludgeoned, she could have been strangled with a garotte, etc. However, the cause of death is irrelevant. The fact that her body was burned points towards homicide as the manner of death.

We also can't know the precise location. It could have been in the trailer, but it also could have been outdoors. The prosecution might offer one scenario of how the murder could have occurred, but the jury doesn't need to accept that scenario in order to find Avery guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Think of a situation where a husband and wife live alone, and then nobody sees the wife for a while. The husband has a history of domestic violence and never reports his wife missing. He lies to her family members about where she is. Eventually law enforcement investigates and finds her body buried in the back yard, but her body is too badly decomposed for a cause of death to be determined.

Cases like that have occurred many, many times, and the prosecution usually doesn't bother to offer a particular scenario because there is no way to know—but it doesn't matter. The circumstances are easy enough to read, and juries find murderers guilty in situations like that all the time. Scientific evidence isn't necessary; circumstantial evidence is often just as powerful.
Interesting points - the UK system must work very differently. I know evidence needs to underpin a charge otherwise how can you say you are sure someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Basically if someone is killed on your property you better get ready to be accused and easily found guilty, as no evidence is needed to prove you actually touched them.
 
Interesting points - the UK system must work very differently. I know evidence needs to underpin a charge otherwise how can you say you are sure someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Basically if someone is killed on your property you better get ready to be accused and easily found guilty, as no evidence is needed to prove you actually touched them.
Evidence does need to underpin a charge in the U.S., but it doesn't need to be "scientific" evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. That's what you're failing to grasp.
 
There's a presumption in your post that needs to be addressed. You mentioned wanting to know how Theresa was murdered, but it isn't necessary to know that in order to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether Avery murdered her.

Because her body was burned, it isn't possible to know the cause of death. In many cases of homicide with a sexual motive, which seems likely, the cause of death is manual strangulation, but she could have been bludgeoned, she could have been strangled with a garotte, etc. However, the cause of death is irrelevant. The fact that her body was burned points towards homicide as the manner of death.

We also can't know the precise location. It could have been in the trailer, but it also could have been outdoors. The prosecution might offer one scenario of how the murder could have occurred, but the jury doesn't need to accept that scenario in order to find Avery guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Think of a situation where a husband and wife live alone, and then nobody sees the wife for a while. The husband has a history of domestic violence and never reports his wife missing. He lies to her family members about where she is. Eventually law enforcement investigates and finds her body buried in the back yard, but her body is too badly decomposed for a cause of death to be determined.

Cases like that have occurred many, many times, and the prosecution usually doesn't bother to offer a particular scenario because there is no way to know—but it doesn't matter. The circumstances are easy enough to read, and juries find murderers guilty in situations like that all the time. Scientific evidence isn't necessary; circumstantial evidence is often just as powerful.
I agree with your statement that cases like that have occurred in the past. However, there is one huge difference— in any of the of the cases you refer to, had the alleged perpetrator been previously falsely accused, imprisoned and then found to be innocent? That’s a game changer, IMO. There is just no comparison.
 
I don't mind debating the evidence. There is no chance whatsoever that Avery is innocent; the evidence against him is overwhelming.

Let's start with the proof of his psychopathy. When he was younger, Avery participated in burning a kitten alive on a grill for fun. That is not something that he denies. His conduct reflects a complete lack of empathy. Only a psychopath would do that, drunk or sober. Any non-psychopath would have intervened instead of gleefully participating. In my opinion, animals should have the same rights as humans, so I would be fine with his receiving life in prison for that offense.

So as a starting point, we have a suspect who is a known psychopath, and according to recent research, about 4.5% of people in the general population are psychopaths. That's about 1 person out of 22, so right out of the gate our suspect is someone far more likely than the average person to commit a sexual homicide. Let's not lose sight of that while examining the evidence.

As far as questioning the evidence goes, feel free to share your thoughts. It's fairly easy to to challenge any one piece of evidence, but when there are many pieces of evidence that you need to challenge, you have to ask yourself, "How likely is it that every one of these pieces of evidence isn't saying what it appears to say?"

Let's discuss Theresa Halbach's car. It was found in the Avery's family's salvage yard, so a reasonable conclusion is that someone with a direct connection to the property is responsible for Theresa Halbach's death. That's a fairly short list, and it is reasonable to start with the known psychopath at that address as the prime suspect.
being a psychopath is a diagnosis on the DSM - he has never been identified or diagnosed from any article that I have read, as being a psychopath. Let's discuss the 17 years he spent in prison prior to the murder of Theresa... he learned to manipulate better in that environment than being at home and manipulating things. The evidence with the car, the blood in the car, the burning of her body in the firepit - it's there. Who else would be capable of burning a body in a firepit close to the house and garage where he lived? His nephew, I believe is on the spectrum and Steven manipulated him into helping dispose of the body after Steven killed Theressa. Brendon Dassey doesn't have the knowledge nor the ability to manipulate as well as his uncle does.

