quote:

---

After Teresa takes pictures at the Avery place, some one attacks, hits her on the head, throws her in the back of her RAV4, drives it to the nearby quarry, rapes her, shoots her, burns the body. They leave with the burnt remains and RAV4 at the quarry.

Cop finds the RAV4 with blood stains in the back and burnt remains and arrest Avery. They then move the RAV4 on to Avery's lot and move the bones to his fire pit and trash barrel, but miss some which are left behind.

The culprit may be Avery, his brother-in-law and step-nephew, or some ex-boyfriend who followed her. Since there is inconclusive evidence for the actual culprit, the cops plant the key as evidence to ensure a conviction. Following Brandon Massey's wildass story, they plant a bullet in the garage to corroborate that.

Assuming that the RAV4 was left at the quarry (ie the cops found it off site), that almost ensures it was a two person job because you'd need two cars to leave the RAV4 behind.

---

Why would the cops bother to move the burned remains back to his burn pit? There is a lot of risk that they would leave their own DNA or trace evidence in in the burn pit. Like their hair, threads from their clothing, etc. Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense for them to just leave the remains there? It was only a quarter mile to the Avery salvage yard. They could have left her there, and planted the car/blood back on his lot and left it at that. If anything, by having remains at all 3 locations made it more confusing and created more doubt.

Furthermore, those 2 cops alone would not have known that Steven Avery happened to have a fire on the 31st or shortly after her disappearance. Nobody had interrogated anybody in the Avery family yet. There would been a damn good chance that the cops would have planted those bones, and for Steve to have not burned anything at all. There would be no witnesses of a fire, no signs of one, etc. If there was no fire for several days or weeks into November, then they would have had to explain where Steve stored the body all that time. Why would they risk any of those dominoes not being in place to undertake the huge risk of moving the remains? They would have just left them at the quarry instead.

Regarding the phantom killers (other than Avery)... If they wanted to rape and murder a cute girl, then wouldn't it have been much less risky for them to find somebody random and far away? If they wanted to screw over Steven Avery, then why would they kill her and leave her remains and car at the quarry? Surely you don't think that they counted on the police to tow her car back to the lot and to plant his blood inside? And if they were capable of killing an innocent woman like Taresa in cold blood, then why not just kill Steven Avery instead? Call it a hunting accident or something. Why go through all of that trouble (and putting themselves at MASSIVE risk to end up in jail themselves) just to put Steven Avery back in jail? Because they didn't want to screw him over THAT much. That Avery being dead would be taking it "too far"? That life in jail is punishment enough? But yet... it would still be okay kill Taresa to achieve that more modest punishment for Avery?


There are so many ways that this makes no sense.

If the bus driver could see Theresa taking pics of the car at 3:40 and know what she was wearing, the police could have driven by the salvage yard at any time on Halloween night during normal police rounds and noticed a 3-10 foot fire in the darkness of night. Cops were also no strangers to the Avery property considering that multiple people there had multiple run ins with the law. They may have well known that someone on that property had a fire going most nights. Considering they had multiple burn locations on their property, I'd say it was a pretty good chance they regularly had trash fires there.

It would have had to be one of those two cops. It's not like every joe blow cop that happens to drive by would report to the rest of the department who happened to be burning a fire each and every night.


And if you don't know for damn sure, there is WAY too much risk in moving remains in the middle of the night in the hopes that Avery did indeed burn a fire recently.

How many sheriffs do you think a county with low crime rates and 70k citizens has?

There was a lot of risk involved in framing him for rape and planting false evidence for a murder, but they did that ****, too.

The county is 1500 square miles. The chances of one of those two cops having to drive by that spot in that specific span of 4 hours is practically zero.

quote:

---

There was a lot of risk involved in framing him for rape and planting false evidence for a murder, but they did that ****, too.

---

Planting that false evidence is a piece of cake compared to carefully moving remains a quarter of a mile while making sure you don't leave any of your DNA or trace evidence behind in the middle of the night. (While hoping like hell that Steven Avery just so happened to burn a fire recently.)

His auto salvage yard is a 13 mile drive from the sheriff's HQ off a major county road. s

quote:

---

His auto salvage yard is a 13 mile drive from the sheriff's HQ off a major county road. s

---

So what? There are plenty of roads to drive on. And James Lenk was a Lieutenant. It's not like he was driving patrols at 10pm. So that leaves one guy to HAPPEN to drive by and see a fire within a 4 hour window. That's a HUGE stretch.

And furthermore... Let's say that the one in a million chance that Colburn just so happened to drive by in that short window did occur. How could he be sure that it was only Steven Avery at the fire? Lori could have been there. Steven's parents could have been there. The entire family could have been there. They could have been having a Halloween party with 100 for all they know. The chances of there being no other witnesses of that fire in that 4 hour span is ridiculously small. All combined, we are talking probability of lightning striking a winning lottery ticket out of your hand now.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think it's nuts that you dudes think that the police else happened to catch Taresa Halbach right after she left Avery's place, killed her, burned her body (lucking out that Steven Avery happened to have a bonfire that night)

---

Has anyone on this thread posted anything about the cops killing Teresa? I've seen a lot of posts with "Cops killed Teresa - 0%" .

