I think the reason they have so much on tape is that the case went on so long that the producers were able to get the tapes through FOIA.

I think if you take away the bullet that was probably planted, the key that was almost certainly planted, the Manitowoc civil lawsuit conflict plus huge involvement in every finding against Avery, and fact that there was NO process of elimination by investigators of ALL people in Teresa's circle......all that aside and you have a strong circumstantial case against Avery for the jurors to convict him fairly.

Thats the irony here, with the Manitowoc SD trying remove reasonable doubt, they actually raised doubt by tainting everything else that was legit. What's sad is that its the crooked cops, corrupt dept, investigators, and expert witnesses who are the ones who may ultimately rob the Halbach's of justice and set a guilty man free, not the filmakers or the public.

If you take away the key and the bullet because of tampering and planting, then I think you have to take away the DNA. If you take away the DNA, your simply left with bones that can just as likely be shown they were moved as they were burned in place. If you can show they were potentially moved, then you show its basically no better than the key/bullet/DNA.

Include that every person who got on the witness stand. EVERY PERSON... lied. Literally I can't think of a single person whose story wasn't false.

In the back of my mind, I would still put the likely killer as Avery, but I just can't figure out what evidence there is to 100% convince me that it was him.

If you take away the physical evidence, how can anyone claim they think Avery did it? Most of the witnesses have real credibility problems.

Can't claim he was the last person to see her alive because time of death was never established. Location of death is also in doubt because of credibility problems with the physical evidence.

imagine if evidence tampering charges were ever brought agaisnt Lt. Lenk and those cops suspected of knowing/participating. When they are on the stand facing prison time, thats when the real truthful testimony trumps loyalty.

Im hopeful it gets to that, but not at all confident it ever will considering the global spotlight and irreparable damage it would do to public trust of ALL law enforcement.....the stakes are simply too high, the Supreme Courts, DOJ, and FBI would almost certainly double down with Manitowoc considering race relations or other underlying political points cannot be scored.

If anyone's constitutional rights are to be overlooked, its a white trash male felon, "rumored/suspected" of child molestation, who also happend to already embarrassed the hell out of a state and was about to cash out!

quote:

---

To me, if it is proven that the sheriffs planted evidence - any evidence- that is sufficient to raise reasonable doubt.

---

Yep, and to every other "reasonable person" on the planet, but you are are talking about a small town biased jury pool (one of which was a deputy's dad), they probably were too ignorant to know the actual role of jurors. All they needed was the prosecution to tell them planting evidence doesnt matter, and they then knew to ignore it:

Been reading through this thread as I've been watching the show. Most of my thoughts have already been said on here.

A few things, how did the jury convict him of the first count, but not the second (mutilation of the body)?! Based on everything the prosecution presented and was saying, this doesn't make any sense to me. They also should have had a change in venue. Manitowoc county seems like a small community, and they should have never had the trial there, especially with someone on the jury related to the police!

SA is a person you don't want dating your daughter based on his past (cat incident, threatening his cousin, etc.), but that doesn't mean he is a murderer. Did he do it? Maybe. But based on what the prosecution brought forward and all the holes in those theories shot by SA's lawyers, I don't think I would have been able to vote him guilty.

SA is not smart enough to cover up a murder in the way described by Kratz and Co. There is no way he was able to adequately clean, yet forget to crush the car or get rid of any of the other planted evidence (key, bullet).

All that said, my two theories:

1) He did it. He might have tried to disconnect her car battery so she couldn't drive off, with an attempt to sexually abuse her. She fought back, cut/scratched his finger (hence the blood on the dash next to the steering wheel), and he bludgeoned her to knock her out, threw her in the back of her Rav4 and drove her to the quarry. From there he eventually shot her and burned her body. He was too dumb to think to crush the car, so he tried to hide it on the 40 acre lot. He then probably tries to burn some of her possessions that fell to the ground (cell phone, camera, PDA) in the "bombfire" with Brendan in the fire pit. He probably brags/says more than he should to Brendan, who then makes up more to the story when telling others (his cousin and the investigators). The police, who are certain he did it, want to ensure he is "rightfully" convicted this time, plant the evidence (key and move bones). It doesn't seem like enough, so the coerce the confession out of Brendan and then somehow (not sure how), plant the bullet to make it a slam dunk case.

2) He didn't do it. Not sure who did...either Scott and/or Bobby or the ex-boyfriend. I know a lot of people think Teresa's brother is sketchy, but I think he just secretly likes the media spotlight. Since the whole Avery compound seems to know each other's whereabouts and happenings, it wouldn't surprise me that Scott/Bobby knew she was coming over, thought she was attractive, and wanted to sexually abuse her. After she finishes taking pictures and SA goes in his trailer, they do the same thing I said in my first theory (take her car/body to the quarry, move the car, etc.). They tip off the police on the information, knowing the police will pin it on SA. Or it could have been the ex, who was jealous of Teresa's roommate situation. The ex knew of the SA story, and knew SA would be blamed, so he took advantage of the situation.

