MovieChat Forums > Making a Murderer (2015) Discussion > Anomalies of this case

Anomalies of this case

posted 7 years ago by FactUnderChecK
46 replies | jump to latest

The following is not a list of things that are impossible. It's a departure from the normal or common order. A string of increasingly unlikely events.

1:Th murdered before key depositions effectively ending the sa civil suit. Quickly.

2:Colburn's somewhat (highly) suspicious call in for plate numbers. A scenario where he is not looking at the car... unlikely.

3:The decision to give pam and only pam a camera and she happens to find the rav in a few short minutes (along with some other bizarre circumstances).

4:Steve bleeds in a number of spots inside of the car - no where outside around the debris he has supposedly placed over the car.

5:The blood 'drops' have no satellite spatter which is extremely unlikely if the blood has actually dropped.

6:A LE conflict of interest is acknowledged publicly - Is blatantly flouted by mcsd who continue to actively investigate the crime scene 'under supervision'. if they need to be watched they shouldn't be there - this is truly bizarre.

7:I won't say that the amount of prior searching of the trailer before the key is found is an anomalie - but the officers who find they key and the circumstances they claim that led to it.. an unlikey story to say the least.

*side note: speaking of unlikely stories... see everything brendan confesses to*

8:Which brings us to the garage with LE are attempting to prove is a/the shooting site - conveniently finding a fragment with dna from blood or otherwise on it but no other blood anywhere raising the implausible scenario sa and bd totally cleaned the garage minus 1 fragment or some how a bullet fragment was transported from another location by unknown means for unknown reasons.

...low and behold who finds the fragment... yup!

I'm not implying these things make avery innocent by default but these are things that make me question the integrity of LE in this investigation.

Someone call jeff and explain probability to me 

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

1:Th murdered before key depositions effectively ending the sa civil suit. Quickly.

Amazing for those involved in the civil suit. They should be down on their knees, thanking the Coincident gods.

2:Colburn's somewhat (highly) suspicious call in for plate numbers. A scenario where he is not looking at the car... unlikely.

Peculiar, coupled with his deciding to make the run to the salvage yard that night himself, even though his shift was almost over, his talk with Steven Avery, AND his not stopping by Zipperers because "the lights were out."

3:The decision to give pam and only pam a camera and she happens to find the rav in a few short minutes (along with some other bizarre circumstances).

Incredible in that Pam was apparently the only one who thought to search the salvage yard. Others in the search party surely heard the news, too, including Ryan himself, or Mike Halbach, and yet they didn't think of that? In the entire day and a half since Teresa was reported missing?

4:Steve bleeds in a number of spots inside of the car - no where outside around the debris he has supposedly placed over the car.

Astonishing in that he left blood but no fingerprints. Anywhere.

6:A LE conflict of interest is acknowledged publicly - Is blatantly flouted by mcsd who continue to actively investigate the crime scene 'under supervision'. if they need to be watched they shouldn't be there - this is truly bizarre.

Mindblowing in that conflict of interest applied to the coroner but not to Manitowoc County law enforcement personnel actively involved, as you say, in the investigation, to the point of finding key (pun intended) evidence.

8:Which brings us to the garage with LE are attempting to prove is a/the shooting site - conveniently finding a fragment with dna from blood or otherwise on it but no other blood anywhere raising the implausible scenario sa and bd totally cleaned the garage minus 1 fragment or some how a bullet fragment was transported from another location by unknown means for unknown reasons.

Incomprehensible in that two bullet fragments are found, one at the back of the garage under a compressor, one at the front of the garage in a crack in the concrete. So the shooter stood in one direction and shot Teresa, then turned, faced the other direction and shot her again? Equally perplexing is that law enforcement had to have walked over that bullet-in-the-crack numerous times before finally realizing it was a bullet.

Infuriating could describe the lack of photographs in this case. None of the burn pit before, during, or after bones were removed. None of the bone found that led to that excavation.

Inept describes how they actually treated the burn pit. No containment or contamination path, no grid, no forensic anthropologist on site. Just dig those ashes, sift, and box. And then take the boxes to the sheriff's office, not a morgue.

I'm not implying these things make avery innocent by default but these are things that make me question the integrity of LE in this investigation.

Yep. Me, too.

Someone call jeff and explain probability to me

Please! Don't anyone call Jeff. Do you really want to conjure him up, Fact? 

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

Facts and mme. Let's look at actual testimony:

Your comments: (suspicious if something takes too long, suspicious if something doesn't take a long time. Do I detect a mindset?)

"3:The decision to give pam and only pam a camera and she happens to find the rav in a few short minutes (along with some other bizarre circumstances)."

"Incredible in that Pam was apparently the only one who thought to search the salvage yard. Others in the search party surely heard the news, too, including Ryan himself, or Mike Halbach, and yet they didn't think of that? In the entire day and a half since Teresa was reported missing?"

Actual testimony:

1)Buting: "So you found it within about 30, 35 minutes or so?"
PS: "That's correct."

2) PS used to be a PI, forgot her camera, asked for a camera and one was loaned to her by the search leaders.

3) "the entire day and a half" Sounds like a long time, right, but it's more like 2 hours of daylight. TH was reported missing Thurs. Nov. 3 at 2:35 pm. When did LE find out ASY was the last stop? (Nov. 5?) Posters were made up the next Nov. 4 morning, picked up 1-2 pm. Friday. Search party started around 4 to 4:40 pm Nov. 4 (dark around 5 pm?) That night after work PS offers to help the search and shows up a bit late Sat. morning. PS and NS arrive ASY around 9:50 am. Phoned LE 10:29 am. Somebody decided to search ASY. Would whoever made that decision be suspicious?

4) PS testifies she had not spoken to LE prior to the search. Anyway, how would LE know that Earl would give PS permission to search his private property?

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

Pam knew she was going to join the search. She -- and she alone (something you still haven't addressed) thought of searching the salvage yard. She's a former PI, trained in such things, presumably. And yet she forgets her camera and forgets her glasses! No wonder she was no longer "in the biz" if that's the way she conducts searches. Or stakeouts. Or whatever she did as a PI.

Pam made that decision, or at least that was her testimony. She, and she alone, decided that was a good place to look.

LE wouldn't know if they could search the property if they didn't ask. Why didn't THEY ask? Why would Earl say no? He didn't to Pam, or to Teresa's cousin, Beach, who drove through there earlier, apparently.

The family were almost certainly all notified on Nov 3 when Karen reported Teresa missing. Wiegert, et al, were at Teresa's residence by 5 pm that day. Ryan and friends were already there and had downloaded her cell phone information, having "guessed" her password. Give.me.a.break. They had her list of appointments, apparently, having spoken with AT. Lemieux and Wiegert also spoke with AT. They knew who was on her list of appointments that day.

