MovieChat Forums > Making a Murderer (2015) Discussion > Back to Patio Door

Back to Patio Door

posted 8 years ago by berniegfletcher
65 replies | jump to latest

From Remiker's Report:

I was assigned to search the desk area located in the living room area. I located some copies of what looked to be digital photos which contained pictures of a female's anatomy and a penis. One of the pictures was dated 10/10/05 which was a close-up photo of an erect penis, There were numerous nude photos of a female dated 01/02/05 and 01/15/05. I located a small notebook which contained on the second page the phone number of (920) *** ****. The note contained the words "Back to Patio Door." Based on this investigation, I was informed that the phone number on the second page of the notebook was indeed the cell phone number for TERESA HALBACH.

How many people think Oct. 10 was a failed attempt so SA needed another reason to get TH to his trailer? Barb did not want to sell the van. Does 2 plus 2 equal 4?

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Hi Bernie.

It certainly is strange that The Penis Pic was taken the same day of Teresa's previous appointment, I wonder if there's any time stamp on it. Didn't cameras provide them back in 2005? I thought they did, but maybe not.

I may again be mistaken, but I thought the page of the notepad that had Teresa's cell number was separate from the one with "back to patio door. As in, the following or previous page. Was it on the back of the page with her number?

To me the "back to patio" door note is cryptic. It could be it was to remind himself to tell Teresa to come to that back door after she was finished shooting the van, out of sight of virtually anyone, which, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is what I think you think it means. But I don't see why he'd find it necessary to write himself such a note. Surely he could remember that without a note?

To answer your question more directly, it does appear to me that October 10th was a failed attempt, and that's why he hid his identity on October 31st.

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Hi catbooks, Yes I think the phone number was on another page in the notebook, not sure. (speculation)I suspect the note was meant to be stuck up on the front door, but maybe SA forgot his own plan.

Maybe SA figured out that the van needs to be closer to the trailer on the 31st instead of down by the office. I think he moved the van after the 10th. Who else would? (Was he concerned with getting the right ambience for the crappy van? /s)

Avery supporters will never answer questions like why didn't SA use BD as his alibi, why didn't SA phone TH directly, why phone Auto Trader and give the name of B. J., why use *67 to TH later, then no *67.

He knew BJ was going to be at work all day. SA knew that TH would likely just get an answering machine and she did at 11:43 am. I believe her instinct was to try to find out who she was going to meet.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Hi catbooks, Yes I think the phone number was on another page in the notebook, not sure.

Same page, different ink/pen, I think. Implying written at different times.

Maybe SA figured out that the van needs to be closer to the trailer on the 31st instead of down by the office. I think he moved the van after the 10th. Who else would? (Was he concerned with getting the right ambience for the crappy van? /s)

Are you saying that the bus driver saw TH taking photos of the van and two other vehicles on 10/10 up near the office, and that SA then moved it closer to his trailer and called AT to have photos taken of the same van again on 10/31? All so he could lure TH to his residence? Or are you saying it was a different van?

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

This would be my explanation: The bus driver saw the TV news about TH's disappearance and there's SA on TV in front of the crappy red van.

Light bulb moment, bus driver remembers a woman taking photos around 3 vehicles by the office, including a crappy red van and a Grand Prix. (Who would actually take note of and remember or even be able tell which of three vehicles some stranger at a distance was photographing... while at the same time driving a school bus?) In her mind she puts 2 and 2 together, tells police she saw a woman taking photos of a van down by the office, but doesn't remember when.

It was likely TH taking photos of the Grand Prix on Oct. 10 since the van was by the trailers on Oct. 31. The other two vehicles were still parked by the office when the bus driver talked to police, but the van was not there.

So SA has TH's cell number in big letters in his notebook, phones TH for a hustle shot (more money for her) for Oct. 10, TH has ben there a number of times, BUT then SA decides not to phone TH directly, but wait till Monday morning, phone Auto Trader and give the name B. Janda as the contact knowing full well his sister will be at work all that day and no one will answer that phone.

Why did SA move the van? My guess, either too many people around the office and/or SA wanted TH closer to the trailer. What really happened on Oct. 10?

Then when he becomes impatient waiting for TH to show up, he dials *67 plus TH's number even though TH knows his number and SA has dealt with her before.

BTW everyone scoffed at Jodi taking rat poison because she was so desperate to get away from SA. SA confirmed today on Dr. Phil that this was true, she took poison in front of him, threw up and ended up in the hospital.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Light bulb moment, bus driver remembers a woman taking photos around 3 vehicles by the office, including a crappy red van and a Grand Prix. (Who would actually take note of and remember or even be able tell which of three vehicles some stranger at a distance was photographing... while at the same time driving a school bus?) In her mind she puts 2 and 2 together, tells police she saw a woman taking photos of a van down by the office, but doesn't remember when

Okay, thanks. So the photographer -- presumably TH -- was taking photos of the other vehicles on the 10th when the bus driver saw her? But the bus driver, hearing on the news that she was called to take photos of a van, assumed the photographer was taking photos of the van on the 10th? And not the other two vehicles? That's a lot of presumption, both on her part and on yours. Especially since she couldn't even remember what day she saw the photographer.

