quote:

---

I do think he had the hots for her. The towel incident, the fact she didn't want to go out there, I think he was attracted to her

---

All hearsay. Why did she go out there if she didn't want to?

The bone fragments still confuse me. Has anybody ever thrown a bone or a dead animal in an open fire (I have not)? Does it turn to ash like logs or would you still have a skeleton sitting there? I looked up that crematoriums burn at 1,400-1,800 degrees F for 2.5 hours. I would think that a fire on the ground in a Wisconsin winter would not anywhere near that hot. But after long enough time, would it still be able to turn Halbach's body into this?





The bone fragments are still what convinces me that Avery did it. For Lenk or Colborn to have planted them, they would have had to have been the ones to find her body first, taken it somewhere, burned it, and then planted it. The probability of them being the ones to find it alone without anybody else finding out seem astronomical. Not to mention to be the one(s) to mutilate her body. That doesn't sound easy/fun to do. Obviously Lenk or Colborn killing her themselves first would be orders of magnitude more difficult than that.

So what about the scenario of a different person killing her, burning her body, and then planting it. Wouldn't that person also be the one to plant the car there too? So where would that person get samples of Avery's blood from?

So what if somebody killed her, planted the bones, towed her untouched Rav-4 to his lot, the police then impound it, and THEN Lenk/Colborn plant the blood evidence there? I'm guessing that they would have to sign in and out before having access to the car and that the defense lawyers would have had access to those logs. So planting the blood after it was in police custody seems like it would have been hard to do.

So what about somebody else murdering her, planting her bones in Avery's pit, and leaving the car somewhere for Lenk/Coburn to find. Who then plant Avery blood inside and tow it to Avery's property. Again what are the chances of them being the one to find it if placed by a random murderer? If a murderer wanted to frame Avery, then he would have planted the car himself too.


None of those scenarios seem likely to me.

It seems far more likely that Avery killed her, and did a crappy job of hiding her car "in the woods" nearby. Lenk/Coborn suspect he did it, make a beeline to his property, and find her car in the woods nearby. They call in the plates, find out it's hers, plant the blood, and the have it towed to Avery's lot.

I also feel like if he was able to clean up all the blood and bodily fluids in the house and garage he would have been able to in the car.

I think the most likely scenario was they planted the bullet to help with the conviction but Avery killed her elsewhere. But that isn't what they proved...

quote:

---

I think the most likely scenario was they planted the bullet to help with the conviction but Avery killed her elsewhere. But that isn't what they proved...

---

I think police planted the blood in her car, the dna under her hood, the car on his lot, the key in his house and the bullet in his trailer.

I think his family members probably killed her, but her ex boyfriend should be investigated. Getting into her voicemail and deleting her messages is pretty sketchy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think the most likely scenario was they planted the bullet to help with the conviction but Avery killed her elsewhere. But that isn't what they proved...

---

I think police planted the blood in her car, the dna under her hood, the car on his lot, the key in his house and the bullet in his trailer.

I think his family members probably killed her, but her ex boyfriend should be investigated. Getting into her voicemail and deleting her messages is pretty sketchy.

---

what makes you think the family members were more likely to have killed her than Steven?

*note, this question is for curiosity. I'm not saying it's a wrong thought.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think the most likely scenario was they planted the bullet to help with the conviction but Avery killed her elsewhere. But that isn't what they proved...

---

I think police planted the blood in her car, the dna under her hood, the car on his lot, the key in his house and the bullet in his trailer.

I think his family members probably killed her, but her ex boyfriend should be investigated. Getting into her voicemail and deleting her messages is pretty sketchy.

---

what makes you think the family members were more likely to have killed her than Steven?

*note, this question is for curiosity. I'm not saying it's a wrong thought.

---

Your question wasn't directed at me, but I kind of have a theory on it (that I'm not totally believing in, just a thought).

I think they're suspicious because their alibis only included each other and the timing of their alibi was discredited. Then you have the allegations that Steven might have sexually assaulted Brendan. So maybe they were trying to set Steven up for murder to protect Brendan? But Brendan is so easily manipulated it back fired?

yeah. I was very skeptical of Chuckie while watching the doc. But I think the doc did a fantastic job of creating a sense of feeling that we are all susceptible to, and we then feel so bad for Steven and Brendan through watching it that we fall into this false sense of "it had to have been someone else."

By doing that, we remove the most logical conclusion, which is that it was Steven, with or without Brendan. Steven initiated contact with Teresa, Steven had the history with her coming out there, Steven allegedly answered the door in a provocative manner, Steven had told guys in prison that he wanted to torture women, Steven had sexual assault allegations against him as well, etc.

It's a fun thing to discuss. But in the end, even with what I think was definitely police misconduct and possibly collusion, Ocam tells us that it was still most likely Steven.

