RC K9 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 My wife just started a book written on this case from an objective view I believe....Itll be interesting to hear what is in there that may change my mind as far as evidence. If they have him on something....With DNA or something to directly link him...then by all means....HEs guilty...but if they don't have anything more than what was shown in the Doc....This dude shouldn't be in jail.....It completely goes against our rights as American Citizens....Creepy ones or not. DNA doesn't mean sh*t. Did you see where the evidence box was tampered with and the vile with his blood had been penetrated? getting his DNA on anything they wanted would not have been hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattKatz Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 that was my point about tampered previous evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Interesting theory If Steven killed her, then he followed her down the road, ran her off the road, held her by gunpoint like he did to his cousin, they got into a tangle and he shot her in the head. He then probably tossed her in the trunk, maybe cut his finger trying to throw her in, then drove to his salvage, parked it and covered it and burned her in 1 of the 3 spots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 I'm through episode 4. Brenden is an idiot. He should have kept his mouth shut. Also being 16 shouldn't he have had parental consent to all those interviews? Why would a parent allow that without any type of representation present? I think Avery is innocent. after being released for the first crime dude should have left that area before starting a civil suit. Living there just opened himself to all this drama. One of the cops, while on the stand, said that Brendan's mom gave consent for them to talk to him without her being in the room. The next scene she's outside smoking a cig and says that she wanted to be in the room with him, but the cops wouldn't let her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Alex- Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 I don't think Avery did it. There were 36 million reasons for the Manitowoc Sheriffs department to put him away or at least pressure him into settling, and it worked. I think most of his creepiness towards Halbach comes from the fact that he was a horny hillbilly that had been away from women for 18 years. She had been out there multiple times on jobs, she knew where she was going. If she legitimately felt threatened or in danger, she would've taken the right measures. I would like to know who was calling her phone regularly that was reportedly a nuisance, I'm sure the phone records were looked at. The nephew had no clue what he was saying or the severity of the situation. After his first "confession", he asked if he would be back in time for 6th period because he had a project to turn in. While in prison, he asked his mom when he'd get out by April 10th because that's when Wrestlemania was on. Throughout the whole process, his version of things flip flopped constantly, and he showed no emotion. There is evidence left out of the documentary that says he came home with bleach stains on his pants and he told his mom that it was from helping Steven clean his garage, but again, it's almost as if he was just looking for attention. Same for his 14 year old cousin, I think they were just outcast kids thinking it was a chance for some attention when they said they knew things about the case. The opened vile of blood with a hole in the cap bothers me. The prosecutor didn't seem to have any answer for why that'd been messed with. Colborn looked very uncomfortable when questioned about calling in the plates on his cell phone then stating what kind of vehicle it was 2 days before it was reportedly found. Lenk was caught lying under oath multiple times. I think the EDTA was a large blow to the defense, although that in itself had many questionable things. The ex boyfriend showed little emotion, but knew where she would be, admittedly hacked into her voicemail (which had deleted recordings), and played the "concerned acquaintance" role well by making sure he was in front of cameras, leading the search, etc.. The roommate didn't report her missing for 3-4 days. Brendan's brother and stepdad seemed very shady and were hellbent on pointing the finger at Avery. Very few things put the guilt on Avery to me. He was smart enough to erase all traces of DNA or signs of struggle and whatnot in the trailer and garage, yet leave the vehicle sitting near the front of the salvage yard (he could've crushed it) and the key (which was a spare with only his DNA) laying on the floor? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Interesting theory But why? Avery had no motive. His criminal history was pretty minor, and he was on the cusp of being a millionaire. The only conceivable motive was rape, but there's no physical evidence for that, the only rape story put forward (Brendan's) is a complete fabrication due to a lack of any DNA in the trailer, and Avery had no history of sexual assault. Were that theory to be true, we'd have to believe that Avery just snapped and did something completely out of character for no reason at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Alex- Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Interesting theory That is interesting and would explain her blood in the back and lack of anything in his trailer or garage. I'm totally open to the fact that he may have done it, I just don't believe that it went down in the way the prosecutor laid it out, and at this point don't think it was Avery. Did anyone notice that his finger with the cut was on his left hand? Unlikely he would've used that hand to start the car, but I suppose if it was bleeding enough, it could've dripped onto his right hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 But why? Avery had no motive. His criminal history was pretty minor, and he was on the cusp of being a millionaire. The only conceivable motive was rape, but there's no physical evidence for that, the only rape story put forward (Brendan's) is a complete fabrication due to a lack of any DNA in the trailer, and Avery had no history of sexual assault. Were that theory to be true, we'd have to believe that Avery just snapped and did something completely out of character for no reason at all. It would match when he pointed the gun at his cousin, but this time it went wrong. With an IQ of 70, it's also possible that he propositioned her, with his lady being down and out, and she reacted in a not so nice way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 It would match when he pointed the gun at his cousin, but this time it went wrong. With