In both scenarios, the police get tipped off about the whereabouts of the car and possibly other physical evidence (bones, perhaps her possessions). Lenk and Colborn are shady as ****, so they eventually plant all the evidence to make sure SA takes the fall. They have motivation because of the civil suit, and because they just flat out don't like the SA or the Avery family.

I think Kratz is slimy, as well as his investigators. That said, I'm not sure if they legally did anything wrong. They were unethical and unprofessional in the treatment of BD as well as many other things, but they were just wanting to get a conviction, regardless of accuracy of the truth and their methods. They obviously coached their witnesses to say certain things, and most all of their witnesses were people in government/police positions, which usually ring as "experts" to a jury.

SA's lawyers put up an admirable defense, but eventually the jury of local community members sided with the police and state rather than the Avery family. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the jury deliberations.

quote:

---

1) He did it. He might have tried to disconnect her car battery so she couldn't drive off, with an attempt to sexually abuse her. She fought back, cut/scratched his finger (hence the blood on the dash next to the steering wheel), and he bludgeoned her to knock her out, threw her in the back of her Rav4 and drove her to the quarry. From there he eventually shot her and burned her body. He was too dumb to think to crush the car, so he tried to hide it on the 40 acre lot. He then probably tries to burn some of her possessions that fell to the ground (cell phone, camera, PDA) in the "bombfire" with Brendan in the fire pit. He probably brags/says more than he should to Brendan, who then makes up more to the story when telling others (his cousin and the investigators). The police, who are certain he did it, want to ensure he is "rightfully" convicted this time, plant the evidence (key and move bones). It doesn't seem like enough, so the coerce the confession out of Brendan and then somehow (not sure how), plant the bullet to make it a slam dunk case.

---

A pretty good theory. The only real problem I have is Steve operated the crusher the next day. The very next day. He wouldn't have thought to crush the car?

I mean, she wasn't reported missing for 4 days. Seems he could have crushed the car, sent it to the steel place and no one would ever have found it.

I know he is dumb, but this just seems really dumb.

---

quote:

---

They also should have had a change in venue.

---

I think the defense wanted jurors familiar with the rape exoneration and that the police had set him up for a felony conviction in the past.

quote:

---

1) He did it. He might have tried to disconnect her car battery so she couldn't drive off, with an attempt to sexually abuse her. She fought back, cut/scratched his finger (hence the blood on the dash next to the steering wheel), and he bludgeoned her to knock her out, threw her in the back of her Rav4 and drove her to the quarry. From there he eventually shot her and burned her body. He was too dumb to think to crush the car, so he tried to hide it on the 40 acre lot. He then probably tries to burn some of her possessions that fell to the ground (cell phone, camera, PDA) in the "bombfire" with Brendan in the fire pit. He probably brags/says more than he should to Brendan, who then makes up more to the story when telling others (his cousin and the investigators). The police, who are certain he did it, want to ensure he is "rightfully" convicted this time, plant the evidence (key and move bones). It doesn't seem like enough, so the coerce the confession out of Brendan and then somehow (not sure how), plant the bullet to make it a slam dunk case.

---

Not a single fingerprint from Avery anywhere in or out the vehicle. He wasn't wearing gloves (scratch was on his second knuckle of his index finger), but wiped up all fingerprints, but doesn't get the blood? Not plausible. He was using the car crusher that day and the next day, so I don't find it plausible that he wouldn't have thought to use it on that car.

I hadn't thought about what happens to a car after it gets crushed. Sending it the scrap place may actually be a reason not to crush it. I wonder if they had to report VINs when they sell a crushed car for scrap?

quote:

---

quote:

---

They also should have had a change in venue.

---

I think the defense wanted jurors familiar with the rape exoneration and that the police had set him up for a felony conviction in the past.

---

That might have ultimately backfired on them.

Imagine the jury deliberations...the father of the guy on the MC police force - "I know my son. Him and his fellow police co-workers, your community law enforcement officers, would never do something like this. If you think SA is innocent, then you are insulting my integrity and your community police."

Now I just completely made it up, but you can see how a local jury could have easily leaned on the prosecution/state's side. One of the few bad moves on During and Strang's part.

In an investigation such as this, what's the criteria for matching DNA? Would a blood relative's DNA cause a match for SA?

Edit.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not a single fingerprint from Avery anywhere in or out the vehicle. He wasn't wearing gloves (scratch was on his second knuckle of his index finger), but wiped up all fingerprints, but doesn't get the blood? Not plausible. He was using the car crusher that day and the next day, so I don't find it plausible that he wouldn't have thought to use it on that car.