And yet no one thought, that day, or in the day following: "Hey, she was at ASY. Let's go there and look!"

Last stop or first stop; when searching you go everywhere the person had been, don't you?

Colborn goes and talks to SA that evening, who, despite what you believe, told him yes, she had been there, took photos, and left. He does not go to Zipperers, even though he is told to, because "the lights were out." What kind of LE just decides to disobey a direct command because "the lights were out"?

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

mme Just keep ignoring the facts, they just get in the way of your beliefs.

Confirm or deny:
1) The search party started around 4 pm on Nov. 4 after getting flyers printed, that's with about 1 hour of daylight left on Nov. 4. Let's not pretend civilians had a day and a half to search.

2) On the morning of Nov. 5 LE still thought the order was SS, Avery, Zip.

3) LE were told by SA that TH had left ASY and turned left at Hwy. 147.

4) "She, and she alone" (Too much "Perry Mason" watching?)If it had been Joe Blow who searched the ASY, you would have been suspicious of Joe Blow.

5) Pam is a distant cousin of TH. Why would she know TH was missing on Nov. 3? I don't even know the names of second cousins let alone worry about their whereabouts.

6) Pam joins the search the very next morning and finds the car by 10:30 am (too fast? too slow? Which is it?). How many hours of daylight between the start of the search and Pam driving to join the search? You do the math. If you can find more than 3 hours of daylight, please enlighten us all (pun intended).

7) To do an in-depth full search of a large property the police are going to get a search warrant. To get a search warrant they need reasonable grounds.

8) You are arguing a) LE had tunnel vision and only looked at SA b) LE didn't search ASY soon enough for your liking. Which is it?

8) Yes, a group of friends and family, including females, were right there trying to figure out TH's password. So it's suspicious when friends and family are trying to do something and suspicious when they are not doing something? (and you get to decide THIS????)

9) TH is a missing person at this point. The first thought is where would she go voluntarily. Avery supporters are quick to accuse the family of reacting too slowly. You don't know how you would react.

10) "despite what you believe" You have me confused with someone else. SA was overheard telling someone (Fabian?) non-LE that TH had not arrived.

11) Bonus advice... I'll give. you. a. break...stop working backwards from what you believe and start with the hard evidence. Thanks for the morning laugh.. "Pam knew she was going to join the search." Great opening line for a bad romantic thriller. Did she talk to herself and find out?

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

) The search party started around 4 pm on Nov. 4 after getting flyers printed, that's with about 1 hour of daylight left on Nov. 4. Let's not pretend civilians had a day and a half to search.

24 hours after she's reported missing? Why wait for flyers? Did no one get out and drive the roads, looking for her car? They knew on the afternoon of the 3rd where she had been; they had her phone records and info from AT. If it had been my family member missing, I think -- admittedly can't say for sure what I'd do in the midst of panic and worry -- that I'd personally go to each of the people on the list of appointments and talk to them. It's possible LE told them not to do this, but who knows?

) On the morning of Nov. 5 LE still thought the order was SS, Avery, Zip.

Did they? This is the day that Wiegert tells Remiker "change of plans. The boss has something he wants us to do". That "something" apparently was to get some search party people over to ASY. Why didn't LE just go there themselves, ask Earl if they could look around?

I'm not saying Pam knew TH was missing on the 3rd. She said she heard about the Salvage yard on the news. She was not the only person watching the news, surely. No one has yet said why only Pam thought to search there. Actually, she was not the only one; David Beach had been there that same morning. But he was independent of the search party. Pam is the one who went to Ryan, told him where she wanted to search, borrowed a camera, etc. And, coincidentally, found the car in 30 minutes.

6) Pam joins the search the very next morning and finds the car by 10:30 am (too fast? too slow? Which is it?). How many hours of daylight between the start of the search and Pam driving to join the search? You do the math. If you can find more than 3 hours of daylight, please enlighten us all (pun intended).

What does this even mean?

7) To do an in-depth full search of a large property the police are going to get a search warrant. To get a search warrant they need reasonable grounds.

Not if they get permission. They hadn't even driven through there. When a policeman stops you for a traffic ticket and asks if he can search your vehicle, anything illegal or incriminating he finds there is admissible. He doesn't have a warrant, only your permission.

8) Yes, a group of friends and family, including females, were right there trying to figure out TH's password. So it's suspicious when friends and family are trying to do something and suspicious when they are not doing something? (and you get to decide THIS????)

Give me a break, Bernie. Also, your snarkiness throughout your post doesn't advance your argument. Ryan Hillegas said they made up a user name and "guessed" her password, but then couldn't remember what it was? I don't know how they got into her phone records, but I don't believe that. And why did they go so immediately to her phone records? I've never quite understood what they thought they were going to learn from that. They knew that she worked for AT on Mondays, they knew her area was Manitowoc County, they knew who she (supposedly) saw that day. So what were the phone records going to tell them?

I have no reason to believe Ryan Hillegas is guilty of anything but his behavior in this case is certainly questionable. First on the scene, organizes a search party, hacks her phone records, can't remember what time of day he last saw Teresa (a week ago), gets antsy and nervous when asked about being on the ASY property (on video), moves into Teresa's rooms in the house and stays there for a month, knows more about her than her roommate, the man with whom she lived (and, if you believe witnesses, was intimate). And yet no one doubts him. Just SA, the master criminal.

9) TH is a missing person at this point. The first thought is where would she go voluntarily. Avery supporters are quick to accuse the family of reacting too slowly. You don't know how you would react.

She was a missing person on the morning of the 5th, too, when Pam found the car. And yet neither Pagel nor Wiegert -- NEITHER! -- ask her if there's any sign of Teresa when she says she's found the car. No one rushes out there to open the %^&*#@ thing to see if there's anything inside that might indicate where she is. No. They are much more concerned with preserving evidence. They put up a tarp, take down a tarp, disconnect the drive shaft, haul it 200 miles in a trailer....and then the next day the photographer, first on the scene, according to him, finds it UNLOCKED?

And yet you don't question any of this?

10) "despite what you believe" You have me confused with someone else. SA was overheard telling someone (Fabian?) non-LE that TH had not arrived.

Fabian couldn't even remember what day he was there, or went rabbit hunting. This is the worst kind of hearsay: SA was "overheard" telling someone else. According to Colborn himself -- that stalwart of the Manitowoc Sheriff's Office and, indeed, candidate for the very office of Sheriff -- SA told him on the evening of Nov 3 that TH had been there, photographed the car, and left.