Can you please quote the post where someone accuses the cops of killing Teresa?

Again, I find myself asking the question "Did I miss something or am I dealing with hypothetical scenarios which didn't happen?"

---

Look at the rest of that post. My point was that as remote of a possibility that the police killed her might be, the possibility of somebody else like her boyfriend doing it is even MORE remote. Because all of the above would have had to happened (with the boyfriend instead of the cops) AND some other unlikely things as well. That was my point.

No. I can't quote a post where someone accuses the cops of murder because I'm making this up as I go.

---

Fixed it for you

quote:

---

AtmAg, you're assuming that someone premeditated an attack on her. To me, the most logical explanation is someone -Steven or one of the other unsavories on the property- made a move on her, got rough, and it escalated. They all have histories of violence against women. It was a crime of opportunity. If it wasn't Steven, they likely panicked, tried to burn the body, and then perhaps moved remains to Stevens after the fact.

Then the police tried to help the case along. I don't see anyone here alleging the cops actually killed her.

---

I'm addressing all the possibilities. I think Steven put a move on her, she rejected him, and he killed her out of rage.

Others have suggested that what's-his-face (Steven's brother in law) set up Steven. So I'm addressing that theory. I have not seen a compelling case, that doesn't implicate Steven, that is not an outlandish scenario.

I can see either of the other Avery's or Scott Tadych putting a move on her and killing her out of rage too...and then trying to frame Steven after the fact. All of the men on that property were suspicious, including Steven.

Unfortunately we'll never know because they never seriously investigated anyone else and then tried to "help their case along" by planting evidence.

quote:

---

If I make up probabilities and assign them to the arguments of people that do not hold my opinion, it makes their argument look ridiculous and I don't have to actually do any critical thinking or worry about facts.

---

In the absence of the whole truth and in the presence of conflicting or questionable physical evidence you're left with testimony - testimony that comes from people with a conflict of interest, testimony of a special education student, testimony of people with violent pasts, testimony of people with grudges, etc. It is up to each of us to sort that out. Just about everyone, consciously or subconsciously, places weights on the credibility o the witnesses. That is where those probabilities come from.

quote:

---

I can see either of the other Avery's or Scott Tadych putting a move on her and killing her out of rage too...and then trying to frame Steven after the fact. All of the men on that property were suspicious, including Steven.

---

So how would that have gone down? She arrives at the property, knocks on Steven's door, takes pictures, then what? Steven says, "nice seeing you", leaves her standing there, and goes back into his trailer? Then Tadych comes out, kills her, drives her body in her car to the quarry then burns her and so on, without Steven having a clue? Seems to me, that given how Steven previously answered the door in his towel, asked for her specifically this time, called her 3 times, etc. that he was obsessed with her. He wouldn't let her out of his sight until she was driving off they property. So when would Tadych have killed her?

quote:

---

If I make up probabilities and assign them to the arguments of people that do not hold my opinion, it makes their argument look ridiculous and I don't have to actually do any critical thinking or worry about facts.

---

What facts am I ignoring? If I was not using critical thinking, then I would think that one of you superior thinkers would just throw out arguments and facts which would blow my theories out of the water. So have at it.

quote:

---

Seems to me, that given how Steven previously answered the door in his towel, asked for her specifically this time, called her 3 times, etc. that he was obsessed with her. He wouldn't let her out of his sight until she was driving off they property. So when would Tadych have killed her?

---

You are just wedging in things to fit a scenario that you have decided is correct.

Calling someone that is set to provide a service for you is not evidence of obsession.

Answering a door in a towel is not evidence of sexual intention. More realistically, she arrived early or late and he was surprised at her timing. The way he co-worker described it did not sound at all like a sexual advance or creepy. But that doesn't fit your narrative, so you change it up to fit what you want.

"He wouldn't let her out of his sight until she was driving off they property."

Just making things up to fit your narrative. Evidence be damned.

quote:

---

So how would that have gone down? She arrives at the property, knocks on Steven's door, takes pictures, then what? Steven says, "nice seeing you", leaves her standing there, and goes back into his trailer? Then Tadych comes out, kills her, drives her body in her car to the quarry then burns her and so on, without Steven having a clue? Seems to me, that given how Steven previously answered the door in his towel, asked for her specifically this time, called her 3 times, etc. that he was obsessed with her. He wouldn't let her out of his sight until she was driving off they property. So when would Tadych have killed her?

---

If I make **** up and say that the other averys Behaved in that way, then I can make a very compelling case that it was the other averys who murdered her and claim it's ridiculous for anyone to think Steven did. But of course that involves me making **** up and assigning that made up behavior to the other averys, so I won't do that.

So Steve calls and specifically asks for "that same girl who was here last time". You believe because that was because she was the Ansel Adams of the auto trader world? Talk about trying to fit a narrative.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So how would that have gone down? She arrives at the property, knocks on Steven's door, takes pictures, then what? Steven says, "nice seeing you", leaves her standing there, and goes back into his trailer? Then Tadych comes out, kills her, drives her body in her car to the quarry then burns her and so on, without Steven having a clue? Seems to me, that given how Steven previously answered the door in his towel, asked for her specifically this time, called her 3 times, etc. that he was obsessed with her. He wouldn't let her out of his sight until she was driving off they property. So when would Tadych have killed her?