You make much of SA telling AT it was B. Janda's vehicle. But it was B. Janda's vehicle; she was the one who would sign the title if it sold. But you believe because he didn't give his name, that it was to conceal from TH where she would actually be coming. In that case, what did he plan to do about the address, which she would surely remember, having been there 4 previous times, and which she later said to Dawn was the Avery brothers. Yes, he gave B. Janda's phone number, but did he have reason to believe TH would call that number, since he also apparently gave the address? I think the mix up about the address, if there was one, could be that Dawn apparently first only gave TH the name and phone number and not the address. Otherwise, why would TH call and say she didn't have an address and couldn't come out unless she got one? But then later, she did get the address when Dawn faxed the appointment sheet, and said to Dawn that she realized that was the Avery brothers.

I don't know why he used *67 when he called TH. It may be as you think; it may not be. It's speculation.

Jodi and the rat poison. So she takes it in front of him? Did she think/hope he would just let her die? Did she think he'd rush her to the hospital? What was her plan? If Jodi didn't have so many problems of her own--including repeated DWIs and losing custody of her child--her actions in this regard would be more credible, I think.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

After that beautiful comment, are you still claiming to be sitting on the fence?

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

After that beautiful comment, are you still claiming to be sitting on the fence?

If you're talking to me, then: Yes. Yes yes yes yes yes.

Just because we present another side, does not mean we -- or at least I -- think SA is innocent. I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. He may be guilty. He may not be. I'll say it again: I don't know. But this is a debate. We are debating what may have happened. Why does anyone expect those of us who present an alternate possibility to argue the way the person with whom we are dehating argues? What would be the point in that? My comments to Bernie are an alternate possibility to his theory about what the bus driver saw and whether or not SA moved the van, and if he did, his motive for moving the van. We are all speculating. No one knows any of this. It's a discussion.

The point is, we can either agree: yes, Bernie, I think you're right."
Or we can say, "Well, how about this as another possibility, another point of view?" And then we present that other point of view.

I, for one, am more than a little weary of being told what I really think about this case simply because I debate points of view and speculation. I don't argue on the side of guilt because I think there is room for doubt as to guilt. Why would I "argue the other side" as has been suggested? There are plenty here doing that, all of whom have no doubt about guilt; their minds are made up. Those of us who still consider there may be doubt quite naturally argue the side that supports that idea; that there maybe doubt. We don't know, and so we question, and we present those questions as a debate with those who are convinced of guilt. I don't think any of us -- certainly not me -- are trying to dissuade anyone from his/her position of believing in SA's guilt. We are simply presenting the possibilities that have convinced us there's doubt.

For crying out loud! This shouldn't even need explaining.

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

mme You have every right to disagree and I wouldn't expect any different. I like to hear another side. We can agree to disagree.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Because those who claim to not know if SA is guilty or NOT means there is doubt on the side of his guilt AND innocence, yet only arguments on the side of his innocence are consistently argued, no matter how nonsensical or unlikely they may be,

I, personally, still have questions, even though after months of studying and reflecting, sitting on the fence. During this time of questioning, I examined both sides equally, which is not what I've seen from those who claim to be neutral and "not know." If it had been, I could respect that position.

To claim neutrality, yet consistently argue or debate in favor of innocence, isn't being honest; that's expressing that in your opinion, SA is more likely than not to be innocent of this crime, that LE is more likely than not of railroading him in this case as they did in the case of PB's rape and battery (if not attempt to murder her), is NOT a position of neutrality, no matter how hard you and others who agree with you may make it out to be.

What anyone else here has to say about it should be of no consequence, IF one is truly trying to get at the truth. What someone argues and questions should have nothing to do with what YOUR arguments and questions are. As an individual, looking at this case objectively, as you claim to be, what anyone else says or argues should have nothing to do with your own opinion. Yet you consistently claim the reason you don't argue or debate in the side of his guilt is because "other people are doing that."

What on earth does that have to do with YOUR opinion? Are you leaving this up to others to think and ask questions for you? That's what it sounds like. I can't see any other interpretation.

Having doubts means having doubts on BOTH sides, yet you only acknowledge one, that's the problem. If you believe in SAs innocence and argue it, as you've consistently done, that's fine. But don't try to say you're neutral when you consistently argue for his innocence. This goes for Ksap, and the others who do the same.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Yeah it's like that gf/bf you had as a youth, that you knew was cheating on you, you had proof they were cheating on you but they give some poorly thought out explanation to their actions and behaviour that makes zero logical sense, but because they wont admit it you kinda question yourself and give them the benefit of the doubt because you are a decent person at the end of the day. However after this goes on for too long you just refuse to play the game any longer, and just ignore the bs that spew from their mouths.

Ahh I just realised this is more or less what cv has described as why he has ended up being so harsh to the truthers on this page.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

What larks you know you are on my ignore list dude

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

One purpose of maintaining an objective strategy is to play a serious game of devil's advocate. Asking, when evidence seems to point in one direction, why it might not necessarily be accurate. This is done primarily for one's own benefit. Let others consistently make the opposite case, and you consistently test alternative intepretations. That's what devil's advocacy is: testing. Testing is not concluding. I don't see mme3924-1 concluding.

The reason to maintain an objective strategy in the first place is because one feels a sense of doubt significant enough to warrant it. There is nothing to lose by doing this, and potentially truth to gain. I don't see mme3924-1 making many categorical denials - or making any kind of categorical statement, in contrast to many. I have also seen an openness to acknowledging that certain scenarios do seem suspect.