11) Bonus advice... I'll give. you. a. break...stop working backwards from what you believe and start with the hard evidence. Thanks for the morning laugh.. "Pam knew she was going to join the search." Great opening line for a bad romantic thriller. Did she talk to herself and find out

When you begin to ridicule your opponent, you indicate that you are out of ammunition. I used to respect your opinion and your posts, but I think we're done here.

[–] summerishere77 7 years ago

Going on Brendon's 'confession'
I don't get how they could convict him of murder if everything in his statement didn't happen.
How could they stab her, cut her throat and have zero blood or her DNA in that trailer anywhere?
Also, why didn't they show the last 1 1/2 hours of that video? At least the part where he told his mom that 'They got to my head'?

I'm sure most of the jurors had convicted them before they even got started.

Salsa Shark

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

Do you think manipulative editing by MaM affected your opinion? AC is shown answering a question he was never asked. An LE (verified by reddit TTM) called this AC call routine for verifying info from a different agency. TH's call on the Janda answering machine...edited. JR's testimony...words edited out ("at least") 3 feet high fire. Why?

Also, as someone posted on SAIG:
"MaM edited/spliced KH's answers so he is describing the air compressor bullet as flattened. At the trial he was describing the bullet wedged in the concrete (garage floor) as a flattened bullet, not the bullet found under the air compressor. He described that one as a nearly in-tact bullet.

The entire exchange is screwy. Too much splicing of the Q&A between the DCI and KK. MaM literally switched the DCIs answers in the testimony (the two bullets), leading the viewer to believe the DCI found a flattened bullet under the compressor."

Facts for facts: The civil suit did not end. Pam did not find the Rav in a few short minutes (more like 25 minutes). SA bled in the Rav and his own vehicle because he had a deep cut on his finger...amazing coincidence. How would LE know SA had a cut finger?

One bullet fragment had TH's DNA, one was found to be from the gun above SA's bed. Coincidence?

SA lied about what he was doing that night even though BD could have been his alibi. If he was innocent, why would he lie?

BD helped clean part of the garage floor with bleach that night. This is an incredible coincidence: BD cleaning up a reddish liquid and drawing the spot and that spot showing up with Luminol. Why clean one spot in a dirty garage on Hallowe'en?

Why didn't SA just call TH directly that day when he had her cell number and she had his? Why take off work for the first time ever? Why give BJ's number as the contact knowing his sister wouldn't be home? Why call ^67 twice, then not the third time? The coincidences go on and on, so yes coincidences and anomalies work both ways.

What is the probability that SA is telling the truth and dozens of people are lying and dozens of people are in on a conspiracy?

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

An LE (verified by reddit TTM) called this AC call routine for verifying info from a different agency.

What he actually said -- if you're referring to the LE officer (apparently from Kansas) who answered a specific question from a "guilter," was that it was the wrong way to do it. That if he was training someone, they would use what AC did to show the trainee what not to do. What he said was that it was "not necessarily suspicious."

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

I'll help you out there mme and give you a little more of the reddit quote from that LE:

"It was right, because the O.A. called him by phone to "disseminate" the information (which is still a very common technique when you have sensitive information and you don't want it blasted all over the entire state, or metro area) and the Receiving Investigation did his due diligence to verify the information was correct, giving him probable cause to investigate further at the Avery place."

Further down he said, "yup, seems normal to me" about sending AC to check Avery's and Zips.

As for using his personal cell phone, have you ever listened to a police radio?

By this wacky theory of AC looking at the RAV, was AC in on the conspiracy BEFORE he phoned dispatch on a recorded call? Why check the plates? IF he was in on a conspiracy, why on earth would he phone dispatch? Did AC hatch a plot right there on the spot? If there was no conspiracy, AC would have said I have found a missing person's car...if he were actually looking at it.(Unless he is a criminal mastermind!)

Why would LE risk the chance of being caught at ASY by moving the vehicle? SA is convicted mainly because of HIS blood in the car.,, wherever it is.

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

By this wacky theory of AC looking at the RAV, was AC in on the conspiracy BEFORE he phoned dispatch on a recorded call? Why check the plates? IF he was in on a conspiracy, why on earth would he phone dispatch? Did AC hatch a plot right there on the spot? If there was no conspiracy, AC would have said I have found a missing person's car...if he were actually looking at it.(Unless he is a criminal mastermind!)

Why didn't he say to Lynn, with whom he was on chatty terms, "hey, Lynn, can you give me that license number of the missing person again? I want to make sure I wrote it down right." Instead he asks her to "run SWH 582".

Also, he didn't remember, on the stand, where or when or why he made that call. Ten years later he writes in an email a detailed explanation of why and when he did it.

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

To address those first 3 paragraphs - right. I'm not defending mam riding a bias but that doesn't change the actual craziness that went on.

Personally i don't put much weight on the he said/she said testimony: witness testimony. Its inherently unreliable - there's any number of reasons why people who testified changed their stories or remembered things differently be it honest mistake, outside influence or flat out lies which i believe rh/st/ps probably engaged in for their own (and potentially unrelated) reasons. But thats just my opinion and frivolous against the hard evidence.

I'll give you the *67. Right, its a bit odd. And i could do a whole topic on whether or not its an odd event that actually makes steve look guilty or not, but sure. And yes there are a a couple of anomalies that can swing the other way.

And this is the point where we have a fundamental disagreement...

If steve is guilty: the blood in the rav4 is just a true scientific anomaly and the fact he didn't bleed else where in/on the vehicle while transporting the body is just pure chance.

It still leaves *imo*: colburn almost certainly saw the vehicle before pam.
They planted the key.
They planted the bullet fragment(s).
LE convinced a kid to confess to a murder he simply did not take part in.
MC shouldn't be on the crime scene actively participating in searches!

Again i'm totally open to the possibility the crime scene was 'fixed' and some testimony was 'fixed' and avery still did it.

But if true how do you trust the remains were found in the burn pit and not dumped there after the fact or that blood in the rav wasn't swabbed on?

You still think he is undoubtedly guilty and i understand why but acting like this investigation was all above board just isn't realistic.

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

Why would Bo. D. lie about seeing TH walk toward SA's trailer? Why would he lie about later seeing the Rav 4 but no TH? How did Bo. D's car magically disappear in the time it took SA to go into his trailer and back out. There is no logical explanation for this unless SA is lying about seeing TH's car turn left at Hwy 147. Do you actually believe that? There is only Avery Rd. out. Where does Bo. D.'s car go to?

The bottom line is either SA or Bo. D. is lying. There are so many bottom lines where either SA is lying or another person is lying. At what point do you say hmmmmmm?

Blood...has it occurred to you that SA was likely in the Rav more than once? When was he cut? Swabs...you do know Q-tips of some sort are used to swab blood for analysis?