---

If I make **** up and say that the other averys Behaved in that way, then I can make a very compelling case that it was the other averys who murdered her and claim it's ridiculous for anyone to think Steven did. But of course that involves me making **** up and assigning that made up behavior to the other averys, so I won't do that.

---

What am I making up? The crap about Steven's obsession was from testimony in the trial.

quote:

---

So Steve calls and specifically asks for "that same girl who was here last time". You believe because that was because she was the Ansel Adams of the auto trader world? Talk about trying to fit a narrative.

---

I doubt anyone doing pics for AutoTrader for a living was any good at it. Maybe she had marginally better pics than other people. In the pic of her holding cameras in front of her Rav4, she is holding a Hassleblad camera, which is a complicated and expensive camera, especially for the 2005 time frame when people were transitioning over to digital.

So yeah, maybe she was a better photographer. Maybe she was just a better person. He was not well liked in the area and maybe whoever else had photographed cars for him was a **** to him.

We don't know why. Maybe we could ask the filmmakers or his lawyers on Twitter. But there are plenty of completely reasonable explanations for him asking for her that don't include a sexual obsession.

Just looking at my phone right now, my last 5 received calls, two are from one client, one from another client, one from another photographer and one from my landscaper. Does that mean that client is obsessed with me? Or maybe she was just trying to find parking near my studio.

And maybe he was a creep. Maybe he wanted the one woman who worked for autotrader to come out so he could ogle her.

Maybe the towel incident creeped her out but she and her coworker joked about the story with each other. Most women do that with their girl friends. He was a skeezy guy who ran a junkyard. Any woman would likely be creeped out going out there.

It doesn't mean he was "stalking" her.

quote:

---

Tadych's alibi was directly contradicted by the bus driver. That's troubling.

Any one of those guys could have run into her on the property and got her some somewhere under a pretense. All of those men, including Steven, have history of violence against women. All needed to be investigated and eliminated.

---

What I thought was interesting is that Bobby Dassey said that Tadych could say where he was at exactly that time. Almost like they knew they had to provide an alibi at a specific time. And no one else can confirm where they were...they are each other's alibi.

You guys do realize you saw snippets of each person's testimony, and only what the filmmakers wanted you to see, right? 6 week trial reduced to what, 2 hours of a 10 hour doc?

I agree with the poster that said there's a real blair witch effect going on with folks.

Not saying there isn't a possibility, but it's funny how so many are just dismissing anything pointing at Steven. And not from a legal standpoint of guilty or not guilty, but from a logical standpoint of what you really think happened.

Surely you can recognize the difference between a patient asking for a specific surgeon to perform his heart surgery vs a 43 year old man asking for specific 25 year woman to deliver him pizza? The former is normal and expected, while the latter is undoubtedly creepy.

Likewise, there is a difference between specifically requesting a photographer to take pictures at a wedding and requesting one to take a picture of your car for auto trader. The idea that her 1X1 inch pictures of a car were better than anybody else's 1X1 inch picture is ridiculous.

I think there's plenty of evidence that points to Steven. I think there's a high likelihood he did it. I don't think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that's partly because other potential suspects weren't investigated and the cops tampered with evidence.

quote:

---

I think there's plenty of evidence that points to Steven. I think there's a high likelihood he did it. I don't think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that's partly because other potential suspects weren't investigated and the cops tampered with evidence.

---

I agree with every part of this statement other than the part about cops tampering with evidence. We don't have proof of that. Even with the puncture in the blood vial, it's suspicion and not proof...legally speaking.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The idea that her 1X1 inch pictures of a car were better than anybody else's 1X1 inch picture is ridiculous.

---

This statement is ridiculous.

---

Bull crap. The notion that one would specifically ask for a certain photographer for their photography skills for a picture like this is asinine:



Teresa Halbach was cute and that's why he requested her. Stop being intentionally naive.

You are making up a narrative of things we don't know to fit your preconceived judgements.

AutoTrader did have a website with lots of pictures. She wasn't taking 30 minutes worth of pics for the single pic in the flier. It was 2005, not 1985.

When I sold my house, my realtor took pictures herself and put then up on the web site. There was no need to get a kickass photographer for that. And that sale is worth a crap ton more money than a used POS van. You aren't fooling anybody. You are being intentionally obtuse to fit your narrative. I'm merely using common sense.

And BTW, the notion that I'm trying to fit my narrative is BS. When I first finished the documentary, I thought he was innocent. However, knowing that documentaries are typically biased, I took it upon myself to research the facts myself afterwards and that is when I changed my mind. Here's proof from page 1 of the politics board thread about this subject:

quote:

---

I'm watching it now, I'm at episode 7, but right now I'm thinking he is innocent. At least the prosecution's explanation is clearly full of crap.

---

Sorry to burst your bubble.