---

---

True...thinking it through now. He hit her in the head hard enough to knock her out. Perhaps she wasn't bleeding too profusely. He drove the car to the quarry and then took the body out of the car. He didn't see she left blood in the back. He then thought the only things he touched were the steering wheel and the stick. He wipes those down for his prints. He didn't see the blood because he's dumb and didn't look hard enough. I don't know.

I don't know why he didn't use the car crusher. Perhaps he thought if they found her crushed car on his lot he would be proven guilty for sure. If they found a car "hidden" on his lot, he might have been able to deflect blame.

Just throwing out ideas.

There is a very specific legal definition of hearsay, along with a series of very specific exceptions that make otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence admissible. If anyone if interested to learn more, I'd direct you Rule 803 of the Texas Rules of Evidence.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not a single fingerprint from Avery anywhere in or out the vehicle. He wasn't wearing gloves (scratch was on his second knuckle of his index finger), but wiped up all fingerprints, but doesn't get the blood? Not plausible. He was using the car crusher that day and the next day, so I don't find it plausible that he wouldn't have thought to use it on that car.

---

---

True...thinking it through now. He hit her in the head hard enough to knock her out. Perhaps she wasn't bleeding too profusely. He drove the car to the quarry and then took the body out of the car. He didn't see she left blood in the back. He then thought the only things he touched were the steering wheel and the stick. He wipes those down for his prints. He didn't see the blood because he's dumb and didn't look hard enough. I don't know.

I don't know why he didn't use the car crusher. Perhaps he thought if they found her crushed car on his lot he would be proven guilty for sure. If they found a car "hidden" on his lot, he might have been able to deflect blame.

Just throwing out ideas.

---

I don't think SA ever was in her car. The blood probably wouldn't have come from that cut on his hand if he was wearing gloves. If he could wipe up all fingerprints, he wipes up that blood, too. Or at least bleaches it. Bleaching blood evidence was a part of the state's case (despite no evidence of bleach clean up anywhere but on numbskull's jeans.)

I hope this makes sense, but I haven't been able to put it into words the way I want it yet, so we will see.

I've only got 3 episodes to go, but obviously having read this, I know what's going to happen.

The thing that jumps out to me as I've watched it (and granted it could be skewed), is that the prosecutions entire case is ENTIRELY based on the blood in the car, the key and bullet casing.

They have a very weak motive (plenty of others available that weren't investigated), no idea where the murder actually occurred and really no evidence outside of the 3 items above to even justify charging SA.

You throw in the super suspicious behavior of the MC Sheriffs and I just really struggle with how they got a guilty verdict.

I wish that car had GPS

quote:

---

Firstly, does anyone doubt that the police framed him for the earlier rape? And I'm not talking about ignoring exculpatory evidence. I'm talking about actual framing.



What was the rationale for it then? Basically he had done something that insulted or aggravated the friend of the wife of the Sheriff, or something like that? He went to jail for 18 years for that. I mean, Lenk was willfully ignoring exculpatory evidence for like 8 years before the conviction was overturned.

That's the level of malevolence you're dealing with here.

So this guy gets out, finds that these same cops are now running the department, sues these same cops, and within 2 weeks of some pretty crippling depositions is up on murder charges?

Far fetched? Well, they put him in jail for 18 years because he peeved off the Sheriff's wife's friend. So maybe not.

Oh and their evidence is crap. No DNA or fingerprints on anything except for items found by the Monitowoc police. Evidence kits tampered with that were last touched by cops this guy was suing. inconsistent statement from learning disabled teenagers. Suspiciously found physical evidence, like her car, her car key, and a bullet with her DNA on it.

And the jury that convicts him? One of them was a Monitowoc Police volunteer.

----------

If you buy that they framed him for the rape and willfully kept him in jail without regard for the truth or the true rapist's victims, how on earth can you question whether they'd frame him for a murder when there was a lot more than civic pride on the line? If you believe even that that the key was planted, you have to possess a reasonable doubt about the rest.

It is crazy to me that this guy got convicted. 100% crazy.

---

Agree, It could have been just the show giving us this point of view, but the DA's got absolutely destroyed on every point they made.

My wife hasn't researched this case or story at all outside of the show, and has been pretty outraged at what she has seen from the prosecutions case.

1st degree murder is supposed to be a super high barrier, and I just don't know how you can get there based off of what we have seen.

quote:

---

Agree, It could have been just the show giving us this point of view, but the DA's got absolutely destroyed on every point they made.

---

The DA has come back this week and done some interviews about the evidence not in the documentary and none of it is damning. Not a single piece. And most of it wouldn't even be admissible in court.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Agree, It could have been just the show giving us this point of view, but the DA's got absolutely destroyed on every point they made.

