Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Not even the Halbachs?
Maxpfizer wrote: » Yeah, this didn't make any sense to me and I was surprised that Zellner even entertained it. It stretches things WAY too much for me that someone forces their way into his trailer goes into the bathroom and thinks "oh, hey, blood, just what I need"! I don't buy it. It's one of the bigger things against Avery that people seem to overlook. He has a massive gash on his finger the same day that a woman goes missing on his land and his blood is then found on her car. The stars REALLY have to align for Avery to bust his finger open and then a woman goes missing on his property and then the actual perpetrator decides "I'm gonna frame Avery" and manages to access his trailer and scoops up the blood and plants it on the victims car. All without leaving any evidence behind. If the blood in the RAV4 is Averys then the only way that could have gotten there is that Avery bled in the car or the cops planted the blood evidence.
Mountainsandh wrote: » Any link to the conversation with Barb ?
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Was he spoon fed what to say to Barb in their telephone conversation? You know the one where he admits to cleaning up reddish black liquid in the garage and SA molesting him. Edit - he also admits to cleaning up the liquid in his trial testimony
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Sure he was telling people the cops were setting him up while they were just doing a routine check on the 3 properties Teresa visited on the day she went missing.
Drumpot wrote: » You know there are question marks over some of his explanations but I wouldn’t pretend to know how a cop would stitch up a person. Perhaps clearing up all the blood creates doubt in Avery’s explanation? I mean we only have his word that this is what happened. If he noticed blood had been tampered then maybe he would also notice a missing tooth brush and record/mention it? This would potentially open the person looking to frame him to be exposed? If you were wrongly imprisonmened by a police force you stood to make millions off and then all of a sudden the same police force are trying to rope you into a murder you would be paranoid. I mean even the murder being investigated down the road from where he lived would of had him John McClaining it “how can the same sh*t happen to the same guy twice!” I don’t believe the documentary’s fully clear Avery or Dassey. But what they show is the evidence and methods used to convict them were shambolic and as unethical as it can possibly get. There is no way that a person should be imprisonmened for life in the manner the state and the authorities acted. If you can park what you think about the suspects, There are so many things wrong with how they were convicted that I have no doubt these sort of practices will definitely lead to innocent people being wrongly convicted. I haven’t even had proper time to digest it all but I can’t understand anybody defending a categorical guilty verdict in either case to be honest... I must also add that memory under stress plays a role here aswell. I couldn’t tell you what I was doing or who I saw where a few days ago. I wouldn’t want to be relying on my memory if I was being questioned by police. Our memories are very poor for regurgitating events because what we think and what actually is doesn’t always match.....
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » He’s obviously lying about this. Most people use their bathroom before going to bed, but Avery says he urinated outside and then went to bed. He then states he went into the bathroom in the morning (normal behavior) and noticed the blood had been cleaned from the sink. Would the cops not just take some of the blood and not clean the whole sink? This whole scenario makes no sense at all. Why are you lying Steven?
Drumpot wrote: » This is what sticks out. There is no eveidence to back up his confession. He was spoon fed exactly what they wanted to say. It’s actually amazing that anybody could watch that and think otherwise. As for Stephen, he has some lawyer. Watching each episode shows how a top Lawyer can make all the difference because there’s no way he gets convicted if she represents him in court. The state and all the vested parties involved know it and will keep doubling down until he dies. He’s never getting out. The way the state has hidden evidence. The way the state has gone extra lengths to basically shut down any meaningful defence of either of the two is suspicious. Given the way the case itself was so badly handled, even intimidation of a coroner leaves an awful lot of questions , not just did Avery do it! It’s funny because it looks like there is more motive and way more evidence to suggest evidence was planted, witnesss coerced/protected (Bobby cd) and cops covering their tracks then there is on what actually happened to that poor woman. I think the word of a Avery’s original lawyers ring true. I hope that Avery did it and the state knew it but couldn’t prove it. Why? Because the alternative is horrifying. If Avery didn’t do it that’s twice they have locked up the wrong person and left rapist/murderer on the loose so they Could save face....
Maxpfizer wrote: » What % of Brendans confession is even corroborated by evidence? I'm talking about things that the police didn't actively feed to him.
Mountainsandh wrote: » Just to say, the cut on his finger was from the week previous to all the events, there is a positive testimony for that. Thing with the crazy "taking the blood from the sink" theory, is that Avery was saying that from very early on. I think he was on about the missing blood from even before his attorneys proposed the "blood from the vial" theory, EDTA and all.
8-10 wrote: » Zellner doesn't believe either of these things happened though. The one thing the planted theory has going for it though is the lack of fingerprints, how can there be no fingerprints when there's blood from his finger?
nc6000 wrote: » What does she think happened?
8-10 wrote: Zellner doesn't believe either of these things happened though.
Maxpfizer wrote: » If the blood in the RAV4 is Averys then the only way that could have gotten there is that Avery bled in the car or the cops planted the blood evidence.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Avery and Chuck driving out of property, SA says he seen a tail light behind so he turned around and went back to his trailer. Nobody there. He didn’t check his trailer. They went to some store and when they came back he urinated outside then went to bed. He’s basically saying they got his blood from the bathroom and then planted it in Teresa’s car.
RocketRaccoon wrote: » Refresh my memory?
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Just watched Episode 5. The tail light story? This is obviously a blatant lie by Avery. Is it true that Zellner has abandoned this made up story?
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » I think you’re watching too much TV if you think a big mess is made every time a person gets shot in the head. A person can be shot in the head and the bullet doesn’t exit. All thats left is a small entry wound with very little or even no blood.
Commanchie wrote: » A 2.2 bullet.
Maxpfizer wrote: » Right, but you have to try and look back at the bigger picture there. You are not wrong but you are removing one small part of the story from the lager whole to make a point but then that doesn't fit back into the larger plot. So it is possible that a bullet did exit but didn't leave much blood to clean up but in the lager context that would nullify Dasseys confession completely. Then this in turn also raises a big red flag over the bullet fragment and the DNA found on it.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » It could have it depends on the type of bullet. I’m not saying it did or did not, I’m just replying about the mess s bullet makes when entering someone’s head.