Without at least one serious devil's advocate, the board would just be repetitive reinforcement of the same accepted truths. I think that's a healthy impulse, a healthy result. People are bound to complain about it, though. Constant testing makes people testy. Dishonesty is going to be the inevitable label.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Without at least one serious devil's advocate, the board would just be repetitive reinforcement of the same accepted truths.

This.

Why would those who have doubt come here -- on a discussion board that is nothing but opinion, by the way; it's all any of us have -- argue for what a jury has already decided? SA and BD are legally guilty; the court found them so. Guilt is assumed, therefore. So, to express the opinion -- again, all we have -- that the jury may have got it wrong, one, by necessity, presents other --opposite-- viewpoints, not the same ones presented by the prosecution at the trial. That's been done. What would be the point in restating the points for "guilt", if one has doubt that the investigation was thorough, that the witnesses were convincing, especially when some contradict others, that all the evidence was sacrosanct, that Manitowoc County's involvement was not a conflict of interest, and that the trial was completely fair?

This is the last time I'm going to address this issue of "neutrality" as it relates to my own position. It is immaterial to me if other posters believe I am neutral or if they "respect" my position or if they consider my debate honest or dishonest. Their opinions aside, I know what I think about this case and believe that my arguments about it are fair and reasonable.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

NO ONE would be here at all, discussing this, were it not for the (deceptive and manipulative -- provably so) documentary. MAM. There would be no IMDb board for it to begin with, and no forum for or reason to discuss it. That's obvious.

Legally guilty or not, MAM tried hard to make the argument that SA, and BD, were innocent. That's the reality, and hence the discussion.

What's the point for restating, or bringing up new points, that point to guilt? Same, hopefully, as bringing up points that point to innocence. Attempting to get to the truth. What else matters?

Aside from the known facts, yes we are all speculating and giving our opinions.

But is accusing Dawn of perjury simply because she couldn't remember whether she called Teresa or Teresa called her that day fair and reasonable? Or that it was suspicious that they spoke for under 5 minutes? Or that the LEO deliberately falsified a document when he mistakenly wrote down Barb's number listed to SA, even though we don't know when he wrote that report and it was EASILY disproven? (Not to mention his defense thought it was so unimportant, they never bothered to bring it up)?

Fair and reasonable, yeah, not.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

One purpose of remaining OBJECTIVE is to "play a GAME" of devil's advocate? Sorry, but no.

If one's interest is in finding out the truth, which is by nature transparent, why the need to play a game, which is by nature NOT transparent?

The argument that if there were no one playing devils advocate, while not admitting it, would mean everyone would be in agreement is false,. In this thread alone I questioned Bernie that SAs "back to patio" note was necessarily connected to Teresa. I've made many similar statements, as have others.

I even posted a thread asking if those who believe SA to be guilty still had questions. Specifically in that instance about the lack of any DNAin the garage, other than the tiny amount found on a bullet fragment. Most were honest and said yes, that bothered them too. So much for the argument that those who overall, due to the overwhelming evidence, have no doubt about it.

I hate to pull the "I've been here longer than you card," but the fact is I have been on this board since February, and have read most, if not all, of Mme's posts. She's claimed she has NOT always come down on the side of SA's innocence, and that I merely missed her earlier posts when she was more even-handed. Obviously I can't comment on posts that were made before I was here, and wouldn't try to. What I can say is that from February on, she has consistently posted on the side of SA's innocence, and LE's guilt, even though she disagreed with this.

Occasionally she has said something along the lines that SA is the most likely suspect, but that's few and far between. I would hardly call that being open to acknowledging that some scenarios seem suspect.

Additionally, she posts primarily on the TTY board on Reddit, which, frankly, is mostly filled with nut cases posting illogical (to be kind) conspiracy theorists. The only times I've seen her post on the other board, who believes SA (and most likely BD as well) is guilty, is to defend them both,

If you think this is an effort to be objective, okay. I think it very clearly is not.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I don't see "you," meaning collectively, being open to the jury having gotten it right. What I see, consistently, is the POV that they got it wrong. You specifically have said you don't believe anything that came out of Kratz's mouth, even though we KNOW some, at least, of it was fact.

Kratz was not an honorable person. I'd be surprised if anyone, except perhaps CV, said otherwise. However that doesn't mean EVERYTHING he said was untrue. Demonstrably it's not.

It's quite evident you are NOT neutral. If you were, you wouldn't have flown off the handle the way you did about the possibility of SA luring Teresa to the property that day. If you believe it's possible SA did rape and/or kill her, and that the jury could have gotten it right, then he did lure her there, or may have done. So why get so upset and adamantly deny it, if your position really is neutral? That makes no sense.

I have questioned many aspects of this case, as you well know, but I've questioned BOTH sides, not just one, as you have done.

If you dislike being referred to in the collective as "truthers," or whatever, and insist you don't all think the same way, I suggest you don't refer to everyone who believes, or thinks it's most likely, that SA is guilty, as SAIGers and lump THEM all together, just as you don't wish to be lumped together, let alone insulted as a group, as you too have done.

I've never called "truthers" stupid, ignorant, or whatever, and you know that, yet you say it anyway.

Sorry, but you're behavior does not add up to neutrality. It never has, as long as I've been here, and still doesn't. If you're honest you'll admit this.

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

If one's interest is in finding out the truth, which is by nature transparent, why the need to play a game, which is by nature NOT transparent?