Where are you getting that the blood spatter is not "right"?

The bone fragments were found entwined with the tire rims that SA was burning. BD was moving rims out of the burn pit that week.

There is zero evidence AC saw the Rav first. Nobody is stupid enough to phone dispatch on a recorded line when planning a felony. How on earth could AC tell it was a '99 Toyota (in the dark no less) unless he was confirming info he ALREADY was given. If you scribbled down numbers while driving, would they always be legible to you?

BD talked to his cousin months before LE even suspected BD of being involved.

Yes, conflict of interest and shoddy investigation. One last question: If it was your daughter missing, would you be all ethical about conflict of interest and say don't let Man. LE do anything? I didn't think so.

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

I don't know why bobby would lie, he may well have reason too. Likewise maybe not. Which again, witness testimony for me is frivolous in relation to hard evidence.

The blood is clearly from transfer and if its transferred directly from steves hand then it should follow that transfer blood should be smeared not only in a wider pattern but on more areas he must have conceivably touched inside and out.

Colburn is outside his vehicle, there is someone else there*?*. If there was a good reason other than looking at the vehicle he didn't volunteer it. Did he?

If it was a relative or close friend who was missing i may be inclined to lose my objectivity on advice/information from LE.

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

"areas he must have conceivably touched" The words "Must have" and "conceivably" don't go together. Blood is in 6 places. The evidence is that SA bled in both vehicles. SA had a deep cut. Call it "transfer" if you want, no idea where you get that from. SA may have been wearing gloves and blood seeped through. He could have put on a bandage at some point. He could have been in the Rav multiple times.

There is zero evidence AC is outside his vehicle. There is zero evidence anyone else is with him...as if he goes around on patrol with a civilian woman in the patrol car. The voice in the background is from the dispatch area.

Do you think AC finds a car in the dark within a few minutes or hours of the info going out late pm Nov. 3? (Yet Pam finding a car in broad daylight in 30-35 minutes is unbelievable?) Even more absurd is the theory that AC finds the Rav while driving through a quarry or salvage yard in the dark with a female passenger and then decides (mid-felony) to phone police dispatch on a recorded call while staring at the vehicle in front of him and a woman says "the car's here" (the one he is supposedly staring at!).

AC's testimony is "doctored" on MaM. AC is shown to answer a question he is never asked. He did say exactly why he phoned in... to verify info from another agency...routine police work. Police radios are not very clear.

Avery supporters start with conspiracy (anyone but Avery) and work backwards. Try starting with the hard evidence. Where does the evidence lead? Witnesses may be mistaken, but what are the odds that dozens of people are lying or mistaken?

For me it comes down to knowing SA is lying, lying, lying. We know this because of evidence. TH did not arrive between 2 and 2:30. The question is why is SA lying? If he was innocent, why wouldn't he give the perfect alibi of being with his nephew tending a fire and cleaning a garage...unless he knew those innocuous activities point directly at the murderer.

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

The holey glove? Where he has managed to bleed through the back of the glove to smear a qtip sized amount of blood on the ignition.. but also bleeding enough to have passive drops which for some reason don't appear to have satellite spatter.
The blood in his car is where you would expect it to be. gear stick, steering wheel etc.
But in the rav we are talking about a scenario where he enters the car not bleeding enough to transfer on the door, and he has entered the car only to touch the ignition, a cd case and fumble around the passenger side.
He has wiped blood over half the cd case apparently and hasn't noticed. While also managing to lift the hood and remove a battery without passively bleeding on any of those things.

Oh thats right the weigert thing. Where he is given the plate numbers, doesn't have time to write it down but recites the information back perfectly to dispatch. Possible. You're willing to say the voice is the police radio but not that he is outside his vehicle? You don't think his radio which we would assume is either attached to his torso or directly infront of him on the dash would come through hell of a lot clearer? Is he sitting on it?

I'm all for starting with hard evidence, but before i reverse engineer i want to establish if the hard evidence can be trusted. If we don't establish the reliability of that evidence then we accept that keys fall out of shelves after vigorous shaking that doesn't disturb anything else on the shelf...

If the evidence isn't planted then avery did it. Simple. Because of the way the evidence was found, documented and handled my first concern is the legitimacy of the evidence.

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

1) Have you read the Nov. 9 State Crime Lab report on the bleeding in the Rav and Grand Am? You might want to read that before making claims. Or was the crime lab in on the conspiracy?

For example "A bloodstain with these characteristics is created or formed by the force of gravity acting alone on a blood source often indicating active bleeding."

The report concludes that the passive blood drops and transfer stains are similar in both vehicles, consistent with both being driven by someone who is actively bleeding.

Nick Stahlke, a blood pattern expert, testified to this in court.

2) While opening the hood SA did leave non-blood DNA. BD gave the info that SA opened the hood. Cloth work gloves don't need holes to "bleed".

3) The AC testimony in MaM is a "cut and paste" butchered series of edits to make AC look suspicious. Some actual testimony:

Q. "Mr. Strang asked whether or not it was common for you to check up on other agencies, or perhaps I'm -- I'm misphrasing that, but when you are assisting another agency, do you commonly verify information that's provided by another agency?"

A. "All the time. I'm just trying to get -- you know, a lot of times when you are driving a car, you can't stop and take notes, so I'm trying to get things in my head. And by calling the dispatch center and running that plate again, it got it in my head who that vehicle belonged to and what type of vehicle that plate is associated with."

4) The Rav has no plates on it. How is AC looking at the plates when he calls? Why on earth would planters take off the plates and hide them?

5) AC is not using the radio. The voice in the background on the cell phone conversation is a female voice at police HQ, likely another dispatcher. Or do you think a police radio is "a helluva lot clearer" than a cell phone? Why would LE choose to speak on their garbled radio (open to being heard by police scanners) when they could have a relaxed, friendly conversation on a cell phone? Listen to the full conversation. "How's your Spanish, Andy?" This is a routine conversation, no excitement in either voice. Nobody is looking at a missing woman's vehicle...which would have been the find of AC's career, a hero cop!

"If the evidence isn't planted then Avery did it. Simple." Yes.

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

Have you read the Nov. 9 State Crime Lab report on the bleeding in the Rav and Grand Am? You might want to read that before making claims.

what claims are contradicted? I don't know if i read the report but i read the trial testimony.

I can look up the Q and A from the trial on stahlke if you need me to (its not super easy looking at transcripts on my phone) - im sure you know how to find it if you really want to though.

The long and short of it is nick ends up acknowledging he can't say it is more likely that someone was actively bleeding in the car than he could say someone put the blood in the rav with a qtip or dropper.

The court actually agrees implying how the blood got there is outside his scope of expertise.