---

The DA has come back this week and done some interviews about the evidence not in the documentary and none of it is damning. Not a single piece. And most of it wouldn't even be admissible in court.

---

Yeah...I've seen clips of it...DA is a creep.

I don't think I would characterize the '85 case as framing, but ignoring the Gregory Allen tip in that case might be worse than planting evidence. They had another law enforcement agency tell them that they were monitoring this guy with a history of sexual crimes who even looked like Steven Avery and they said, "nope. no way." That's just unbelievable.

quote:

---

I don't think I would characterize the '85 case as framing, but ignoring the Gregory Allen tip in that case might be worse than planting evidence. They had another law enforcement agency tell them that they were monitoring this guy with a history of sexual crimes who even looked like Steven Avery and they said, "nope. no way." That's just unbelievable.

---

The problem I had in the 1985 case - they arrested Avery the day of the assault (I think - or it was the very next day).

They decided a few minutes after the crime who did it and went and arrested Steve Avery. Come on, how many times do the cops have someone dead to rights but still BUILD A CASE and then arrest. Usually, in a case like this, it would take weeks or months to make an arrest. But here, they decided in 10 minutes, hey Steve did it and that was that. No more investigating. No more nothing. Just pure tunnel vision.

Defendant - It was a short bald black man missing one eye.
Lady Deputy - sounds like this blonde haired blue eyed guy I hate.
Artist/Cop - let me draw a picture of the guy you hate.
Deputy - Here is his last mugshot.
Artist/Cop - dang, my picture matches the photo l drew from
Sheriff - go arrest that man! And burn all the records!
Soon to be fire deputy - umm, he has 18 eyewitnesses that place him elsewhere
Real cops - umm, we have a rapist that uses that spot to rape people
Manitowoc - WE HAVE MADE UP OUR MIND

quote:

---

I don't think I would characterize the '85 case as framing, but ignoring the Gregory Allen tip in that case might be worse than planting evidence. They had another law enforcement agency tell them that they were monitoring this guy with a history of sexual crimes who even looked like Steven Avery and they said, "nope. no way." That's just unbelievable.

---

Normally, I would call it tunnel vision, bad cop procedure and not "framing". Framing, to me, is purposely putting an innocent man away.

BUT, the first words out of the DA's mouth when told of the DNA evidence is, IS THERE ANY MENTION OF THE GUILTY PARTY IN MY RECORDS? Like, hint, hint, remove them from the file. This was reported by the new district attorney, not someone on Steve's side. He was aghast and horrified at the attitude of the old DA. He didn't care that Steve was innocent. All he cared about was the frame job.

---

I also have a bring problem with the Manitowoc cops, to a man, not being able to say the Steve Avery was innocent of the first crime. If you can't say that, based on the DNA evidence, the location of the crime being a spot the other guy used, the initial description of the perpetrator completely matching the guilty party, the fact that Steve had NO HISTORY of stranger rape, that Steve had 18 alibis for that day, then I really, really think you should be barred from law enforcement. I honestly think a grand jury should cite all those officers with perjury for lying under oath when they said Steve was not innocent of the earlier crime. You shouldn't be a public official and be allowed to lie under oath like that.

It's a good theory for SA, but if he took her to the quarry and burned her there (which would be most likely), how did the majority of the bone fragments get into his burn pile?

assuming of course those are actually her bone fragments.

quote:

---

It's a good theory for SA, but if he took her to the quarry and burned her there (which would be most likely), how did the majority of the bone fragments get into his burn pile?

assuming of course those are actually her bone fragments.

---

police or murderer moved them

quote:

---

It's a good theory for SA, but if he took her to the quarry and burned her there (which would be most likely), how did the majority of the bone fragments get into his burn pile?

assuming of course those are actually her bone fragments.

---

If SA burned them at the quarry, it doesn't make a lot of sense that he would bring them back to his burn pit

I honestly think the bones are the reason for the guilty verdict.

Logically, I could explain away the blood in the car and the keys. Those two very much look like a screw job by the MCSO...

But how did the bones get there? I think the cops were crooked, but not to this level. Only the murderer could have done this which raises the question of when and how they snuck those bones onto the property.

If they could have answered that question, I think he walks, but for all the crookiness, they couldn't explain that.

My problem with the bones is why were they in three+ places?

quote:

---

I don't think I would characterize the '85 case as framing, but ignoring the Gregory Allen tip in that case might be worse than planting evidence. They had another law enforcement agency tell them that they were monitoring this guy with a history of sexual crimes who even looked like Steven Avery and they said, "nope. no way." That's just unbelievable.

---

They had Gregory Allen info in Avery's original rape case file. It was ridiculous.