I deliberately called it a "serious game" and you deliberately omitted "serious." That omission is the game you play, and you hope it will not be transparent.

I don't think there is a lack of transparency to start with. Moreover, how is it necessasrily true that transparency better leads to finding out the truth than not? The onus is on you to support such a claim.

The argument that if there were no one playing devils advocate, while not admitting it

To be clear, I didn't say "while not admitting it." That part is your argument, not mine.

Your occasional disagreements constitute normal internal flux among parties who otherwise overwhelmingly agree. There is a relatively narrow spectrum of dissent, and a relatively wide spectrum of agreement. You describe the evidence against SA as "overwhelming," a word that also fairly describes the overall degree of consensus among parties who think of the evidence in that way.

So much for the argument that those who overall, due to the overwhelming evidence, have no doubt about it.

Except I've never stated or even implied that people "who overall, due to the overwhelming evidence" have no doubts. You consistently put your words in my mouth. That's not the way to get at truth, nor is it honest. The beam is in your own eye.

Occasionally she has said something along the lines that SA is the most likely suspect, but that's few and far between.

I'm not sure there is a general standard for how often someone must re-establish their position that they think SA is the most likely suspect while addressing specific details of the case.

Everyone has a personal yardstick by which they measure openness; the accuracy of those yardsticks is subject, in turn, to the openness of those applying them. By the way you choose to not see words, or to add words and meanings, to what I've said in only this exchange, I think it's only reasonable to be skeptical of your argument to superior knowledge based on time span on the board.

The paragraph about Reddit is transparently guilt-by-association. Again, so much for truth-seeking and honesty.

We will both be content to agree to disagree.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Added: As far as declarative statements, Mme said several times that Dawn, of Atuo Trader, committed PERJERY when she said Teresa had called her, rather than the other way around, which we now know because of the phone records. Does this make any sense to you, rather than she simply being mistaken about who called whom that day?

Mme said it was a matter of Dawn commenting perjury, rather than a simple mistake. How is that not a declarative statement? Quite obviously it is. You're bright, I don't buy you're unable to see this.

She also said that the LEO who wrote in his report that Barbs phone "listed to" SA, which is obviously, and easily provably incorrect, was a matter of deliberately falsifying a legal document. This was a declarative statement.

While i agreed with her that the LEO wa incorrect, I disagreed that it was a falsifying of the documents. I asked her repeatedly if she'd made any mistakes in her own legal career, which she refused to answer, or even acknowledge. This is something I consistently see from her and others who profess to, and presumably do feel, the same way: ignoring and refusing to even acknowledge, let alone answer, any direct and simple questions that point towards SAs guilt.

If you think this is honesty and an interest in discovering the truth, okay, but how you can see that is beyond my ken, as they say.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

No one, on either side, so far as I know of, has disputed that Kratz should never have given those press conferences, including Ktatz. According to the jurors ' statements, it didn't matter to them (have you read their statements? I doubt you'll answe that), so the point is ultimately moot, but all the same he shouldn't have done it, as virtually everyone agrees, because the potential was there.

The number was in fact traced to one of AT's several numbers in use at the time. There is no doubt about it, except in the minds of the remaining conspiracy theorists, of which the owner of that blog has consistently been a member of. To reasonable people, this was investigated and debunked to everyone else' s satisfaction.

If you're not certain, and could believe either way, you would not consistently come down on the side of innocence, and never on the side of guilt, so, sorry, I just can't buy that.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

What in heaven's name are you seeing in what I'm not saying? When do I ever come down on the side of innocence? I'm not coming down on his innocence any more than his guilt! How do I say he's innocent? Because I question the investigation? Because there are aspects to this case that are not completely clear to me?

If you're not certain, and could believe either way, you would not consistently come down on the side of innocence, and never on the side of guilt, so, sorry, I just can't buy that.

I could say to you "Back at you! The road runs both ways." Why do you always come down on the side of his guilt? You never come down on the side of innocence. See how silly your statement is?

I think I've finally figured you out, cat....you like to argue for arguments sake. You pick at the most inconsequential things. Like someone picking at a scab. Well, no more with me! Go sling your diatribe at Zellner. See how far you would get in a court of law. I've had it with you. And it's sad because I used to enjoy your intellect, your knowledge and your recall ability.

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

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

And...to do a follow up to Mme's post, I'm going to quote words from a poster on another board. I'm sure he/she would not mind as the post sums it up pretty d__n well!

Right..
I have to go along with the general concensus or I'm an outcast, otherwise known as a troll.
A troll hasn't got much to say of the subject, but more against posters in general. I haven't spoken one harsh word about anyone here, and never will.
The purpose of the boards is to give an honest opinion. There's nothing in the guidelines and rules demanding all posters must be in agreement with one another. Should that be in order to save myself from the texting overlord? Or do I really have my right to my opinoin?

Who was it that said 'I may disagree with your opinion but I'll fight to the death, your right to say it'?

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

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I can see no reason why TH would have any reason to recall SA's address. She'd only been there 5-6 times, she goes to many addresses every week, and she was given a different name as the customer, which didn't even have the last name of Avery.

I suspect Teresa, already cautious about the appointment perhaps being with SA, was double checking when she called and asked for a call back. Speculation, of course.

As he was the one who'd be there, not Barb, which he knew when ha made the appointment, and knew she wouldn't be there to take any call, there was no purpose for him to not give his own number as a contact, should TH be late or at worse be unable to make it at all.

