Where the Avery Conspiracy Theory Falls Apart

Discussion in 'Netflix Series: Making A Murderer' started by JanIreland, Jan 10, 2016.

  1. JanIreland

    JanIreland New Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have to admit usually Websleuths is my "go too" on all cases but the theories being thrown out here have me scratching my head at the moment , I also see people that in my eyes are bringing up some great points being completely slammed down.
    The amount of juggling people are doing to clear Avery is mental to me. I've even seen comments actually blaming the murder on the LE ...whatever about the planting but the murder ?! People actually believe the LE murdered this girl to lock lil Stevie up .....It's all getting a lil too silly too me . MOO
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Sleuther87

    Sleuther87 New Member

    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agreed. I think at least semi-valid excuses can be made for almost every singular piece of evidence on its own (the witness is lying, the evidence is planted, *67 because he likes privacy, just a coincidence that he had a bonfire capable of burning humans that night at the same place the last known person to see him alive's burnt bones are found, etc.).

    The problem is that so many of these excuses are unrelated and when added all together, you've got an absurd list that's pages long of bizarre occurences you need to believe if you're to believe Avery didn't do it.
     
  4. norest4thewicked

    norest4thewicked Karma is a beautiful thing ~

    Messages:
    5,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I could have written this myself..so thank you...I completely agree!

    To justify this killer's innocence, people are going way out of line. As if it wasn't ridiculous enough that some believe that LE killer Teresa themselves just to frame SA, they can't or won't come up with a logical opinion on WHO killed her, if LE didn't. They seem to just bypass that little detail. I've heard - "Well they just came across her body" (rolling my eyes) and "One of the relatives did it" (still rolling my eyes). I'd love to hear the answers to these questions -

    WHO KILLED TERESA IF IT WASN'T STEVEN AVERY? HOW DID THEY DO IT? WHEN DID THEY DO IT? WHERE DID THEY GET HIS BLOOD TO PLANT? HOW DID THEY GET HER DNA ON A BULLET FROM HIS GUN IN HIS GARAGE?

    I could go on and on but this is ridiculous. It boggles my mind that thinking people can believe all of the conspiracy set up but can't possibly believe that a key could have fallen from being tucked inside a piece of furniture that was picked up?
     
  5. SCHMAE

    SCHMAE Active Member

    Messages:
    12,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I think SA likely did kill her. But call me old fashioned, I'd like to see actual proof. As for the bullet, the woman testifying about it admitted on the stand that once she had contaminated the only existing and very tiny sample of dna on it, the test should have been ruled inconclusive, by her own words and her own protocol. So, I don't really know what to make of the bullet. My belief is that likely a few people who live on the property do know what happened to her and were involved with the crime itself or at least the cleanup and cover up of the crime. I do not believe SA acted alone if he acted at all. I do not believe SA and his nephew could have cleaned up a scene so well. There are more averys and / or tadychs who know the truth. Is there one piece of conrete, physical evidence that does NOT have a murky, shady, planted type of angle to it ? If so, I cannot recall it.
    Question for everyone ..........if SA had not been wrongfully convicted prior , would you feel as certain about his innocence this go around?
    Polygraphy everyone who lived on the property in 2005 and you 'll see the truth ! Moooo
     
  6. TheDuchess

    TheDuchess New Member

    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think this is an excellent question and the answer is unequivocally NO, because for me at least, that is the main reason WHY I believe there is not a level of reasonable doubt that has been made in this case. If he hadn't wrongfully convicted the first time, we really wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. Bottom line to me, is that from the very very beginning NONE of the same key players should have been anywhere NEAR this investigation, yet you have the very same people finding the evidence and processing the evidence in this case. If they all made mistakes the first time (likely due to their pre-conceived notions of SAs innocence,) then it is quite likely they would repeat the same behavior the 2nd time.

    Add to that the fact that there is so much blood evidence that SHOULD be there that ISN'T there, and the fact that they took advantage of a learning delayed 16 year old kid, and the fact that the prosecutor in the case was a drug-addicted sexual predator of the very worst kind, who abused his authority to sexually harass the very people he was charged with protecting?

    Yeah - I have a LOT of doubts. And so do a lot of people. And nothing can take away all of the very reasonable and logical DOUBTS that exist in this case, even if you add in all of the crud Kratz is trying to throw in recently. He needs to shut his big fat mouth.
     
  7. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Issue is that everyone seems to assume there needed to be some big cleanup. I don't see evidence of that.

    Sure, if you create a narrative that has a big bloody mess, then I get it.

    But the only evidence of a big bloody mess that we have is a 3x3 / 3x4 spot in the garage that may or may not be her blood.

