Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

John_D80

MadDog76 wrote: »

You obviously don't know much about ballistics and how it's tested but leaving that aside and let's say the bullet was fired from Steven's rifle ......... and was found month's later in a garage which had been previously searched with only Teresa's DNA found on the bullet itself ........ but no blood/DNA from Teresa found anywhere else in the garage?

You're right I know nothing about ballistics. Im only relying on the uncontested testimony of the ballistics expert who testified and whose evidence was not challenged by the defence. He said the bullet found with hallbach's DNA was without doubt fired from Avery's rifle.

MadDog76 wrote: »

You're pretty sure are you? Case closed so!!

There is a third burn site, off the Avery property, in a quarry and the barrel itself is mobile so ........... we'll just ignore those facts too though.

Lol wind your neck in bud. I was just saying I wasn't sure from memory alone where she was burned. Chiiiilll out.

John_D80

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Did you see this yourself?

No, only read the court record of it. Dont even know if there is video widely available of this part of the trial to be honest.

All the court records are in the public domain though. Some guy paid for them and put them up online.

timthumbni

John_D80 wrote: »

You're right I know nothing about ballistics. Im only relying on the uncontested testimony of the ballistics expert who testified and whose evidence was not challenged by the defence. He said the bullet found with hallbach's DNA was without doubt fired from Avery's rifle.






Lol wind your neck in bud. I was just saying I wasn't sure from memory alone where she was burned. Chiiiilll out.

What motive did Avery have (taking into account his notoriety due to serving 18 years for a rape he didn't commit) to murder that girl?

I also found it disgusting that the prosecution on a few occasions tried to imply they were not convinced he didn't carry out the original rape and attack on the beach.

retro:electro

John_D80 wrote: »

What do people think of the extra DNA evidence found in the car?? Or the fact that the bullet that killed her came from a gun owned by Avery.

Personally myself I thought it was weird that he specifically requested it was her that came out from the magazine to take the pics. Even more alarming was the fact that he gave his sister's name because he knew Teresa had told her magazine editor that Avery ''weirded her out'' the time he tried to expose himself to her.

And the rape-room stuff??

Guilty guilty guilty.

Ya because if I'm going to murder someone the first thing I'm going to do is call their work place and ask for them to send her on over.

And didn't you hear Teresa's voicemail to Avery saying she was on her way? Did she sound spooked to you? Anxious? Scared?

Flint Fredstone

John_D80 wrote: »

No, only read the court record of it. Dont even know if there is video widely available of this part of the trial to be honest.

All the court records are in the public domain though. Some guy paid for them and put them up online.

Can you link us up with that particular part? I've heard about the sweat and car battery but never heard about them being ripped apart on it.

Ray Palmer

John_D80 wrote: »

Wait so you have seen the interviews? All of them. Or just the carefully edited parts that they used in the documentary? Myself personally I only read the transcripts but would love to see the interview tapes. Where did you see them?

I really don't need to see them all. There is plenty in the pieces that were shown. He simply does know she was shot and the interviewer tells him. He tells them what happens as he remembers it then they browbeat him.

I really can't think of any realistic video footage from the interviews that could possibly. I can imagine some crazy split personality Keyser Sóze act in the whole footage but that is it. The kids is clearly not of average intelligence from the start.

You can drop the fake "Where did you see them?", I get your point but lets not play silly buggers. If your claim is that the edit footage is so selectively chosen to skew the whole tone and nature of the interviews say so. It is very different than suggesting after seeing the footage as it is edited in the show you would consider it a true telling and admission of guilt.

From the footage shown if you take that as a valid confession I think you are at least missing some emotional intelligence.