Why did he call her at all, let alone disguising his number? Why not just say, without any blocking, "Hey, Teresa. This is SA. I'm B Janda's brother and will be there to meet and pay you in my sisters behalf. Just wondering when you'll be here"?

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Of course no one answered this, because there is no logical answer to it.
;)

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Not surprisingly, there's no answer to my question. Because, really, there is none.

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

How many times do we have to do the *67 thing?
It makes no sense

That. AND ....

There is zero reason for avery to need to 'lure' th out there with a fraudulent order or a *67 call.

She goes there all the time - if for some reason she was no longer happy about going there.. she wouldn't have gone there!

There is zero reason to think th wasn't comfortable going there and by that even less reason for steve to think she wasn't comfortable going there.

Back to *67 what could he possibly hope to achieve by using *67 other than protecting his own number? What was he going to say if she answered? Because that's usually the aim of calling someone, if he's trying to disguise his identity it makes no sense at all.

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Why didn't SA call TH directly the same way he did on Oct. 10? He has her number in big letters on a notebook, but he waits until Monday morning and phones AT instead giving BJ as the contact number knowing full well no one would answer that phone.

" if for some reason she was no longer happy about going there.. she wouldn't have gone there!"

Where is "there"? She has an appointment with a B. Janda. At some point TH finds out it is the Avery Bros. At what time does she find out it is actually SA and not someone else at ASY?

SA phones using *67. Why doesn't he leave a message saying this is Steven A., I am waiting for you to arrive? There is no reason for him to use *67 unless he wants to keep his identity secret. I expect he would hang up if she answered or try to disguise his voice. He wasn't big on planning, not too smart.

For the record I don't think SA planned any killing at that point. Something set him off.

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

Why didn't SA call TH directly the same way he did on Oct. 10?

exactly - she does do hustle shots for steve. If he was planning something he would have called her direct but he doesn't want to pay the extra couple $ for a hustle shot so he organizes it through AT.

what time does she find out it is actually SA and not someone else at ASY?

why does that matter? She shoots for steve and she knows where she is going.

Why doesn't he leave a message saying this is Steven A., I am waiting for you to arrive? There is no reason for him to use *67 unless he wants to keep his identity secret

because he doesn't want to be a dick? If a client of mine is running late and i call them to find out where they are i don't leave a message for something that trivial.

For the record I don't think SA planned any killing at that point. Something set him off.

i'm not sure you get to have the cake and eat it. He's either planned it or he hasn't. You're saying he has planned to lure her there. But i dont see why he needs to go to these lengths to lure her? Or why he would if he's not planned on attacking her?

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

"he doesn't want to pay the extra couple $ for a hustle shot so he organizes it through AT."

Complete and utter nonsense! Try again. The customer is not charged any more, TH just gets paid more commission by AT. So you are saying instead of phoning TH directly any time that week before, he decides to phone A. Trader at the last possible minute on Monday so he can deprive TH of a few extra bucks? So a complete jerk, is that your reasoning? That makes zero sense.

TH does not only shoot for SA at ASY. There are others who sell vehicles at ASY, including TJ. TH thinks she is going to meet a "BJ". Many people live at the ASY on Avery Rd. At some point during that day (before 2:27 pm) TH knows it is Avery Bros. but she does not know it is Brad Pitt a.k.a. SA.

SA went out of his way to make sure TH DID NOT KNOW who she would be dealing with. Why? The only reason I can see is that TH would not come out if she knew it was SA. He "creeps" out female photographers. A friend of TH has said TH did not want to go out there.

It is sad to imagine TH phoned BJ's home at 11:43 am trying to find out who she is going to meet. (No one will call back. BJ is at work. Bo. D. is asleep) TH "needs" a call back. She is pleading for a call back. MaM cleverly deceives the viewers by deleting part of her phone message. TH says she doesn't have the address and can't come out unless she gets a call back. It is obvious what she really wants is to know who she is dealing with, she wants to talk in person to whoever she is about to meet. She is trying to be cautious.

TH had the courage to do her job even though she didn't get that call back. Young people rarely see the danger ahead. (When I was young I was in a plane crash in the bush, job related. I walked away and got on another plane. It was the professional thing to do, you just do your job.)

MaM cut that line out of her message because you can hear the pleading in her voice. Like other edited/altered testimony (e.g. from AC, SJ), it did not fit their teddy bear narrative.

There is nothing wrong with leaving a message saying, "This is SA, Wisconsin's Brad Pitt. How's it going? I'm here waiting for you. Call me, let me know when you will be arriving." People do this all the time. It's not rude.

Why is SA so intent on selling a crappy van (that he doesn't even know the make of) that his sister doesn't want to sell? Why not just leave it up by the office with a "For sale" sign where visitors can actually see the van? (As if anyone is going to buy a crappy, old van that was already in its rightful place...a scrap yard.)

"He's either planned it or he hasn't."

Straw man argument. Now you are just being absurd. Only people who plan to kill someone ahead of time carry out murder? On TV maybe. In real life, things get out of control, short, brutal, stupid, senseless death. Stupid people do stupid things. SA is a stupid man who thinks he is Brad Pitt and thinks he is untouchable, thinks he can get away with anything. He's famous, he's going to be rich. What woman could resist his dick pick and cuffs and Brad Pitt in a towel?

B****** owe him.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Many people live at the ASY on Avery Rd.

