Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » 2. Avery targeted Teresa. On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.” On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel. She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously). Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming. This to me is massive and somehow left out of the documentary.
hardCopy wrote: » I don't really get the fake name and number thing. If he rang up and gave his sister's name it would be clear he was a male on the phone. How could he ask for the girl who came out last time if he didn't tell them who and where he was?
anna080 wrote: » Teresa knew well where she was going, she went to Avery's house on Avery lane. It doesn't get more obvious than that. If she was truly fearful or thought he was weird she would have declined to go or brought someone with her. It makes no sense, and as Judge Judy says "if it don't make sense it ain't true".
Heat_Wave wrote: » Did they ever get an answer as to why there was a hole in the test tube of Steven Avery's blood? Also, the cop that called out Teresa's reg plate two days before she was murdered... The look of shock on his face when that was played in court. He couldn't even come up with a solid reason. All fingers are pointing at Avery and I agree, he is an obvious suspect. But bizarre incidents like the two above make me seriously wonder. I hope someday we will find out the truth. It is so exciting!
Drumpot wrote: » Also, I think back of when the cop (Colbyrne?) basically saw the victims car (called it in) before it was officially found. I originally thought Colbyrne knew where the car was and moved it. But I saw a very believable theory was that he found it when illegally searching the Avery yard, then we have the search party honing in on that specific spot and finding the car very quickly. In essence, I think it would not of been admissible as evidence if it had been found illegally without a search warrant or permission.
Ageyev wrote: » Stevens ex-fiance interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz673OMTF0
Joeface wrote: » only issue with that is Colburn Called in the reg plate , but when the car was found , the Reg plate was not on it. Avery was not on the plot when the car was found. how did he remove the plates between Colburn call and the car discovery So where did he get them when he called in.
Dodge wrote: » FWIW I think he probably did do it, but he was fairly obviously framed by the cops.
Drumpot wrote: » Yeh good point. So what theory do you have for colourn calling in the car like that? It sounded like he was looking directly at the car the way he spoke!
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » So do I but not sure about Dassey. What i will say is that the Monitowoc police should never have been allowed anywhere near this case and I wouldn't be surprised if they planted evidence or tampered with something.
paddy no 11 wrote: » The judgement is totally unsafe, whether guilty or not the police planted evidence and the crucial testimony from a minor was attained without a lawyer present. Apparently Avery is some forensics genius whe cleaned the whole place down to remove blood and other forensic evidence but neglected to leave her bones, car and car keys at his house, seriously?
Heat_Wave wrote: » Did they ever get an answer as to why there was a hole in the test tube of Steven Avery's blood?
[Deleted User] wrote: » All those words in bold are aimed to paint Avery in a certain light. On the other side of it he was actually selling his sisters car and was selling it at the same address, surely Theresa knew the address and wasn't "tricked" into going.
enfant terrible wrote: » What do you know about how much forensic evidence should be where? Do you watch a lot of CSI? So you think someone sneaked in and spread her bones around Avery's bonfire? Probably Link or Fassbender, they seem to be the bad guys going from the documentary.
bryangiggsy wrote: » After reading this I believe Avery is guilty as charged !!http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php
runningbuddy wrote: » One thing struck me. When the judge was sentencing Avery, he mentioned (and I'm paraphrasing here) that Avery's crimes had escalated over the years. The only crimes I'm aware of are, the horrific cat incident and pulling a gun on some woman prior to his wrongful rape conviction. Am I missing something??
Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Patrick Willis would not allow Dawn Pliszka, an Auto Trader receptionist at the time, to testify about one of Halbach’s previous encounters with Avery. “She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel,’’ Pliszka said while the jury was outside of the courtroom. “I just said, ‘Really?’ and then she said, ‘Yeah,’ and laughed and said kinda ‘Ew.’’’ Willis said he could not allow the testimony because the date wasn’t clear and few details were known about the alleged encounter. But Pliszka did testify before the jury that Avery called her on Oct. 31, 2005, to request the photographer who had been out to the property previously. Schuster said she talked to Halbach by phone around 11 a.m. that day to tell her of the appointment at the Avery property.
8-10 wrote: » Yes it's standard procedure according to people who work with blood vials. You basically have to puncture the top of it to insert the blood, it's the only way of inserting it without exposure to the air. The vial is vacuumed so it won't spill out the hole. So it is likely that the hole was made in 1985 when blood was first collected and inserted into the tube as evidence. Still doesn't mean that somebody couldn't use the same hole later to extract from the vial, but the presence of the hole is not suspicious although the documentary kinda made it seem like that. The broken seal on the box certainly looks suspicious though!