Atlantic Dawn

The following for me leaves too much doubt about his conviction:

• Why didn't Steven use the crusher on his property to crush the Rav 4 car? Even if for some reason the crusher was broke down he would have had the technical know how to manually break up the car in to pieces and dispose of it.
• How did the woman who initially found the car in the junkyard come to spot it where it was, seems a very lucky find if your compare its location to the full scale of the yard.
• No DNA evidence at all from the bedroom where she was said to have had her throat slit and raped.
• With his knowledge of how DNA works and his experience of his previous court appearances why would he be so dumb as to leave blood on the car especially in such a visible place?
• How come the key for the Rav4 was not found initially during extensive searches?
• The hole in the blood sample from his previous case indicated someone could have obtained a sample of his blood (I know they didn't find the blood preservative).

Flint Fredstone

Apparently Teresa was the only person that did the photographs in the area and he asked to send her around again. It's a far cry from singling her out to come to his property. A lot of this stuff that was left out of the documentary has been refuted too.

R P McMurphy

John_D80 wrote: »

Wait so you have seen the interviews? All of them. Or just the carefully edited parts that they used in the documentary? Myself personally I only read the transcripts but would love to see the interview tapes. Where did you see them?

Are available on YouTube

Rabo Karabekian

eviltwin wrote: »

If Steven is innocent, who do people think killed Theresa? How did they burn her body, in the Avery fire pit or elsewhere?

There are a fair few theories, ranging from the (somewhat) implausible (Theresa's brother and/or ex boyfriend - who wasn't even investigated by the police) to the far more plausible (I think it's Avery's brother and Brendan's dad - they were the two who have alibis that compliment each other - as well as contradicted by, I think, the bus driver. These alibis changed along with their eyewitness accounts).

John_D80 wrote: »

Oh lord. You are using Rolling Stone as a source??

It's an interview with one of the defence counsel, not an opinion piece from the Rolling Stone. But, at least that poster is linking to something (although, of course, you don't bother investigating and rebutting the claims). All we have from yourself is conjecture and the claim of 'irrefutable evidence'. When asked what that irrefutable evidence is, we're told to go look it up on the net.

timthumbni

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The following for me leaves too much doubt about his conviction:
[LIST
[*]How did the woman who initially found the car in the junkyard come to spot it where it was, seems a very lucky find if your compare its location to the full scale of the yard.

[/LIST]

God showed her the way... Apparently. I think that's what she said anyway. My girl has family that live in that area of Wisconsin. It doesn't need to be said that I won't be visiting them.

I haven't seen such a crowd of inbreds since the duelling banjos scenes in deliverence.

ricero

I thought the strangest part was with the cop Colburn who by the sounds of the phone audio had clearly spotted the missing car days before it was found.

I believe the police found the car and planted it on Averys compound.

Rabo Karabekian

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The following for me leaves too much doubt about his conviction:

The two burn sites also raise some serious questions. This would mean that Avery either burned the body in the quarry and then moved some of the remains and/or body parts and burned the rest outside his house (seriously strange behaviour for someone who was so meticulous in cleaning up all evidence within his house) or that he burned her body outside his house, and then removed some bits to burn in the quarry.

The Raptor

If people were told he was guilty from day one, what would you think? Especially with Ken Kratz press conference. Add that to his previous convictions, one they freed him from, people aren't very forgiving and wanted him guilty.

But there is so much evidence to say he's innocent. No blood in his trailer or garage, only his DNA on HER key. Her own DNA wasn't on HER key. Numerous searches of his trailer and after a few days they find the key. It should have been found on day one but people were watching them. And why was that key very significant once found, he had thousands and thousands of cars and keys.

Five months later after searching his property a bullet was found. I bet they took his gun on the first search.

There was no other suspect involved, they didn't try to find the real killer. After being found innocent for his previous crime, why was he automatically the suspect?

I forgot who played Brendan's confession video in his trial but how come they never showed the last part talking to his mother and he said "they got to my head". Over and over they questioned him until he said something they wanted to hear.

Brendans lawyer also sent his private investigator to coerce him into a confession and told him what to draw. They wouldn't accept the first confession of himself playing games.

They're both innocent.