Four families, all Averys. Chuck, Barb, Delores and Allan, and Steven.

It is obvious what she really wants is to know who she is dealing with, she wants to talk in person to whoever she is about to meet. She is trying to be cautious.

This is really speculative. Nothing in her message sounds as if she is "trying to be cautious". She simply says she can't come without an address. It also dose not sound as if she "really wants to know who she is dealing with". If all that were true, I think she would have called Dawn back and said "tell me more about this Avery Road shoot. Because if it's Steven Avery, I don't want to go there." Instead Dawn apparently only gave her a phone number and a name and not the address, which is why she called. She later tells Dawn "by the way, that's the Avery brothers." She doesn't say "And I hope it's not Steven Avery!" If she was so cautious, don't you think she might voice some concern to Dawn when she says she now knows it's the Avery brothers?

because you can hear the pleading in her voice

Seriously, Bernie. Pleading? This is really speculating.

Your assessment of Steven Avery is, I suspect, because you also believe he is guilty. is he stupid? Possibly. But being stupid does not mean he is also a murderer.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Barb's last name was Janda, not Avery. In fact she and her kids were the only ones there whose name wasn't Avery.

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

Look, i hear what you're saying bernie. I do.

Steve has a temper, could he have lost his temper and killed her? Sure, its possible.
I have trouble imagining a plausible scenario in which th has upset him so much he hulks out and murders her.

Women have done worse to steve than possibly reject his advances and he hasn't murdered them. That's not proof of anything but its as valid as the speculation he would just loose his temper and murder someone.

My other issue with your reasoning is the same as mme just raised. The only way the narrative you are proposing makes sense is if he is not planning to do anything to her - and yet you say he has done a lot of planning to get her out there ?? Why? He doesn't need to pretend to be someone else to see th if he's not planned to attack her.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Personally I think he did plan to get her out there. I dont know why people on both sides think this is so ludicrous. He planned up to the point of getting her there, maybe not to kill her but to make a pass, and possibly didnt plan how to cover up the crime he eventually committed. Or he did plan that as well but didnt have the time/circumstances to deal with everything correctly (like crushing the car).

So many things point to this for me: Selling a car that wasn't his to sell and the owner didnt want to sell. Giving BJ name and number as a point of contact when he was the one to be meeting with her and paying her. I know the arguments why this was done, but he works in this field and it just seems like a strange thing for a professional to do. Then the whole *67 calls. They might have an innocent reason but coupled with anything else they just scream suspicious. Absolutely no reasons for him to do that if he was expecting to she her that day for a matter of business. In fact coupled with the fact he had BJ's name down as the point of contact/seller, it seems more likely he was trying to trick/surprise her with the fact he was the person to meet her. She was coming expecting BJ and he was calling to check she was coming whatever, why hide your number or at least leave a voice note letting her know that she would be meeting with him that day?

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

I know the arguments why this was done, but he works in this field and it just seems like a strange thing for a professional to do.

Have you ever made an appointment for someone else? If so, whose name do you give? Yours? Why? It's not your appointment. It's not your issue. It's the other person's info that is important, and in this case, that AT should have on record, not yours. The vehicle was in Barb's name...or her husband's, so why would Steven give his own name and contact information? I don't see why this is so nefarious. And the truth is, under ordinary circumstances no one would even think it is.

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

Agreed. BJs name/number is a red herring - logically, BJ is the owner AT may need to contact her in the future. Talking to steve would be useless because he is not the owner just the guy who set up the apt for the shoot.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I've made appointment ps for someone else, and would certainly give their name and number, but if I were the person who would actually be there for the appointment, because s/he couldn't be, and would be the one there waiting, I'd also explain and give my name and number as well, as the REAL contact person for the appointment.

Why do you suppose SA called TH twice, disguising his number? The most reasonable explanation for his calls is he was expecting her earlier and wondered where she was and what time she'd be there, Why ELSE would he call her? But if that's the case, why disguise his buy so she couldn't call him back, and why not simply say, "Hey, this is SA, calling about your appointment with BJ. She's at work so I'll be the one to meet and pat you. Have you had a holdup? When can I expect you?"

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

He doesn't need to call AT to make an appointment. TH does hustle shots for steve - this is the nonsensical part.
If he's not planning on murdering then removing his name from the order makes no sense.

It makes little to sense even if he has planned it. Just saying "well murder is irrational so it doesn't have to make sense" doesn't cut it for me.

Point being - no one plans a murder that badly and why would he plan her murder? No reasons exist (that we know of).

So the only logical conclusion left (if assuming he did kill her) is that he hadn't planned to attack her in which case the AT order and the *67 are not suspicious at all.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

i'm not sure you get to have the cake and eat it. He's either planned it or he hasn't. You're saying he has planned to lure her there. But i dont see why he needs to go to these lengths to lure her? Or why he would if he's not planned on attacking her?

This.

So, the scenario is that something happened on a previous shoot that made her wary enough that he thinks she will not come if he calls her directly. But he still had expectations of "winning her over" so he "lures" her to his place, giving his sister's name, and thinks she won't recognize the address is the same as his with a letter added: his address was 12932 and Barb's is 12932A, or vice versa. Does he think he -- or his expected $36 mil windfall -- is irresistible? Does he plan to apologize? Does he plan to offer her money? Does he just want to see her? Or does he plan to force her?