    Which is why I keep saying, that if anyone is saying 2 people weren't capable of cleaning up that spot, I'd like to understand why.

    Lots of talk about blood splatter. We have zero evidence of blood splatter. So one of 3 things are plausible in order of probability :

    1. There was no blood splatter because a pillow or something of that nature was over the head when shooting. - very plausible
    2. The killing didn't take place in the garage. - very plausible
    3. There was blood splatter but it got cleaned up -- highly unlikley imo

    So why everyone feels we need to accept Kratz's version that came from a coerce brendan as a litmus test for whether 1 or 2 people could have killed her and cleaned up a mess of unconfirmed magnitude is confusing to me.

    I am pretty certain that no one accepts it happened that way. So why even argue it anymore ?

    But, looking at 1 & 2, it's common sense that they are something we have to consider and are both plausible.

    Only reason I say #1 is more probable is because

    There is a luminol hit on averys garage floor that may or may not be th's blood
    brendan's mother reports brendan told her he was cleaning avery's garage floor, after questioning him about his bleached pants that night.
    Tadych's co worker gave statement that the day of avery's arrest that tadych spoke of blood in his son's laundry mixed in with his clothes.

    Nothing that is proof, but it's things that fit together that give weight to the probability.


    Just tired of the "how could they clean up the mess" conversation, because no one even believes they could if it happened the way kratz described. So why even use it as a litmus test for anything ??

    But if ANYONE believes that, speak up and explain to us how you believe they could clean it up. My opinion is that the person doesn't exist but people keep talking to Kratz, who we all agree gave a crappy narrative.

    jmo
     
  8. norest4thewicked

    norest4thewicked Karma is a beautiful thing ~

    Messages:
    5,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  9. ScarlettScarpetta

    ScarlettScarpetta When the going gets tough, drink coffee

    Messages:
    12,667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is a great link but I don't think anyone here is basing their theories on the series alone. I think that most of people here really look at everything.. They could just see it differently than others.
     
  10. missy1974

    missy1974 New Member

    Messages:
    4,069
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I read it the first time you posted it ;-) Is there something in there that you think is earth shattering or that most of us have not seen or read yet? It looked like an opinion piece to me, and one that did not necessarily have any facts to back up her opinion.

    I really want to make it clear..... I did not decide that Avery was innocent after watching the Netflix series. I seen very early on in the series that it was slanted. Because I seen that, I started googling and researching as I was watching. I have decided that I still don't know who did it, if SA is guilty or innocent, BUT I have made a well researched decision that I believe this investigation and trial were seriously flawed and it warrants some sort of investigation and if that means new trials for SA and BD, so be it.

    Like you find it very hard for some to not just believe he is guilty because you so strongly believe it, and you have every right to believe this, I find it so very hard that some cannot see the mistakes that were made along the way and what I see could be corruption, or at the very least, gross negligence by LE in the way they handled this case, I also have the right to believe this.
     
  11. stephsb

    stephsb New Member

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To completely dismiss that evidence wasn't planted or someone else on the property didn't do is just as one-sided as the conspiracy theorists. The judge allowed the jury to be given instructions to consider if evidence could have been planted, even while Kratz argued against it. This was one of the first instructions to be given, so to say it bears no considering isn't fair. The jury considered it, everyone on here should as well.

    I do agree there are a lot of posters who go out of their way to make evidence fit the narrative they want- that Steven is innocent, and I don't think that's productive, but there are also people on here who refuse to believe there's any way police could have planted evidence (not calling out you personally) and that's not productive either. Colburn and Lenk should not have been on that scene, period. If they had recognized the conflict of interest and let others handle it, the key would have NEVER been an issue.

    To answer your questions (and this is just speculative, not necessarily what I believe): CA killed Teresa. No alibi, history of aggressive behavior w. Women, particularly sexual. Was on grounds and knew Teresa would be there. Could have been done anywhere on Avery property, probably between 3-5. Had access to Stevens house (Jodi woke up to him in the house uninvited before) could have taken the gun, or the bullet could have been planted to strengthen the case. Steven had been bleeding earlier, CA could have taken the rag used to clean up and planted the blood(theory from Defense in post conviction motion) or police could have done it to strengthen their case. Doesn't require a grand conspiracy with a bunch of players.

    For what it's worth, I completely agree I find the theory that LE murdered an innocent woman to frame Avery beyond ridiculous. I also think the brother, roommate, and ex are a bit out there as well. I think it was someone on the Avery property, and I won't eliminate Steven as a possibility. But he wasn't the only possibility, even though investigators acted like he was.

    Also, I don't dismiss your theory of the key not being planted and falling out of furniture, it's a good point and something to consider. But again, I don't think planting evidence would have ever been considered if Colburn and Lenk didn't involve themselves in the investigation to find the key.