Rayne Wooney

I think he probably did do it but shouldn't be in jail. Killed her somewhere on the property, moved the car somewhere far enough away, the police planted the car, the key, the bullet to make it stick this time.

John_D80

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

There are a fair few theories, ranging from the (somewhat) implausible (Theresa's brother and/or ex boyfriend - who wasn't even investigated by the police) to the far more plausible (I think it's Avery's brother and Brendan's dad - they were the two who have alibis that compliment each other - as well as contradicted by, I think, the bus driver. These alibis changed along with their eyewitness accounts).



It's an interview with one of the defence counsel, not an opinion piece from the Rolling Stone. But, at least that poster is linking to something (although, of course, you don't bother investigating and rebutting the claims). All we have from yourself is conjecture and the claim of 'irrefutable evidence'. When asked what that irrefutable evidence is, we're told to go look it up on the net.

Oh I'm sorry, was that too difficult for you?

I actually clearly directed you to earlier posts of mine where I listed plenty of evidence that was not included in the documentary. But liek the truth thats plainly out there for all to see, you chose NOT to see it!

MadDog76

The documentary doesn't prove Steven's innocence or guilt.
The Prosecution declined to take part in the documentary, which is hardly the film-makers fault so why are they being accused of being one-sided when they were more than open to opinions/facts from all involved in the case?

The Trial didn't prove Steven's innocence or guilt ......... that's a problem, even more so because Steven was convicted.

The people who believe that Steven is guilty love to point to the "evidence" whilst ignoring the fact that most of the "evidence" can be explained or, at the very least, be labelled questionable while they also ignore the huge lack of evidence .......... for example, where's Teresa's blood from the murder site? Actually, where was she murdered??

letsseehere14

John_D80 wrote:

What do people think of the extra DNA evidence found in the car?? Or the fact that the bullet that killed her came from a gun owned by Avery.

John_D80 wrote:

Personally myself I thought it was weird that he specifically requested it was her that came out from the magazine to take the pics. Even more alarming was the fact that he gave his sister's name because he knew Teresa had told her magazine editor that Avery ''weirded her out'' the time he tried to expose himself to her.

The bullet had her dna on it but they don't know if it was the bullet that killed her. It was dna not blood. It was also found by local police a number of times after that garage had already been searched. There was noone else's dna on the bullet. Not even his. Very strange.
Same as the key, found on 6th search in plane view again by police who shouldn't have been there. Only his dna on it? Not even hers?
He requested her as she was the only autotrader photographer in the state so asking for that specific woman would be natural, there was noone else. He gave the sisters name as it was her car that was being sold.

John_D80

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Can you link us up with that particular part? I've heard about the sweat and car battery but never heard about them being ripped apart on it.

Can I link directly to it? No because it would take hours to find it again. But seeing as I'm feeling gracious here's a decent jumping off point for you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Teresa+Hallbach+Steven+Avery+murder+trial+transcripts

Its also available on Reddit as far as I remember.

John_D80

letsseehere14 wrote: »

The bullet had her dna on it but they don't know if it was the bullet that killed her. It was dna not blood. It was also found by local police a number of times after that garage had already been searched. There was noone else's dna on the bullet. Not even his. Very strange.
Same as the key, found on 6th search in plane view again by police who shouldn't have been there. Only his dna on it? Not even hers?
He requested her as she was the only autotrader photographer in the state so asking for that specific woman would be natural, there was noone else. He gave the sisters name as it was her car that was being sold.

Apologies, you are correct in this.

Point stands though that it was without doubt fired from his rifle.

Why is it strange that his DNA was not on the bullet though?

Ray Palmer

John_D80 wrote: »

Apologies, you are correct in this.

Point stands though that it was without doubt fired from his rifle.

Why is it strange that his DNA was not on the bullet though?

There were lots of bullet fragments from his gun about his property. Very easy just pick one up. They had his gun for weeks before the discovery.