It's possible that some or all of that is true. But it's also possible that it's not true.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

There is no reason for him to use *67 unless he wants to keep his identity secret. I expect he would hang up if she answered or try to disguise his voice. He wasn't big on planning, not too smart.

But what was the point of him calling and using *67? Did he just want to hear her voice? Did he want to prove he could get her to answer? (Apparently she didn't answer calls labeled "private"). Did Suggesting that he disguised his number when calling her has never made sense to me unless he hoped she'd answer and then would reveal his identity, hoping she'd talk to him. It's all so 7th grade.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Thats how obsessed men (and women) act though.

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

We know someone was obsessed with and it wasn't avery...

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Simple questions: Why didn't SA call TH directly the same as he had already done on Oct. 10? Why use *67 on Oct. 31? Why have a "dick pic" dated Oct. 10? For whose "benefit" was that pic? Why did SA not give his alibi (BD, fire, cleaning garage)to police and reporters and instead say he was home alone most of the night?

There are no reasonable answers to these questions. There is also no evidence that TH knew she was meeting SA that day. DP didn't know TH was meeting SA that day. There were many Averys/Jandas. In spite of whatever reservations TH had about SA, TH went ahead and did her job and it cost TH her life. Yes, that's what I think happened. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe.

P.S. The key to winning a debate is to set a bait trap and watch opponents wallow in it. My work here is done, time for a break till more news.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

P.S. The key to winning a debate is to set a bait trap and watch opponents wallow in it. My work here is done, time for a break till more news.

You're not "winning". You haven't changed anyone's mind. The people that were on the fence are STILL on the fence. So maybe your work isn't as done as you think it is?

But I do agree about taking a break until there is more news.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

You're not "winning". You haven't changed anyone's mind. The people that were on the fence are STILL on the fence. So maybe your work isn't as done as you think it is?

But I do agree about taking a break until there is more news.

I think Bernie makes some good points, and his questions about why SA didn't call her directly, as he had done for the Oct 10 shoot is reasonable. Also, the reason for the *67 calls.

But when he says TH sounds "pleading" and that she is being "cautious" when she asks about the address, he's making things up. That kind of speculation is what our old friend/enemy Jeff used to go into apoplectic fits about.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

I think Bernie makes some good points, and his questions about why SA didn't call her directly, as he had done for the Oct 10 shoot is reasonable. Also, the reason for the *67 calls.

I agree totally, but those things don't change the mind of someone that is on the fence, which is basically what he meant when he said "to win a debate......my work here is done" as if he had just won this debate.

We're still just as "50/50" as we were before his "debate winning" post.

But when he says TH sounds "pleading" and that she is being "cautious" when she asks about the address, he's making things up. That kind of speculation is what our old friend/enemy Jeff used to go into apoplectic fits about.

I don't recall him doing that when Bernie speculated though, lol.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

I don't recall him doing that when Bernie speculated though, lol.

True. It only sent him into spasms when someone irrational, illogical, stupid, and incapable of critical thinking (according to his assessment) did it.



[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Yikes, I was out the door. Doggie, I was pulling your chain about "winning" any debate. Let's face it. This is all just idle internet chatter. Most people think SA is a teddy bear. I was referencing Clinton baiting the Donald and Trump jumping headfirst into his own muck of racism, misogyny and avoiding taxes.

Whenever the conversation is about LE's sloppy investigation, BD's confession or the slimy prosecution, Avery supporters "win". Whenever the debate goes to SA's actions and character, the "guilty" side wins because SA is a scumbag and we all know it.

I picked a few "conversation" starters...Why did SA move the van? Why "back to patio door"? Why not phone TH directly? Why *67? Why not give his BD alibi? I was surprised by so many replies. That was my "jest" about "my work here is done". I doubt if anyone will change their mind now, but one person might start questioning the documentary.

Why didn't SA just phone TH and say come do a "hustle" shot. That pays TH more without costing the customer one extra cent. Nobody can answer this. Nobody can answer why SA didn't give BD as his alibi. (SA later talked to Barb about BD coming home at 9 pm that night).

Question everyone's actions, that's all I am saying. Can I please leave now? Two months break. The baseball playoffs are on and hockey season is starting.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Most people think SA is a teddy bear.

Where did you get that idea? Very few people think SA is a teddy bear. It's about justice, not SA himself. Many are, however, very sympathetic to Brendan.

Why did SA move the van?

What is your source for SA moving the van? In the 11/6 interrogation of Brendan, he does not say Barb did not want to sell the van. He said Steven was going to fix it up for he and Blaine to drive but decided it was not in good shape and so Barb should sell it. Brendan says she was in debt and needed the proceeds to pay bills. He also says Barb and Steven quarreled but does not say it was about the van -- he indicates he doesn't know what it was about -- but that during the quarrel Steven said the boys -- he and Blaine, apparently -- would not finish high school and never amount to anything. That made Barb mad which is why, he says, the bonfire, scheduled for Thursday night, was cancelled.

Can I please leave now?

By all means.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

Yikes, I was out the door. Doggie, I was pulling your chain about "winning" any debate.

You were pulling my chain when you said that to mme3924-1? Okay. 

This is all just idle internet chatter.

I've already stated that I agree with that.

Question everyone's actions, that's all I am saying.

Yeah, that's what the people who are on the fence are doing. The people who think he's guilty don't seem to be the ones doing that anymore.

The baseball playoffs are on and hockey season is starting.

Agreed. My Cubbies are up 2-0 and are in good shape. Don't care about hockey, but NBA is about to start back up so hopefully I can continue winning some $$$ on Fanduel and Draftkings like I was towards the end of last season. 

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Why did SA not give his alibi (BD, fire, cleaning garage)to police and reporters and instead say he was home alone most of the night?

I don't really want to get into the bonfire again, but you should really read the interviews. No one mentioned a fire in their first interviews. Only after LE began to talk about a fire, did it become "a fact".

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I've read, and listened to, the interviews. Am going over them again now, starting with Brendan's.

Brendan was the first person to mention a bonfire, in his interview on either November 6 or 7. It was in the context of SA and Barb fighting, and as a result not letting him go to that bonfire, which was called off. He said it was supposed to happen on a Thursday, but is unclear if he meant the previous or following Thursday.

There was no reason for questions about a bonfire until LE could finally get to the fire pit, found the bones, and got verification back that they were human. They were only discovered on the 8th.

Barb was questioned and said yes there was a bonfire the night of the 31st. That was on the 14th. LE were lead to asking about the fire only because of the discovery of the bones in the pit, and on verification that the bones were indeed human. They would have been supremely negligent if they hadn't.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

is to set a bait trap and watch opponents wallow

So your bait is major speculation, such as TH's voice was "pleading" and she obviously sounded "cautious"?

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago



That's why one shouldn't get to be the scorekeeper for any debate one is participating in.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

She goes there all the time - if for some reason she was no longer happy about going there.. she wouldn't have gone there!

Nonsense! There is a complete difference to dealing with a female memeber of a family and not wishing to deal with the crass male members that all have bad reputations. Avery was a local celebrity who may have creeped TH out, maybe she didnt wish to be around HIM but even then that doesn't mean she felt scared for her safety.

The things you say make no sense make perfect sense, its delusional to suggest otherwise.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Nonsense! There is a complete difference to dealing with a female memeber of a family and not wishing to deal with the crass male members that all have bad reputations. Avery was a local celebrity who may have creeped TH out, maybe she didnt wish to be around HIM but even then that doesn't mean she felt scared for her safety.

The things you say make no sense make perfect sense, its delusional to suggest otherwise.

She had no reason to know that B. Janda was a female. She, according to her phone message, didn't know who it was. Nor did Dawn, according to her own testimony. Until that is, TH realized, after getting the address from Dawn, that it was "the Avery brothers". Not "The Avery sister, Barb", but "the Avery brothers."

Your belief that she was willing to go there because she thought she would be dealing with a woman is what is nonsense.....unless everyone at AT has been lying. As far as they knew, B. Janda, was a man. And what TH said she knew, finally -- according to Dawn -- was that B. Janda was the Avery brothers.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

No, she had no way of knowing B Janda was a woman, but had reason to believe B Janda was not SA.

"The Avery brothers" refers to the business and the property. Earl and Chuck ran the business, located on the property. I don't know if Dawn, or anyone at AT conveyed to her the person who called the ad in was a male, nor does anyone else, except Dawn.

Why would TH bother to mention to Dawn that the appointment was at "the Avery brothers" anyway? Why comment on it at all? If there were no problem, it was just one of many calls she was assigned to, per week.

B JANDA was obviously not any of the Avery brothers, including SA. As far as she knew.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Just a small bit of info I came across that's somewhat related.

In Blaines statement, he said on 10/31 there was a Monte Carlo and red and black Blazer parked at the end of the driveway. I believe he said they were for sale.

Yes, he said they were for sale. Looks like that was something they did often, parking vehicles they had for sale in that spot.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I can only find the "back to patio door" note, so I'm not sure either.

If it was meant to be a note left for TH, I'd think it'd be clearer: Go to back patio door. (To receive payment, and give him a copy of AT.)

I'd think anyone could have moved the van, meaning SA, Barb, or the boys. Could be Barb wanted the van near the front office, visible to customers, with a for sale sign on it, along with the other two vehicles that were there on the 10th. I wish we knew that, one way or another.

But regardless of how it got back by the trailers, it was of benefit to him, if he was planning to assault her, or worse.

Yes, he knew his sister would be at work all day, and that Brendan and Blaine wouldn't be home until 3:45. Only Bobby was home, and it's not unlikely he knew he was a heavy sleeper,

IMO, Teresa most likely arrived around 2:35-2:40. He'd know Bobby would still be asleep, so he'd most likely have 20 minutes before Bobby got up to go hunting, as was his habit (per Brendan). Enough time to do whatever he planned to do to her, without Bobby hearing her most likely, and then he'd be gone hunting. The boys wouldn't be home until 3:45.

Another thought I had is that the towel incident couldn't have happened on 10/10 if the van was parked at the intersection of Avery Road and the driveway. Well, I suppose it could have if she shot the van and then went to SAs afterwards to collect payment.

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

I think if TH wants to get paid she has to go find SA. TH wants to be professional about her work and does what she has to do. The towel incident could well have happened on the 10th. Words may have been said. The angry troll does not take kindly to things said about him. Talk about a small man complex. Even Napoleon was likely taller.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Agreed, if she wants to get paid -- and she has to, not only for herself, but also for AT, she has to see Avery. He was a repeat customer, so it's possible she shot first and went to collect afterwards.

So yes, it's possible she shot the other car on the 10.th, then went to collect at his trailer, and towel happened.