At one point nick is saying he believes there should have been blood on the carpet - from his experience the lack of blood on the carpet means someone tried to clean it.
Implying avery has cleaned blood off the carpet but for some reason not the ignition or cd case etc etc... weird no?

That exchange ends with nick saying he's not sure if its easier to clean blood off a hard plastic surface or absorbent fabric like carpet... nice.

Bottom line stahlke has no good explanation for how a cut on the inside of averys finger would leave the pattern on the ignition.

If you are honest with yourself i think you'll find yourself performing some gold medal mental gymnastics to find a motion avery could have made with his finger to leave that pattern.

And who wiped the cd case?

Nick Stahlke, a blood pattern expert, testified to this in court

nick testified he is no more certain that blood came from a finger than a qtip.

Oh i see, so you're saying it comes from.the dispatchers end? I can't really refute that. I'm not sure how much certainty you have that is correct?

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

Facts, your claims were simply wrong. For instance, you said,

1) "Colburn is outside his vehicle, there is someone else there*?*. If there was a good reason other than looking at the vehicle he didn't volunteer it. Did he?"

In court testimony AC gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for what he did and I quoted it to you. Police officers on reddit (for what that is worth) have confirmed this is a routine call.

Can you give any sort of reasonable explanation/scenario how this "outside his vehicle with a woman" in the dark looking at the plates of a vehicle (that doesn't have plates) plays out? This is within a short period of time of getting the info. Do you think he stumbled on the Rav in the dark while on patrol with a woman in his patrol car or are you into the full blown conspiracy theory? (In which case why would he phone dispatch RECORDED NO LESS if he already knew it was TH's car?)

2) Your claim: "The blood is clearly from transfer."
Actual Crime Lab Report: "A bloodstain displaying the characteristics of a passive drop, measuring 9 mm wide, was present on the passenger side rear door threshold" This was "often indicating active bleeding".
In court scientists cannot make definitive statements about how something happened (speculation), they only report what they find.

Others have pointed out that the transfer near the ignition could be the back of a glove or someone reaching for the keys from the passenger side door (the driver's side being blocked).

You don't accept a) hard evidence and DNA b) witness testimony c) a confession d) the lies of the accused. How exactly would ANYONE ever be convicted of any crime? What else is there?

On the other hand you seem quite willing to accept completely speculative stories about everyone else (e.g. AC finding a car) in the case with ZERO evidence. Do I detect a pattern here?

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

Wow. Easy bernie. No need for the intellectual dishonesty.

Your claim: "The blood is clearly from transfer."
Actual Crime Lab Report: "A bloodstain displaying the characteristics of a passive drop, measuring 9 mm wide, was present on the passenger side rear door threshold" This was "often indicating active bleeding".

that's just a blatant misrepresentation of what i have been saying about blood spatter. You know it and i know it - so why do it?

Others have pointed out that the transfer near the ignition could be the back of a glove or someone reaching for the keys from the passenger side door (the driver's side being blocked).

ok.. who are the others? And what exactly validates their opinions.. in your opinion?

In court scientists cannot make definitive statements about how something happened (speculation), they only report what they find.

but that is exactly what the prosecution ask nick to do. And he quite happily obliged from memory - until it blew up in his face on questioning by the defense where he acknowledges there is no basis for him to theorize that it is more consistent with an active bleeder than a qtip application.

Now im not going to sit here saying "ahh facts bernie facts, you're wrong you're wrong" because that could come off a little condescending.

In court testimony AC gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for what he did and I quoted it to you. Police officers on reddit (for what that is worth) have confirmed this is a routine call.

he does mention weigert at that stage and i acknowledged that so i'm not sure why you are acting like i didn't. Full props. Again?

You don't accept a) hard evidence and DNA b) witness testimony c) a confession d) the lies of the accused. How exactly would ANYONE ever be convicted of any crime? What else is there?

what else is there? An expectation that if there is an acknowledged conflict of interest between le and a suspect then le should respect the boundaries that were put in place to prevent foul play - instead they flouted it through the entire investigation.

It makes no logical sense under the circumstances that you would have officers who literally need a minder present to ensure they are being honest searching the crime scene.. and naturally who ends up finding the evidence..

Its shady, and theres not just one instance of shady business on that crime scene.. its a reoccurring theme when mc officers are on the property. Which is why until further testing i am not willing to put my faith in the hard evidence that was found.

If mc had respected their boundaries i think we would have a very different case .

On the other hand you seem quite willing to accept completely speculative stories about everyone else (e.g. AC finding a car) in the case with ZERO evidence. Do I detect a pattern here

i wonder if you have spent too much time flicking between saig and ttm - of course there is a pattern here, i'm playing devils advocate to the states case. If no evidence was planted, thats fine - the right man is doing time. And i believe i have a workable theory on how avery can be guilty and the police not to have planted evidence. A more coherent narrative than what the prosecution put forward anyway. Which is why i say again i am totally open to the possibility he is guilty - but what i still want to establish is whether the crime scene handling errors and coincidences have occured out of sheer incompetence and luck or if mcsd is just shady.. at the moment i lean towards mcsd being shady as hell!

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

1) Your quote... "The blood is clearly from transfer and if its transferred directly from steves (sic) hand then it should follow that transfer blood should be smeared not only in a wider pattern but on more areas he must have conceivably touched inside and out."

Conclusion of Crime Lab Report:
"The contact/transfer stains and the drops found in the area of the driver's seat of items A and B, the Rav 4 and the Grand Am respectively, are consistent with the operation of both vehicles by an individual who is actively bleeding."

2) You asked for an explanation for blood transfer near the ignition. I simply gave you a logical one that I had read. It's speculation anyway.

3) It is the job of defense attorneys to attack the evidence and prosecution witnesses. You are right, it's not the job of scientists to speculate, the report uses the word "consistent", but the jury decided they believed the blood came from the defendant on that night. Can you and I agree that if SA was actively bleeding in the Rav 4 the night of Oct. 31, then he is involved in the murder?

4) Have you tried playing devil's advocate against the defense case? Not as much speculative sleuthing adventure I guess. What happened to the "obvious who killed TH" and the "airtight alibi' from almost a year ago?

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

Yes... like i said? its a contact transfer.
As discussed in relation to the spatter in the rav - it is equally consistent with qtip transfer as active bleeder.

You asked for an explanation for blood transfer near the ignition. I simply gave you a logical one that I had read. It's speculation anyway.

ok no problem - what do you think about nicks opinion the pattern is not necessarily consistent with a glove?

Can you and I agree that if SA was actively bleeding in the Rav 4 the night of Oct. 31, then he is involved in the murder?

yes. We can.