Like the key that didn't have her DNA on it but had his. He would have handled the bullet therefore his DNA too.

It isn't very believable.

It could have been planted and is actually more believable to some. Reasonable doubt would be a moderate thought.

Rabo Karabekian

John_D80 wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, was that too difficult for you?

I actually clearly directed you to earlier posts of mine where I listed plenty of evidence that was not included in the documentary. But liek the truth thats plainly out there for all to see, you chose NOT to see it!

It's not a case of it 'being too difficult'. It's a request to see what you think is the irrefutable evidence. The most common hit when looking for 'irrefutable evidence' pinpointing Avery's guilt is the interview that Kratz did (that I linked to) which is light on facts and heavy on conjecture.

But I've quoted all your posts below. You don't actually mention anything that's evidence, it's all just conjecture (which is ironic, considering that you claim that's what everyone else is doing).

But we'll go through your list of 'irrefutable evidence'.

'Extra' DNA in the car: Is this the 'sweat DNA' claim that Kratz mentioned? His attempt to claim that it was 'sweat' DNA (not actually a thing) was made after the trial. The DNA found in the car is absolutely suspicious, but the prosecution did not make the case that it was 'irrefutable evidence'. It was refuted and there was a high degree of suspicion over how that DNA got there.

bullet from Avery's gun: This is the bullet that was found in the garage that was meticulously cleaned of *all* traces of Theresa's DNA? Again, highly suspect.

Specifically requesting Theresa to come out to his property: not proof that he murdered her.

'Rape room stuff': can you elaborate? Is this the room that they were alleged to have raped her? The one where they managed to get rid of every single last bit of DNA evidence?

A large amount of the prosecution's evidence rests on Avery having a bizarre dual personality: on the one hand meticulously cleaning rooms where he apparently savagely raped and murdered a woman, but then neglecting to clean the car or locate that damning bullet.

Do you think that the prosecutors proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Avery was guilty?

John_D80 wrote: »

Documentary was the most lopsided and biased piece I have ever seen. When you look at all the evidence that was left out of the doc, it's obvious they are both guilty as well.

Avery is one sick puppy.

John_D80 wrote: »

What do people think of the extra DNA evidence found in the car?? Or the fact that the bullet that killed her came from a gun owned by Avery.

Personally myself I thought it was weird that he specifically requested it was her that came out from the magazine to take the pics. Even more alarming was the fact that he gave his sister's name because he knew Teresa had told her magazine editor that Avery ''weirded her out'' the time he tried to expose himself to her.

And the rape-room stuff??

Guilty guilty guilty.

John_D80 wrote: »

How did they plant his sweat exactly?? The only reason the doc showed the blood evidence was because they had an 'explanation' for it, flawed as it was. They got torn to shreds in court over the sweat found under the bonnet. Pity the doc didn't show that.

And even the defence conceded that the bullet which killed her came from averys gun.

Hallbach's boss testified that Avery looked for her alone to come to the salvage yard that day and gave a false name. So actually it was evidence in the trial.

Not to mention, her camera, her phone and personal organiser all found in the barrel.

John_D80 wrote: »

Lol every point you just made is pure speculation!!!! Sorry mate. Facts win every time.

One sided documentary blatantly and purposely left out damning and irrefutable evidence. People across the world would do better to argue the cause of genuinely innocent people than champion these two.

And painting Dassey's confessions to look coerced is the biggest piece of editing tomfoolery of all. Transcripts are freely available.

But of course they absolutely must be falsified too right??

strandroad

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

The two burn sites also raise some serious questions. This would mean that Avery either burned the body in the quarry and then moved some of the remains and/or body parts and burned the rest outside his house (seriously strange behaviour for someone who was so meticulous in cleaning up all evidence within his house) or that he burned her body outside his house, and then removed some bits to burn in the quarry.