I also found it interesting(when still watching the documentary and not having read anything online yet about what was left out, more facts, etc.) that while the documentary was very much from the Avery's POV, you very rarely, if ever, saw the brothers on it. I'm not sure either of them talked more than just a bit here or there, if at all. Not trying to do a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, but I found it weird that the parents, sister, etc., all were open to the camera, and the brothers stayed away.

Either they think he did it and are tired of the ****storm surrounding Steven and don't want to be a part of it(most likely), or they had something(or everything) to do with her murder and wanted no part of it.

quote:

---

yeah. I was very skeptical of Chuckie while watching the doc. But I think the doc did a fantastic job of creating a sense of feeling that we are all susceptible to, and we then feel so bad for Steven and Brendan through watching it that we fall into this false sense of "it had to have been someone else."

By doing that, we remove the most logical conclusion, which is that it was Steven, with or without Brendan. Steven initiated contact with Teresa, Steven had the history with her coming out there, Steven allegedly answered the door in a provocative manner, Steven had told guys in prison that he wanted to torture women, Steven had sexual assault allegations against him as well, etc.

It's a fun thing to discuss. But in the end, even with what I think was definitely police misconduct and possibly collusion, Ocam tells us that it was still most likely Steven.

I also found it interesting(when still watching the documentary and not having read anything online yet about what was left out, more facts, etc.) that while the documentary was very much from the Avery's POV, you very rarely, if ever, saw the brothers on it. I'm not sure either of them talked more than just a bit here or there, if at all. Not trying to do a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, but I found it weird that the parents, sister, etc., all were open to the camera, and the brothers stayed away.

Either they think he did it and are tired of the ****storm surrounding Steven and don't want to be a part of it(most likely), or they had something(or everything) to do with her murder and wanted no part of it.

---

I think you could just as easily say that an angry or jealous ex-boyfriend would have more motive. He also probably knew his ex-girlfriend was creeped out by a regular customer who happened to live on a large plot of land and whom the police in town already believed was a rapist. Since you know her phone code and she probably doesn't always answer the phone when he calls, you can always find out when she plans to visit to the creepy guy's place, then ambush her on the way out. After that, sit back and let the police run with it.

The only thing Ocam about Steven Avery is that the police apparently never looked seriously at any other suspects. One thing that was never established for obvious reasons was her time of death. Since she was not reported missing for several days after October 31 an her bones were scattered over three locations and found several days later, it leaves open a wide range of possibilities of what really happened to her.

I definitely think the tunnel vision by police on Steven was a major issue. But again, we're all looking at this from a biased view in that we only saw what the documentary showed us, and how it presented it. It was obvious that we were meant to feel emotions for Steven and Brendan. Not saying that's bad...but it puts us in a position of bias going forward when trying to learn more about the case.

quote:

---

Steven initiated contact with Teresa, Steven had the history with her coming out there

---

She provided a service for him regularly. She did her job. She had the option to never go back to that junkyard and she chose to willingly go back.

quote:

---

Steven allegedly answered the door in a provocative manner,

---

1. It is unsubstantiated hearsay
2. We don't know if maybe she was supposed to be there at 5, but showed up at 3 and he wasn't expecting her. I don't think answering the door in a towel is that provocative as long as he didn't make any lewd comments or suggestions.
3. If he was that provocative, why did she ever willingly drive back to the junkyard?

quote:

---

Steven had told guys in prison that he wanted to torture women,

---

Unsubstantiated hearsay by a felon.

quote:

---

Steven had sexual assault allegations against him as well, etc.

---

A statement in a phone call by the single least reliable person in the history of the world - Brendan.

Avery is also a convicted felon who has a long history, not just allegations and "hearsay."

quote:

---

The only thing Ocam about Steven Avery is that the police apparently never looked seriously at any other suspects.

---

This is what is most deplorable about the police behavior, they let a rapist go the first time who went on to commit more crimes, you think this time they would have followed every lead and done everything by the book.

Did anybody else see in Ep 2 the EX BOYFRIEND wearing that element shirt when he was leading the search party.?????

Look really closely at the SCRATCHES on his HAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the thing that annoys me the most is that they let the Manitowoc Sheriff Dept guys meddle. Normally that wouldn't be a big deal, but with their history of Avery, they should have recused themselves from any helping the investigation for that fact alone.

quote:

---

Avery is also a convicted felon who has a long history, not just allegations and "hearsay."

---

Robbery, animal cruelty and whatever the hell the charge he got for waving a gun around at his skanky cousin. Not rape, murder and dismemberment.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Avery is also a convicted felon who has a long history, not just allegations and "hearsay."

---

Robbery, animal cruelty and whatever the hell the charge he got for waving a gun around at his skanky cousin. Not rape, murder and dismemberment.