Have you tried playing devil's advocate against the defense case? Not as much speculative sleuthing adventure I guess.

absolutely, like i say - i think ive got a pretty good idea how this murder could have taken place with steve guilty and no evidence planted.
Its not about sleuthing, its just about questioning whether this crime scene has been fixed or not.

What happened to the "obvious who killed TH" and the "airtight alibi' from almost a year ago?

the airtight alibi is th mobile has left the property and sa hasn't.

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

"the airtight alibi is th mobile has left the property and sa hasn't."

This has been argued about for a year. Still waiting. I am sure you know that a cell tower has a range of about 10-20 miles which makes for a circle area of roughly 100-400 square (round?) miles, not exactly pinpoint accuracy. The sector number could narrow that area down, but not rule out that the phone might be 12 miles away from the tower.

Without cell tower triangulation you can't say exactly where a phone is.

You could say, for instance, TH's phone is not in Green Bay, too far away. There is also no proof that TH was even with her phone after she arrived at ASY or that SA stayed by his trailer. What is really suspicious is that there is a two hour period where neither TH nor SA uses their phone. Has SA ever said what he was doing between 2:45 and 5 pm? If his mother came over, why didn't she testify?

As far as misrepresenting goes, you made a comment about where the radio was "was he sitting on it?" which totally misrepresented my point that AC was talking on his cell phone for clarity's sake.

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

i think ive got a pretty good idea how this murder could have taken place with steve guilty and no evidence planted.

Have you presented this theory previously? Because I'm interested.

My position is if Steven Avery did this, he either was dumb beyond belief, believed he was above suspicion and LE would not dare suspect or accuse or arrest him due to the lawsuit and his previous history with them, or he honestly believed (also dumb beyond belief) that he had everything covered.

He may, in fact, be that dumb and/or naïve. Or that filled with hubris. I've just never been able to figure out which I think it might be. And there is his consistent denials. I know people do deny their behavior, but that had not been his pattern previously. Of course, he had never been charged with murder before, either.

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

Prepare for tldr

Rape/murder occur at the garage. Subdued outside, restrained in the garage.

I find to it difficult to rationalize a scenario where there is a bullet fragment in the garage with nucleated dna that isn't there because she was shot there. I think some people suggest she was murdered else where and used a gun to break up the bones.. but someone would have noticed multiple gun shots i think? I'm also not sure how easily dna transfer would be achieved from charred bone.

I simply have to suspend disbelief and say yeah. Steve with brendans help, have managed to clean every spot of blood up.

The blood in the rav - cargo area from theresas fatal head wound. Steve i guess has cut his finger or reopend a recent cut in the initial struggle and potentially unaware of it due to adrenaline. (If steve is actively bleeding my feeling is he must be gloveless lack of fingerprints is just another anomaly..)

I know some people suggest he tried using the quarry but changed his mind..
I don't think its possible for steve to have transported her to the quarry and brought her back to his own burn pit. I don't think he had time and i think there would be evidence, ash.
I believe he must have only used it to hide the body temporarily.

What steve does with the rav after that is insane. The only reason he would remove the battery is because he literally intends to sell the battery and probably other parts too. I think?

The key - he disposes of the original key set *somewhere* takes the spare key from the vehicle and maybe gets some blood on it, so he cleans it but doesn't realize holding it after cleaning it will leave his dna on it. And he genuinely hides it in the bookcase to use later.

Imo the only thing brendan could have told the truth about is cleaning. I don't think he saw her body at any stage.
As for the phone calls pior - i don't read anything in to them. I don't think he made the appointment with rape on his mind - the call after. Possibly to locate her phone if it has been dislodged at some point?

Ultimately the whole thing is crazy risky. Like people say steve planned it so there would be no one else around.. nothing about this crime from steves perspective is consistent with planning. In reality steve has no idea who is around or more importantly who would show up. He can't plan that.
But steve does have a temper and in the heat of the moment doesn't think about consequences - as seen in incident with cousin on open road.

The facts aren't super fresh in my mind so the above may not be totally on point. But you do genuinely need to suspend disbelief to look at this crime scene and propose the evidence hasn't been planted. I don't think there is a way around it.

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

Have you tried playing devil's advocate against the defense case? Not as much speculative sleuthing adventure I guess. What happened to the "obvious who killed TH" and the "airtight alibi' from almost a year ago?

This question was posed to me by someone on this board months ago. And, forgive, me, but I consider it pointless and more than a little naive. Steven Avery was found guilty. He is in prison for life. Why would anyone play devil's advocate for the victorious or winning side? It's a misnomer, for one. How can you even do that?

One plays devil's advocate against the perceived "right" answer, posing "what ifs" that provoke debate and deeper or further thinking about the subject.

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

In court testimony AC gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for what he did

He said he assumed he was calling to check the information he had. He didn't even know when he called or where he was when he called or why he used his cell.

I notice that you don't fully quote the LE on reddit -- if we mean the same one -- when he says what Colborn did was not the proper way to do it. He clearly says that in training they would use that as a demonstration of what not to do.

Others have pointed out that the transfer near the ignition could be the back of a glove or someone reaching for the keys from the passenger side door (the driver's side being blocked).

Who are these "others"? Experts? We can all surmise how it might have happened. But you never address why there was no blood outside the car or elsewhere. He had to use the door to get in and out, right? So why no blood? He put the camouflage on the RAV, right? Why no blood? No threads from his gloves? If he took off his gloves, why no fingerprints? Did LE cordon off the RAV and look for footprints, tire marks, etc? No. They allowed numerous people to gather around it and peek in the windows. The ground was trampled by LE and anyone else, apparently, who wanted to rubberneck. Kratz himself was there at one time.

You pick and choose your arguments, Bernie, and think the ones you choose are conclusive and ignore the rest. But this is where reasonable doubt comes in.

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

Maybe you missed AC's trial testimony: (not the edited, switcheroo version on MaM)

A. "All the time. I'm just trying to get -- you know, a lot of times when you are driving a car, you can't stop and take notes, so I'm trying to get things in my head. And by calling the dispatch center and running that plate again, it got it in my head who that vehicle belonged to and what type of vehicle that plate is associated with."

AC said it was Nov. 3. It follows that the call was made sometime after sunset. You suggest the Rav was not at ASY. Are you saying AC stumbled upon the car somewhere in the dark within a short period of time and was staring at the plates and decided to phone police dispatch (always recorded) while hatching a criminal act and then hid the plates because well... because they wanted it found 2 days later?

If police were framing SA, why would they take the risky chance of moving the Rav to ASY? His blood was enough. Is it an astonishing coincidence that LE would find the vehicle within hours before anyone else finds it? Or just go the full monty and say AC killed her?