Was it even proven that it was her remains in the quarry? Last I read it was just that someone found bone fragments that were never tested to be human let alone belonging to a particular person... Some were animal and some were inconclusive.

letsseehere14

I don't know if he did it or not. Fairly sure Brendan didn't and if he did he was led on by Avery.
We didn't get the whole story but got enough that serious questions had to be asked.
He had no motive. He was about to get a major settlement.
Her being there wasn't suspicious. She was the only photographer. Plus his whole family knew she was there. Why would he do it with no alibi.
No dna in the bedroom. No dna in the garage bar the bullet found after 6 searches with her dna (not blood) and only her dna. Nothing on the garage floor.
3 burn pits with some of her bones found in a quarry miles away (may have been original pit and moved to his)
Her hair and blood in the back of the jeep. How if she was only moved and killed from the bedroom to garage to burn pit?
No knife found if she was stabbed and cut.
He'd just leave the car on his lot and not even crush it?
His blood sample tampered with.
The key found in plane sight after how many searches?
The bullet, key, and first officer on the scene when the jeep was found were from a police force not supposed to be involved. Not just police force but the 2 officers definetly not supposed to be involved. Crazy stuff.
The phone call from his gf in prison when it was supposed to be happening?
The bus driver accurate time line disproving the others.
The next county police saying the key wasn't present at first.
The dodgy phone call from Colburn calling out the reg plate days before.
Him letting them search his place. And leaving the key in his room? He's not that thick.
The treatment of Brendan Dassey by his defence and the detectives. Retrial at a minimum.
They tested the blood in the jeep. Didn't give back the addetive they looked for. Did they test the blood in the test tube too? If that didn't give back the addetive it would have added weight to his defence.
The testing samples being contaminated by the scientist.
The ex bf being head of the search. Hacking her phone? Deleted mails? Usually its 90% someone the victim knows and is always close to the search. None of those people were questioned by cops but given free access to the lot?

Seriously. He may have been guilty but all these questions.

Who would murder a person, when people knew shed be there, just before you get a massive payout. In his bedroom where no dna was found. Leave the car on his lot and the key in his bedroom? Invite your nephew half way through to join in as if knowing 100% hed join? My hole.

John_D80

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Do you think that the prosecutors proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Avery was guilty?

So.... much ...... waffle ........ in one post.

Being devoid of any desire to trawl through that TLDR post of yours, I'll just answer this bit.

Yes I do.

weisses

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

A large amount of the prosecution's evidence rests on Avery having a bizarre dual personality: on the one hand meticulously cleaning rooms where he apparently savagely raped and murdered a woman, but then neglecting to clean the car or locate that damning bullet.

Do you think that the prosecutors proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Avery was guilty?

Don't forget cleaning the whole rape room but forget to get rid of the key ..

If he is that meticulously with removing DNA does anybody believes he just leaves the RAV 4 on his property with his DNA in it and covered with some wood an branches

This stinks ... (but so do many court cases in the states)

weisses

John_D80 wrote: »

So.... much ...... waffle ........ in one post.

Being devoid of any desire to trawl through that TLDR post of yours, I'll just answer this bit.

Yes I do.

Reading the above ....Waffle indeed

Flint Fredstone

John_D80 wrote: »

So.... much ...... waffle ........ in one post.

Being devoid of any desire to trawl through that TLDR post of yours, I'll just answer this bit.

Yes I do.

Your attitude is ridiculous. I'm not sure whether he did it or not but I wouldn't waste another second debating it with you and I don't see why anybody else would.

timthumbni

As someone said earlier I almost hope he is guilty. As otherwise it's too horrific to think about.

Eugene Norman

John_D80 wrote: »

Apologies, you are correct in this.

Point stands though that it was without doubt fired from his rifle.

Why is it strange that his DNA was not on the bullet though?

What was strange was:

1) it was found months after the initial search
2) there is no other evidence that indicates she was shot in the garage. Not a molecule of DNA.



It's not certain that it was from his rifle either.