Steven is not innocent in this case. The super star thought he was going to get away with a murder of Theresa after she told him no, after what someone could assern were sexual advances. This wasn't Theresa's first encounter with Steven.

And I have met Steven - let me tell you...even not knowing this... the hair on your neck stands up. This is a man you will see in the mall or a water park or grocery store, grab your kids hands and walk away as fast as you can. That kind of creepy feeling that Theresa said she had when she met him.
 
being a psychopath is a diagnosis on the DSM - he has never been identified or diagnosed from any article that I have read, as being a psychopath. Let's discuss the 17 years he spent in prison prior to the murder of Theresa... he learned to manipulate better in that environment than being at home and manipulating things. The evidence with the car, the blood in the car, the burning of her body in the firepit - it's there. Who else would be capable of burning a body in a firepit close to the house and garage where he lived? His nephew, I believe is on the spectrum and Steven manipulated him into helping dispose of the body after Steven killed Theressa. Brendon Dassey doesn't have the knowledge nor the ability to manipulate as well as his uncle does.

Steven is not innocent in this case. The super star thought he was going to get away with a murder of Theresa after she told him no, after what someone could assern were sexual advances. This wasn't Theresa's first encounter with Steven.

And I have met Steven - let me tell you...even not knowing this... the hair on your neck stands up. This is a man you will see in the mall or a water park or grocery store, grab your kids hands and walk away as fast as you can. That kind of creepy feeling that Theresa said she had when she met him.
He’s terrifying, and it infuriates me that “Making a Murderer,” influenced so many people. He was wrongly convicted, but it just delayed what he was going to become; a serial killer. Thank god he didn’t get there.
 
The evidence with the car, the blood in the car, the burning of her body in the firepit - it's there. Who else would be capable of burning a body in a firepit close to the house and garage where he lived? His nephew, I believe is on the spectrum and Steven manipulated him into helping dispose of the body after Steven killed Theressa. Brendon Dassey doesn't have the knowledge nor the ability to manipulate as well as his uncle does.
being a psychopath is a diagnosis on the DSM - he has never been identified or diagnosed from any article that I have read, as being a psychopath. Let's discuss the 17 years he spent in prison prior to the murder of Theresa... he learned to manipulate better in that environment than being at home and manipulating things. The evidence with the car, the blood in the car, the burning of her body in the firepit - it's there. Who else would be capable of burning a body in a firepit close to the house and garage where he lived? His nephew, I believe is on the spectrum and Steven manipulated him into helping dispose of the body after Steven killed Theressa. Brendon Dassey doesn't have the knowledge nor the ability to manipulate as well as his uncle does.

Steven is not innocent in this case. The super star thought he was going to get away with a murder of Theresa after she told him no, after what someone could assern were sexual advances. This wasn't Theresa's first encounter with Steven.

And I have met Steven - let me tell you...even not knowing this... the hair on your neck stands up. This is a man you will see in the mall or a water park or grocery store, grab your kids hands and walk away as fast as you can. That kind of creepy feeling that Theresa said she had when she met him.

I don’t agree on the evidence point. Searching a barrel and only after the 3rd attempt discovering bones is never going to wash.

I’m interested to understand though, how do you think he killed Teresa?
 
So I've started watching this series and am half way through it. I thought I'd watch this, then watch the second series, convicting a murderer. I also want to read through the trial transcripts myself to see what all is in there. So far, I'm certain that Brendan was wrongfully convicted and a victim in this entire affair. As for Steven, I'm still unsure. I haven't finished the series, but I'm saddened that there isn't more focus on Teresa. It's very hard to find anything about her other than the barest of facts. I'm hoping that the trial transcripts will provide more information about her, the day she went missing and her life. There's no doubt she died, but where and how is still a big question. I've also read the previous news reports on Steven before the 1985 rape case. He was in trouble a few times as part of a group of boys, but that all came to a stop after the cat burning.
 
So I read the transcripts. Saw Making a Murderer and Convicting a Murderer and I have to say I do believe Steven Avery is guilty. I really started this thinking he had been railroaded, but everything points to his guilt. I do also believe Brendan was involved. I don't think Teresa was murdered the way the police theorized. I believe Steven followed her off the property, or led her off the property, assaulted her and killed her. I hope he continues to rot in prison.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
1,173
Total visitors
1,389

Forum statistics

Threads
596,854
Messages
18,055,148
Members
230,117
Latest member
stephaniestephanie
Back
Top