On TTM they love to talk about police surveillance. Was it black-op helicopters hovering over ASY or CIA satellites or AC in a tree with binoculars? How else would framers know SA didn't have an alibi?

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

You suggest the Rav was not at ASY.

I didn't suggest that. I have no idea if he saw the car, saw the plates, why he called it in as he did. All I'm saying, which is what many are saying, is that that call is odd. 1) he made it from his cell phone instead of his radio; 2) he asked to "run" the plates instead of asking again for the missing person's vehicle info. The very wording is questionable if what he wanted was to verify that he had written it down correctly.

Actually, since he said "you can't stop and take notes, so I'm trying to get things in my head" it means he didn't write it down. He was asking her to "run" that plate from memory? Some have said they had in-vehicle screens in 2005; if so, all he had to do was pull it up, not call on his cell phone. I don't argue that because I don't know.

And I repeat, he may not have known his cell phone calls were recorded. Testimony exists that not all officers knew that.

I have also never said that I believe LE were framing Steven Avery. I do believe some evidence may have been/probably was planted to "help the case along." But it wouldn't be the first time that LE -- particularly Manitowoc County LE -- had tunnel vision where Steven Avery is concerned. That alone, with the blatant use of Manitowoc personnel after supposedly and publicly "handing" the case over to Calumet County, creates questions and suspicions. Frankly, it astounds me that that doesn't trouble you....or indeed, anyone fixed on guilt. Even if you believe SA (and BD, perhaps) are guilty, I'd think you'd admit that there are things in this case that just don't smell right, and the conflict of interest, which they invoked only when it came to the coroner, is one of them. Even Law67, a former LE officer, has said on this board that is what makes him have reasonable doubt as to Avery's arrest and conviction. He thinks even if he is guilty, his trial was unfair.

Why do you frequent TTM so much? They so obviously don't share your opinion....and in fact, don't even allow your opinion, having banned most Guilters. Are you a glutton for punishment?

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

Actually, since he said "you can't stop and take notes, so I'm trying to get things in my head" it means he didn't write it down.

Yeah absolutely, it implies he did not write it down but has remembered the information perfectly... not outside the realm of possibility but likely? I'm not sure.

Why is weigert manually ringing individuals to pass on this information? How many other people did he ring? Has he issued a bolo?

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

Why is weigert manually ringing individuals to pass on this information? How many other people did he ring? Has he issued a bolo?

I've questioned many of Wiegert's actions, and more of his "reports", but I don't question this. He apparently called Manitowoc County and was, perhaps, patched through to Colborn, who was in his patrol car, and asked that someone go out and talk to someone at Avery Salvage and to the Zipperers and in so doing would have given the missing woman's name, description and vehicle information. Or perhaps Colborn was at his desk and received the call. Either way, instead of assigning it to another patrol officer, he, Colborn, decided to go himself to Avery Salvage Yard, since, as he said, he was familiar with it, having been a customer there. He was 30 minutes away from the end of his shift, which makes it a little more questionable, but it's possible he was intrigued (assuming no conspiracy, of course) and wanted to be involved or at least know more.

That's the "innocent" assumption, anyway, and as such, makes sense to me. Or as much sense as anything Colborn did in this case.

Now, if he was at his desk, there's no reason not to have written the information down and taken it with him. If he was in his patrol car, he might not have written it. But why call and ask for it en route unless he saw a vehicle he thought might be it? And he remembered it well enough (perfectly, in fact) to ask Lynn to "run" it, which means that if he saw a vehicle that he thought might be it, he remembered the plate number enough to know the one he saw was not it. Or, alternately, if he saw a car he thought might be Teresa's why wouldn't he ask to run that plate number? Instead of SWH582?

It is possible that he, having arrived at ASY, called to make sure he had the right vehicle info before he got out of his patrol car, in case he saw the vehicle on the property. Or, having spoken with Steven, called as he was about to leave ASY, or even as he was driving past Zipperers? But then why not use his radio? And if he was driving he still couldn't write it down, could he? So I think we have to assume he was not driving but stopped, wherever he was.

All of Colborn's behavior in this case raises questions, from that call to driving past Zipperers because "the lights were out" to volunteering to go back to Zipperers after his shift was over -- did Remiker and Dedering really need him? -- to "being frustrated" to the point that he "roughly shook" a little bookcase, causing a key to fall out. And that doesn't even include his part in the 1995 phone call.

[–] babz12 7 years ago

But you never address why there was no blood outside the car or elsewhere. He had to use the door to get in and out, right? So why no blood? He put the camouflage on the RAV, right? Why no blood? No threads from his gloves? If he took off his gloves, why no fingerprints?

Personally, I think most of this could be explained by SA taking more than one trip to the RAV. First, he could've driven it with gloves and/or wiped it all down so no fingerprints and was not bleeding at that time. The next, he could've gone back, bleeding, but sleeves pulled down over his hands (living in Minnesota, I often do this if I'm not wearing gloves in the fall/winter) and can still open the door without getting fingerprints all over and the sleeve would soak up the blood. But the sleeves get moved up with a long reach across to grab the keys, exposing his cut which swipes against the ignition. He didn't see the blood because it was dark out, and didn't even know he was cut or had reopened the wound at the time. Could've camouflaged the RAV at yet another time, or even had Brandon do it (possibly why it was done so badly).

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

That exchange ends with nick saying he's not sure if its easier to clean blood off a hard plastic surface or absorbent fabric like carpet... nice.
[/quote

What idiocy! Anyone who has ever cleaned anything knows which is harder!

[quote]Bottom line stahlke has no good explanation for how a cut on the inside of averys finger would leave the pattern on the ignition.

If you are honest with yourself i think you'll find yourself performing some gold medal mental gymnastics to find a motion avery could have made with his finger to leave that pattern.

And here is the problem with those who keep insisting the evidence is all convincing. It's just not. Nor is misquoting what witnesses actually said or what Steven himself said, helpful. Be honest about what we know and then argue your convictions, admitting, as we do, that what we know supports both guilt and the possibility that he is not guilty. The blood in the RAV is a big obstacle for me to "not guilty"....but then I question where it is and where it is not, and the lack of fingerprints. Those convinced of guilt should look at the other evidence in the same way and honestly acknowledge that some of it has real problems.

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

Cloth work gloves don't need holes to "bleed".

But they don't drip blood either. Unless it is really pouring out and if it had been, why not on the outside of the RAV, on the door handle, on all the things we've already mentioned? You ignore those questions because you don't have an answer for them.

The RAV when found had no plates on it. No one knows when Colborn called dispatch to "run" that plate number, do they? Even he didn't know. It's ridiculous to say the RAV had no plates when the time of the call can't be established....nor when the RAV's plates were removed. No one is claiming, I think, that Colborn came upon the RAV parked where it was found!