---

so? He's still a convicted felon with a long rap sheet, and an even longer rap sheet of allegations that people never pressed charges on. Convicted felon who raped/murdered/dismembered is more or less credible than convicted felon for robbery, animal cruelty, assault, and illegal possession of a firearm?

You're also dismissing the gun charge. He ran her ass off the road and put a gun to her head. . He didn't wave a gun around.

You know the way he explained the "cat" incident in the documentary that was complete bull**** as to what actually happened. Apply the same logic to the way he discussed the incident with his cousin.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Avery is also a convicted felon who has a long history, not just allegations and "hearsay."

---

Robbery, animal cruelty and whatever the hell the charge he got for waving a gun around at his skanky cousin. Not rape, murder and dismemberment.

---

so? He's still a convicted felon with a long rap sheet, and an even longer rap sheet of allegations that people never pressed charges on. Convicted felon who raped/murdered/dismembered is more or less credible than convicted felon for robbery, animal cruelty, assault, and illegal possession of a firearm?

You're also dismissing the gun charge. He ran her ass off the road and put a gun to her head. . He didn't wave a gun around.

You know the way he explained the "cat" incident in the documentary that was complete bull**** as to what actually happened. Apply the same logic to the way he discussed the incident with his cousin.

---

I don't trust Avery, but he also had the biggest motive for not murdering : $36 million dollar lawsuit.

And if he was so brilliant at cleaning up after himself that there police had to plant evidence, why did he personally call and request that his victim come to his house to a third party. He isn't a smart man, but come on.

Avery isn't just not smart...he's dumb. As a stump. very limited education and probably has some mental problems.

I'm with you for the most part. But again, we're all watching a 10 hour cut-out, that is what the filmmakers want us to see and how they presented it, about a case that took 6 weeks to hear.

It's just hard for me to be for sure that he didn't do it, or argue all over the place when Avery is a bad man who had done bad things multiple times in his life. And I sort of like throwing the question out there just to keep the discussion going and be devil's advocate on the thread.

Almost every felon in prison will tell you he is innocent. Seems to me you have to take that for what it is worth.

I just think all the hearsay statements by old jail mates or people that knew her that came after Avery was arrested for murder/torture/mutilation aren't credible.

"Old man Avery raped and murdered her? Yeah, he was really creepy and once said/did this creepy thing." Normal response. Maybe it is true, maybe it is not. But it wasn't heard by the jury because it isn't verifiable and is just prejudicial.


He is dumb, but even dumb people know how the system works. Especially people that have been in and out of the system for years.

Wow..I'm late to the party....

How can anybody say with a straight face that the cops didn't find the RAV 4 two days earlier on the 3rd?

Who knows the make and model of the car and the license plate, but hasn't actually seen it?

So crazy.

On a lighter note, the funniest part of the whole show was when Buting asked Colburn if he's ever had his integrity questioned and Colburn got all flustered and said "not professionally, no."

Like dude you should SEE ME when my shifts ends NO ONE things Ive got a shred of integrity

http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/steven-avery-juror-i-would-have-voted-not-guilty

Juror dismissed after closings due to family emergency says the jury was 7 not guilty, 3 guilty and 2 undecided. He would have been not guilty.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Jurors coming out later shedding light on sketchy things (including direct threats) during their deliberations don't usually get someone a new trial. I've heard a lot of stories over the years of messed up crap happening and judges just don't like giving new trials or vacating verdicts over that.

---

If a juror says they voted against what they believed because there were threats of harm to them or their family, I bet that could get a new trial.

---

I'm not saying it couldn't happen here, but I've never seen a judge grant a new trial for it. Most judges think it would be a poor precedent to set otherwise the jury members would not take their deliberations as seriously (they wouldn't see their vote as binding), could throw a verdict intentionally, or be subjected to harassment after a verdict by the friends and family of those convicted, etc. It would take an extreme situation or a very unusual judge.

That initial vote was mentioned in the series. I can definitely see the the jury tampering accusations being true, so I'm not trying to discount that at all. But I also disagree with the lawyers that a quick verdict was going to be a sure conviction. I think that the framing defense is so rare and that the defense lawyers did such an exceptional job that a quick/ emotional verdict would have been in the defense's favor. The longer the jury sat there without having those arguments hammered on, the more unlikely that scenario became.

Just started watching this a couple of nights ago and without being able to dig deeper into the history of this case, I have to wonder if this isn't one of the biggest catfishes ever? The number of camera angles and recorded conversations seem a little staged. Of course, the entire Manitowok County community would have to be in on it. Just hard to believe that the seemingly endless number of suspicious happenings involving these cases could not cause a mistrial.

Has there been any proof that the halbach towel incident actually happened?? Did they ever provide any proof that she told that to her superiors?

quote:

---

Has there been any proof that the halbach towel incident actually happened?? Did they ever provide any proof that she told that to her superiors?

---

No. Just something her co worker said after Avery was arrested for her murder.