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  12. JanIreland

    JanIreland New Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  13. norest4thewicked

    norest4thewicked Karma is a beautiful thing ~

    Messages:
    5,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Websleuths is only one of the numerous forums that I'm on that talk about this case. While I will say that WSrs seem to be far and above the intelligence level of many of the people in some groups I'm in, there are FAR TOO MANY who actually DO base their info on just that documentary. I have seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears.
     
  14. SCHMAE

    SCHMAE Active Member

    Messages:
    12,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Most excellent post, Missy1974 !!!!!!!!! Yes to all you just said !
     
  15. norest4thewicked

    norest4thewicked Karma is a beautiful thing ~

    Messages:
    5,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My biggest problem is that people are insisting he is innocent based on NOTHING. You might not be this way, but many others are. If you (or anyone else) comes to the decision that he is innocent based on your research, then wonderful for you. You would be an informed decision maker. My frustration is in the people who are NOT informed decision makers. And, the above piece makes more sense to me than any other piece I've read. There are no answers to so much of what people are INSISTING happened. For example, since the FBI tests found that the blood in the vehicle was NOT taken from the vial, HOW did they get SA's active blood to plant? People are still out there insisting that the blood was planted and basing their entire opinion on this bunk. To believe that the blood was taken from the vial, you would have to believe that the FBI is also in on the conspiracy. How many more are they going to bring in to try to prove that SA didn't do this?
     
  16. ScarlettScarpetta

    ScarlettScarpetta When the going gets tough, drink coffee

    Messages:
    12,667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who is saying that? I have not seen that once in this thread?
     
  17. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?

    Messages:
    10,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I started reading the trial transcripts and let me just say that everyone who is only using the documentary to determine their opinion of guilt or innocence in this case has been snookered big time. The movie makers are only showing you what *they* want you to see, but they have purposely not shown evidence that defacto proves guilt of Avery.

    As for Brendan, I think some of his rights were violated and he needs another trial, but he *did* share info with the police that not even the police knew about! Later, police were able to corroborate Brendan's account on several things. Brendan was there at the time of her being killed. He knew things no one else could possibly know unless they were there; things the cops didn't know. You can call that innocent if you want, but I'm not so sure. There were things done that only 2 people could have accomplished.

    I call B.S. on Avery claiming his brothers or anyone else (including LE) could have murdered TH. Nope. The evidence doesn't point to anyone else and that's even if you decide to throw out the keys altogether and SA's blood evidence found in 6 places in TH's vehicle. BTW, SA had a cut in his middle finger of his right hand that was fairly deep. It was photographed. It was starting to heal by the time of the photo but it's plainly obvious that cut would have bled; it was not a simple scratch.

    My challenge to all is this: look only at the evidence. Not the hyperbole of the filmmakers. Just the evidence. And all of the evidence was not shown or mentioned in the documentary. Use the trial transcripts. That's the evidence the jurors saw and heard about.
     
  18. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I'd say most agree with your assessment on the documentary aspect now. I've seen a swing away from that mentality recently on this thread.

    If you go back to thread #1 & #2, you can find alot of details about the interviews with Brendan that will likely change your mind about what Brendan said and where it really came from. My mind changed on this topic.

    Also, you have to realize that there was also an interview with Brendan in the back of a cop car just a day or two after Steve was arrested, that gets discussed in the dassey trial transcripts. You'll discover that many things were fed to brendan even at that early date. Just keep an open mind and dig into those details and I'm confident you will see that just about everything you currently think he presented without police feeding to him.... was actually fed to him.

    Also, it's pretty obvious that we don't have recordings of all the interviews. The interview on the night of 2/27 at the hotel, was not recorded because the recording equipment failed.


    But even despite that, I think you'll come around to how unreasonable it would be to accept anything he said as reliable.
     
  19. TheDuchess

    TheDuchess New Member

    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who??? Who in THIS forum is insisting SA is innocent? I haven't seen one person come to that conclusion. The only posters I see with a set-in-stone opinion are those who believe him to be guilty and won't budge.
     
  20. Sleuther87

    Sleuther87 New Member

    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem is that judging whether the state proved its case beyond a "reasonable doubt" based on the show is ridiculous.

    Not only did we only see a miniscule portion of the trial in the show, but we saw a miniscule portion selected and edited by the filmmakers to support their belief that the state didn't prove its case.

    For anyone to say with any certainty that the jury was wrong in their verdict, they would have to at the very least read the trial transcripts. We don't yet have that for the Avery trial.
     
  21. Tawny

    Tawny Bye

    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I don't recall the documentary ever claiming to support SA's innocence. It highlighted LE corruption and the shoddy investigation.
     

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