Where Do You Think Teresa Halbach was Killed?

Discussion in 'Netflix Series: Making A Murderer' started by BigCityAccountant, Feb 26, 2016.

  1. Karinna

    Karinna Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    10,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh i appreciate people hunt and kill their own food sources BCA, and my point was really more to do with if someone killed TH as supposedly they did because it is a murder case, then if that person was used to disposal of the remainder of what they needed to dispose of they would know what to do in that regard. It is also implicated that TH was dismembered, so not sure what to think about that? Her bone fragments were definitely broken down to be fragmented into small pieces that were found in in the different locations they were found.
    But you are right just because someone kills and prepares animals for their food doesn't make them a murderer of human beings, and i wasn't trying to imply that.
     


  2. dexter75

    dexter75 Active Member

    Messages:
    2,208
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Oh yes, my friend...ST has been right at the tip top of my list since the beginning😉

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
     
  3. BigCityAccountant

    BigCityAccountant Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,404
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    .
    N/P Karinna! :) Pulling in a list of hunters from the area just widens the list of potential suspects. I think I've only met 1 male from the area that doesn't like to hunt. I'm sure there is a few more, but I just haven't met them! Its kind of like a macho thing for them. I would even venture to guess Kratz enjoyed hunting too. LOL

    In fact I've read somewhere and of course, I don't remember where. It may have been O'Neil's interview of SA that he used to enjoy hunting and fishing as well. I'll say JMO, because I don't feel like going and looking for it. :D
     
  4. Nancy1954

    Nancy1954 greenmtngal

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    33
    I believe that SA murdered TH in the garage. He had been in prison for years for a rape that dna proved he didn't commit. He was very angry over the injustice. I think his mindset may have been.."I'll just do what I have been accused of !" I think TH was lured to SA's place by a ruse because he called TH office and left a message with whomever answered the phone that he wanted a vehicle advertised in the Auto Hunter magazine..gave his mother's name...and specifically asked them to send TH there to do the job. TH wasn't comfortable around SA as the last time she put a vehicle for sale for him..he answered his door with just a towel around his waist..just from a shower. She had told those she worked with at the office that she didn't want to go to his place again because she felt so uncomfortable around SA. I believe that SA raped and tortured TH in the bedroom..and had placed a plastic 'sheet' on the bed so no evidence/dna wouldn't get left behind. I believe he figured he should finish her off because she would go to the police & he would be back in jail on legitimate charges this time. I think it could have been any woman SA could get hold of..TH just happened to be who came to mind & it was easy for him to lure her out there..her thinking it was another Avery that she was going to take the car pictures of . I truly believe that SA planned TH murder & is a psychopath..lets not forget the poor cat that he burned alive! And he belongs exactly where he is-IN PRISON-hopefully death or life without parole. What I would really like is to see what he did to TH.. done to him. JMO.
     
  5. Nancy1954

    Nancy1954 greenmtngal

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    33
    P.S. I have seen 'Making A Murderer' and in my opinion it is full of half-truths, left out information, sensationalized..and not worth the film it was made on. I can't believe that so many people were duped into believing that SA is innocent!:notgood:
     
  6. CoolJ

    CoolJ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    2,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your previous post makes it quite clear you do not have even a basic understanding of the facts of this case. It is no wonder you think SA to be guilty. You are completely 100% spewing out, almost word for word, the Ken Kratz fairy tale of events.

    I suggest more research. And lots of it.
     
  7. Ozoner

    Ozoner Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,000
    Likes Received:
    2,940
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've reviewed the evidence and still have no doubt that SA is guilty. One fallacy you're falling for is the notion that if the prosecution is wrong about one particular, then SA must be innocent. That isn't true. I don't know whether TH was killed indoors, outdoors, or in a car. I don't know how soon the nephew, BD, became involved.
    We know that SA is a psychopath. News flash: non-psychopaths don't grill live kittens to death over an open flame for kicks. His psychopathic personality is valid evidence: as a psychopath, he's fully capable of murder. The remaining evidence all points to his guilt as well, despite any acrobatic attempts to dismiss it. I don't know whether the jury believed every aspect of the prosecution's theory of the case, but no
    jury has to do that.
    But people are free to believe that police planted evidence in a conspiracy of DaVinci-Code proportions. That's the more likely scenario to a certain type of person, apparently.
     
  8. Karinna

    Karinna Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    10,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I respect your opinion but don't agree SA is a psychopath because of the cat incident. He has never been given such a diagnosis by any physician.
    I recall reading ages ago that it wasn't actually SA that threw the cat on the fire. He poured the fuel on it. As cruel as that is he did express remorse over it. A psychopath is never remorseful. They have no conscience.
    Anyway i guess we will find out when KZ is able to take this case further in the appeals courts and all her evidence is finalized.
    Just all IMO.
     
  9. CoolJ

    CoolJ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    2,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not falling for anything. I didn’t even bring up the notion of the prosecution being wrong about “one particular”. That is the exact script I see being used by the states PR group to influence public opinion.

    It’s only been you and Ken Kratz who have asserted SA a psychopath with zero proof. He clearly is not a psychopath.

    He is clearly innocent. 100%. Not a doubt in my mind.
     
  10. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    22,782
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The :cat:

    :scared:

    The "facts" about the cat incident can be found in another thread. The "facts" about SA calling AutoTrader that morning can also be found. The "facts" about what TH said and didn't say to her co-workers can also be found in the documents available to all of us.