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

areas he must have conceivably touched" The words "Must have" and "conceivably" don't go together. Blood is in 6 places. The evidence is that SA bled in both vehicles. SA had a deep cut. Call it "transfer" if you want, no idea where you get that from. SA may have been wearing gloves and blood seeped through. He could have put on a bandage at some point. He could have been in the Rav multiple times.

BS. Why no blood on the door handle? He had to use it to get inside the vehicle. If he saw it there and wiped it off, did he not think "hey, I may have left some inside, too"? He had 3 days to check this stuff. Why no blood on the camouflage, the last thing he would have touched? Why none on the license plates? On the hood release?

Police radios are not very clear.

Oh, Bernie.....you're grasping at straws now. So why do police use them then? Why not just use cell phones all the time. That's not a conceivable reason for him using his cell phone.

There is serious question whether or not there even was a fire on Oct 31. I know you don't believe this, or want to, but read all the witness testimony and see when a fire is first mentioned. Fact is right; eye witness testimony is the weakest of all evidence in this case.

[–] kspkap 7 years ago

As per Bernie:

Police radios are not very clear.

As per Mme:

Oh, Bernie.....you're grasping at straws now. So why do police use them then? Why not just use cell phones all the time. That's not a conceivable reason for him using his cell phone.

Agree with Mme. The majority of LE in this country uses the Motorola HT and they ARE clear. The most critical time of failure was 9/11 due to a transmitting/receiving problem between the towers. How do I know this info? I was in R & D, assembling and testing these devices at Motorola. They most definitely were and are clear!

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

Blood...has it occurred to you that SA was likely in the Rav more than once? When was he cut? Swabs...you do know Q-tips of some sort are used to swab blood for analysis?

How did he leave blood and no fingerprints? And please, no bleeding through gloves theory; it's ridiculous.

Why no blood on the camouflage? It would be the last thing he touched. Why was the blinker jammed under the back seats, holding them up?

Nobody is stupid enough to phone dispatch on a recorded line when planning a felony.

He used his cell phone. And there was testimony that not all LE realized that those calls were recorded. Why would Lynn even mention that he called in that number? Apparently she didn't....but there was a recording.

BD talked to his cousin months before LE even suspected BD of being involved.

Kayla claimed she made what BD told up. Why believe everything he said but not what she said? That's the problem with this case: people picking and choosing the things that bolster their own convictions. And that works both ways: for those convinced of guilt and innocence.

LE should be ethical, period, no matter whose daughter it is. What if BD was your son?

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

It still leaves *imo*: colburn almost certainly saw the vehicle before pam.
They planted the key.
They planted the bullet fragment(s).
LE convinced a kid to confess to a murder he simply did not take part in.
MC shouldn't be on the crime scene actively participating in searches!

What I think, too.

Again i'm totally open to the possibility the crime scene was 'fixed' and some testimony was 'fixed' and avery still did it.

Ditto.

You still think he is undoubtedly guilty and i understand why but acting like this investigation was all above board just isn't realistic

This has been my problem all along. Believe he's guilty is reasonable; I understand it. Defending the investigation is not; there are just too many questions and anomalies and errors. I think those convinced of guilt feel they have to defend it because if they acknowledge all the errors and questions, it opens up the possibility -- just the possibility -- of SA not being guilty. And they refuse to go there. It's like the saying "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

I didn't want to point out to "fact" that he/she was using the term "devil's advocate" in the wrong way. It means "someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support" (Cambridge dictionary) i.e. for the sake of argument.

If "fact" doesn't really believe in SA's innocence, he/she could argue either side of the debate, that's all I was suggesting. If he/she really, sincerely believes in SA's innocence, it's not "playing devil's advocate".

Absence of evidence is not evidence. I'll stick to evidence, thanks.

People can go to reddit Super MaM and read what that one LE said in total besides "Yup, seems perfectly normal to me." ("Dispatch logs" 8 days ago)

Straw man argument: I haven't seen anyone defending the sloppy investigation lately, even on SAIG. What I read on TTM is a comment like "the young lady he was involved with". What a polite way to say the underage niece who reported to LE that SA raped her.

Consistent denial? Honest SA lied to the police after the SM incident. They checked his warm engine. It was someone with a conscience who went to LE about the cat killing, not SA.

Still waiting for an explanation for both SA and BD not saying they were together tending a fire and cleaning a garage, a wonderful alibi... if SA was innocent.

[–] JeffS90092 7 years ago

I don't really come here anymore because nothing new has come to light (despite LE engaging in this massive conspiracy which they had no idea would ever be under such intense scrutiny.) It seems like SA isn't coming home any time soon.

Just wanted to thank you for continuing to fight the good fight, Bernie. No idea how you have so much patience. You're logical and civil. I'm only one of those things.

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

Thanks Jeff and ro. I agree same old, same old from conspiracy theorists. Whatever floats their boat. I'll take a break till the dreaded Zellnami hits... oooh boys and girls... be very afraid.

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

I'm only one of those things.

Not even one.

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

Haha just one? Ive only ever known you to be half of each on a good day.
It is a noble crusade you and bernie are on - asking questions is a dangerous business, here's hoping bernie keeps fighting the good fight and ends question asking for good! Right?

[–] JeffS90092 7 years ago

We'll see who's half-logical when Zellner's investigation turns up diddly. I expect a heartfelt apology from you at that time, something like:

"Dear Jeff,

I'm sorry I let conspiracy theory nonsense cloud my judgement. The tinfoil hat I was wearing was acting as a vice grip and it squeezed all of the common sense out of my mind. I now realize that there was really no practical explanation other than Steven Avery committing this crime. I now see you were only trying to help me think in a more critical, logical manner. I hope you find the Omaha steaks I have included to be a delicious form of atonement. I'm sorry for putting you through so much $h!t, bro.

-The Green Guy"

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

So, those with different opinions are required to apologize? If a court finds there is no basis for that opinion?

Since when?

Such fragile feelings, and such a desperate need to Be Right! Not only Be Right but Be Declared Right.

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

Absence of evidence is not evidence. I'll stick to evidence, thanks.

Now you're quoting Kratz?

That bastion of integrity and proper behavior? That stalwart of justice? That upstanding elected official?

Give.me.a.break.

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

I didn't want to point out to "fact" that he/she was using the term "devil's advocate" in the wrong way. It means "someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support" (Cambridge dictionary) i.e. for the sake of argument.

One who argues against a cause or position either for the sake of argument or to help determine its validity - dictionary . Com

Sounds fine to me - would you like to suggest an alternative phrase that is more accurate than devils advocate?