an IQ of 70, it's also possible that he propositioned her, with his lady being down and out, and she reacted in a not so nice way. He pointed a gun at his cousin because she was being a bitch to him (at least that's what the documentary said). Even if that was misrepresented, they'd clearly engaged in previous arguments. If she ended up murdered, then it'd look pretty bad for him (although that was 20 years prior; that's a hell of a grudge). As it was, Avery had no history of pointing his gun at random women. Your other scenario still requires Steve to have just snapped and killed someone on a flimsy pretext. He propositions someone 20 years his junior, with all her teeth and a college degree, and gets all murdery when he's rejected? Seems like quite a stretch. For that matter, while the ex-boyfriend and roommate seem a bit shifty, and the Scott Tadych/Bobby Dassey thing seems suspicious, I haven't heard of a plausible motive for any of them either. Partly that's because the defense was prohibited from presenting alternate suspects, partly that's because the police didn't investigate anyone else. I think that's one of the reasons why this case (and others like it, like Adnan Syed) are so interesting. There's a dead person, and no real good reason why. It's very unsatisfying but it keeps your interest. It's also why the exoneration for the 1983 rape case was so satisfying; not only did they find a pube from the other guy, but he had a long history of sexual assault, whereas Avery had none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 He pointed a gun at his cousin because she was being a bitch to him (at least that's what the documentary said). Even if that was misrepresented, they'd clearly engaged in previous arguments. If she ended up murdered, then it'd look pretty bad for him (although that was 20 years prior; that's a hell of a grudge). As it was, Avery had no history of pointing his gun at random women. Your other scenario still requires Steve to have just snapped and killed someone on a flimsy pretext. He propositions someone 20 years his junior, with all her teeth and a college degree, and gets all murdery when he's rejected? Seems like quite a stretch. It may be flimsy to you or me, or anyone of at least average intelligence. SA has an IQ of 70, the issue with an IQ that low is it can be hard to process the proper reaction to stressful situation. Getting very forcefully rejected in an embarrassing way and him reacting violently is not out of the question for someone who is classified as having mild mental retardation. I mean, it's a plausible theory when you look at how it lines up. He specifically asked for her, kept calling her from a blocked number, evidence in the car but none in the house or anywhere else (that makes sense). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 There was enough of Teresa's blood in the RAV4 to make it almost a certainty that she was transported in it at some point, sure. The prosecution claims that Avery killed her in the garage and then used the RAV4 to transport her the 30 or 50 feet to his burn pit, which seems unlikely. But if you think there's a reasonable possibility that Steven's blood and sweat were planted on the RAV4, which I do, then there's nothing else tying him to it or putting him inside of it, whether it was in his driveway or some ways down the road. Someone was in it, sure, but not him. We'll just have to agree to disagree about how likely his IQ would make it that he would murder someone for a simple romantic rejection, a rejection for which we have no evidence of taking place. You could also argue that she told him a riddle, and his mental retardation caused him to get confused and angry that he couldn't solve the riddle, so he killed her. "What has four legs and one foot!?! Hulk angry, you die now!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 We'll just have to agree to disagree about how likely his IQ would make it that he would murder someone for a simple romantic rejection, a rejection for which we have no evidence of taking place. You could also argue that she told him a riddle, and his mental retardation caused him to get confused and angry that he couldn't solve the riddle, so he killed her. "What has four legs and one foot!?! Hulk angry, you die now!" But it's not agreeing to disagree when you ignore the scientific basis behind it. Violent outbursts have been linked to mental retardation, and mental retardation has been linked to violent outbursts. It is common for persons with mental retardation who have been stable and well adjusted to exhibit regression in situations of stress, pain, changes in routine, or novelty... (Cooper, 1999; Pettit, 1997). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) If he has an IQ of 70, how the hell does he keep getting his hands on guns? oh wait...nevermind... I got through half of the first episode before switching to an old x-file episode and reading about Avery on wikipedia. There is a lot of info out there, but the documentary is entirely too biased for anything but entertainment purposes. Documentaries are supposed to be at least a little informative. Edited January 7, 2016 by Geeto67 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 You watched 1/2 of 1 episode and you feel you can speak intelligently on the conent on the other 9.5 episodes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 You watched 1/2 of 1 episode and you feel you can speak intelligently on the conent on the other 9.5 episodes? Nope, just saying the bias out of the gate was so bad Wikipedia seemed more "accurate". It was also kind of unwatchable. Just my opinions. I will throw this up here because not only is it pertinent but the source seems oddly appropriate: http://www.tmz.com/2016/01/06/steven-avery-brothers-murder-teresa-halbach/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 FRAMED! I don't care who you are, you cannot hide the amount of blood that would have been present if Halbach was killed the way they say. Stabbed in the bed...there would be blood. Shot in the garage...there would be blood. The part that puzzles me is someone killed the girl. I believe the cops planted his blood and even put the car on his land, but I hesitate to think they killed her. What those cops did to Brendan was a poor excuse for police work. They took advantage of a not so bright kid. He told them what they wanted to hear, so he could get out of there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Nope, just saying the bias out of the gate was so bad Wikipedia seemed more "accurate". It was also kind of unwatchable. Just my opinions. I will throw this up here because not only is it pertinent but the source seems oddly appropriate: http://www.tmz.com/2016/01/06/steven-avery-brothers-murder-teresa-halbach/ That's interesting. Would seem plausible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 FRAMED! I don't care who you are, you cannot hide the amount of blood that would have been present if Halbach was killed the way they say. Stabbed in the bed...there would be blood. Shot in the garage...there would be blood. The part that puzzles me is someone killed the girl. I believe the cops planted his blood and even put the car on his land, but I hesitate to think they killed her. What those cops did to Brendan was a poor excuse for police work. They took advantage of a not so bright kid. He told them what they wanted to hear, so he could get out of there. I felt bad because I was angry, but I also laughed when Brendan asked if he was going to be done with the "interview" by 1:29pm because he had a 6th block project due. Dude...you just admitted to participating in a murder?!?!? Then when he asked if he was going to be out in time for wrestlemania. Dude...you just admitted to participating in a murder!?!?!?!? It's like, come on kid. I don't think SA is retarded. Just simple, kind of like that whole family. But that Brenden kid...and I don't say this to be mean, but I think that kid IS legitimately retarded. Cops pull me into a room, even if I was in 10th grade...the only words coming out of my mouth are "Parents, Lawyer." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 I felt bad because I was angry, but I also laughed when Brendan asked if he was going to be done with the "interview" by 1:29pm because he had a 6th block project due. Dude...you just admitted to participating in a murder?!?!? Then when he asked if he was going to be out in time for wrestlemania. Dude...you just admitted to participating in a murder!?!?!?!? It's like, come on kid. I don't think SA is retarded. Just simple, kind of like that whole family. But that Brenden kid...and I don't say this to be mean, but I think that kid IS legitimately retarded. Cops pull me into a room, even if I was in 10th grade...the only words coming out of my mouth are "Parents, Lawyer." That's just it! He's borderline retarded to think he was getting out to make those events. They played that to their advantage. He initially told them he had nothing to do with it. When they asked what happened to her head. "He cut her hair"..."He punched her". Who shot her..."Steven". Why didn't you just tell us that. "I forgot".He was searching for shit to tell them, so he could get out of there. The fact he has been denied a new trial after all the proof his own attorney was against him is BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 If he has an IQ of 70, how the hell does he keep getting his hands on guns? oh wait...nevermind... I got through half of the first episode before switching to an old x-file episode and reading about Avery on wikipedia. There is a lot of info out there, but the documentary is entirely too biased for anything but entertainment purposes. Documentaries are supposed to be at least a little informative. You watched half an episode which was the episode that proved he was innocent of rape 18 years prior and formed an opinion about a crime that you didn't even watch details on? Seems legit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Geeto could work for the MCPD, he doesn't need any evidence to know that the filmmakers are biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 You watched half an episode which was the episode that proved he was innocent of rape 18 years prior and formed an opinion about a crime that you didn't even watch details on? Seems legit No I was voicing my opinion that the show sucked. take from it what you want but this docu-drama is not the only thing out there on the case. There is a ton of stuff out there if you go looking for it, even segments on NPR from 2 years ago (RadioLab). If there was one positive thing it has done is that it caused me to be entertained by looking up and reading the wiki page as well as some of the court docs (including the motion for appeal and the decision). I haven't opined one way or the other as to anybody's guilt, innocence, or misconduct. I've seen government misconduct in a trial first hand and I know it exists and it doesn't surprise me at all that there may be some here - doesn't change my opinion that this was unwatchable crap. BTW, dude has an IQ of 70, demonstrates signs of mental illness, and was arrested three times for illegal possession of a firearm as a felon (convicted twice) as well as firearm related crimes. I guess gun control in WI really does just mean "both hands". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 You didn't say it was crap, you said it was biased. He's right, the entire first episode is about the overturned 1983 conviction; if viewers aren't familiar with the case, they don't even find out about the Halbach murder until the very end of that episode. FWIW, the RadioLab episode is also about that overturned conviction, and doesn't really get into the murder at all. So it's not at all clear what information you're using to call the filmmakers biased, unless you're just regurgitating others things you've read, but you're far to smart to do that, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) So it's not at all clear what information you're using to call the filmmakers biased, unless you're just regurgitating others things you've read, but you're far to smart to do that, right? It's not hard to see the setup. If they can't convince the viewer that Avery is unjustly convicted in the beginning and then righteously freed that first time they can't get the viewer invested in it. Its a setup to skewer the system and they so blatantly telegraphed it they might as well have been using an actual telegraph. Maybe I am too smart for this show, ya know what that law degree and trial experience and all. I don't really watch crime procedurals either for the same reason. shit is just cringe worthy and I don't live in the fantasy of how most americans think their justice system works. If you want my opinion -Steven Avery was wrongfully convicted because DNA evidence practice in 1985, which the most recent case seems to pivot on, was as reliable as a magic 8-ball, which left the traditional ways in which we convicted people of crimes (both justly and unjustly) for hundreds of years: the "he said she said". If you want to know how reliable that is go ask your wife to recall something you told her an hour ago...it's like a two person game of telephone. As to whether he did it or not...who is to say. I heard a quote recently that applies here : "the truth bends as soon as it hits the air". Edited January 7, 2016 by Geeto67 clarifying my statements Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.