    I agree with CoolJ, seems to be some parroting of KK and common arguments of those that believe SA is guilty, no matter what the "facts" show.

    JMO
     
  11. LifeCitizen

    LifeCitizen Active Member

    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I still think SA is innocent.

    I'm going to catch up on some reading that I've missed.

    Nice to see the regs still here :)
     
  12. BigCityAccountant

    BigCityAccountant Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,404
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That Darn Cat :facepalm:
     
  13. Saul Vesalot

    Saul Vesalot Active Member

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    43
    No you haven't.*

    What if they're wrong about dozens of particulars? (Whatever a "particular" is)
    How many "particulars" can they be wrong about before we are allowed to question the conclusion the jury came to? This isn't rhetorical, how wrong can the prosecution be before we get suspicious? You can present this number as a percent. IE the prosecution can be 12% wrong, for example.


    The police don't know either, which is a pretty big deal considering they asserted a time and location where she was killed in the trials. This REALLY matters. They, at best, misrepresented the data they had.

    * This is how I know you haven't reviewed the evidence.
    This is a thing you have made up, or it is a thing someone else made up and you are repeating.

    If you want me to get pedantic, psychopathy isn't currently a recognized medical diagnosis by any psychology or psychiatric organization in the entire world.
    And even if it was a real, accepted diagnosis, you are not qualified to make it.
    And even if you were, you have not personally taken the steps to make an honest and accurate assessment of his mental health, meaning you are engaging in an unprofessional and unethical behavior. Diagnosing from afar is usually a big no-no. It is even, usually, frowned upon when trying to diagnose a historical figure who is long dead.

    You're misinformed. The "cruelty to animals is a sure sign of a killer" is wrong. And has been known to be inaccurate for quite a long while now. It is pretty common, but not necessarily an indicator that juvenile perpetrators of animal cruelty will necessarily grow up to be killers.

    Cruelty towards animals is far more likely to indicate the person was abused, excessively humiliated, or neglected. You find a kid that hurts animals and you have found a kid that needs help, pronto.

    Plus, there absolutely are people that hurt animals, weren't abused, and didn't grow up and murder and dismember someone.

    Also, Steven didn't grill kittens over an open flame. This is a thing you made up, or someone else made up and you are repeating.

    This is still a thing you made up off the top of your head. Just re-iterating this fact because it needs re-iterating.

    TH's blood in the back of her car points to Steven's guilt? The panties and cell phone boxes the police took from TH's home prove Steven is guilty? There was A LOT of evidence, (a lot of it probably leads nowhere) and the fact that you generalize it so broadly (and wrongly) further illustrates, in my opinion, that you haven't really looked into this crime. Someone with specific knowledge can be specific can make clear, accurate, and specific pints. My guess is that you read internet opinions instead of primary source documents.
    Who has ever made this argument? This is a straw man. No one said the jury had to believe every little thing, but the fact that the prosecutor didn't believe it should be strong enough reasonable doubt. The series/timeline of events changed from one thing in Steven's trial to another during Brendan's. They either presented the truth in one trial and not the other, or the truth in neither trial.
    This is another mis-characterization. There are people that believe in vast, complicated conspiracies, but I see none routinely posted on this website. I don't even remember a huge, wide conspiracy being espoused in any of the MaM threads here, ever.
    Widespread laziness, stupidity, and incompetence are far more common explanations for the poor quality of the investigations.


    And honestly, I have said this before, but Steven is a good suspect. I think he very well could be guilty. But I do know the investigation and following trials were utter train-wrecks from the get-go.

    Justice is a process, not a result. Justice cannot be done if the process is broken. Otherwise, lynchings would sometimes be a good thing. If he really is guilty, the police could have rolled up their sleeves, did things by the book, and made an unimpeachable case. Instead, we have a case where the medical examiner was barred (the ME used the phrase "Walled off")from looking at the remains on the scene which is illegal from what I can tell. The investigation involves the police committing at least one crime.
    ...
    ...
    !!!
    Actually, the fact that a bunch of people (the cops) worked together to commit this particular crime probably counts as a conspiracy. Congratulations, you have just caused me to realize at least one (minor) conspiracy did in fact occur.

    Why we are expected to trust the results of this flawed and faulty investigation, is beyond me.
     
  14. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Probably in the garage.
     
  15. CoolJ

    CoolJ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    2,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Andrew Colbourn James Lenk

    ACJL - neat

    Are you posting on their behalf?
     
  16. Cherry

    Cherry Pie

    Messages:
    3,929
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Saw the trial, all of it. Mocumentaries are just that.
    Both are guilty; there's no going back.
     
  17. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Not on their behalf, but just couldn't think of a nickname.
     
  18. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I agree. SA most definitely guilty imo. With Brendan there is imo speculation how far he is involved. Whether he failed to be a hero and helped with the disposing of evidence, or that he indeed did stab and rape her.
     
  19. CoolJ

    CoolJ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    2,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are saying you were there for the entire trial? Which one SA or BD?

    And, oh yes there is going back. Follow along with those of us searching for the truth. "Don't be a sheep"
     
  20. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Aren't there more supporters of Avery though, then ppl who don't believe in his innocence?

    And how do you think people who think he is guilty have come to their conclusion? I doubt that's because of MaM. Speaking for myself, I came to that conclusion because of a search for the truth.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice