why would manitowoc county frame SA for murdering TH ?
i can think of 36 million reasons
shareSo then what do you think happened? Are you saying you believe MC killed Teresa, just to get back at him, even though their insurance already paid out $400k to Avery, and they were insured to up to $5 mill so the insurance would have paid that too, in the unlikely event he'd have won?
sharei'm saying the case against SA was vaporous, and the MC folks had a strong motive to do what we observed, plant evidence
what planted evidence, you ask?
the car on avery property, the blood evidence in the car, the bullet in the middle of the garage, the bones moved from the quarry onto SA's fire pit, among other things.
what do i think happened? i think MC planted the evidence. don't you? how do you think it happened?
Well, you haven't answered my question. Do you believe MC law enforcement murdered TH?
shareI very much doubt it. That isn't my burden, isn't the SA defense burden.
You asked me what i thought happened. You never told me what you thought happened.
Someone other than SA murdered TH, cremated her bones, likely in the quarry. MC found her car, had it moved onto the Avery lot, found the bones, moved them to SA's fire pit, planted the blood evidence, dabbed a swab of SA's dna onto the hood latch.
They probably thought SA was good for it, or one of the other clan, and set up SA to scuttle the 36M award.
Yes indeed, i think MC is totally corrupt. No, I don't think they killed TH. Maybe Bobby Dassey , maybe the boyfriend. We simply don't know. But all the evidence against SA seems to be cooked. Only MC could be behind all that.
So you're saying cops that had nothing to do with Avery's lawsuit already started framing him the moment Teresa was reported missing, even though they had no freaking idea what had happened to her? What if it turned out she had some sort of break down or her body was at someone else's property? Their plan would've been ruined. Get real, buddy.
shareyou come up with a scenario that accounts for the fact that the dogs were alerting in the quarry, and a few DAYS later the bones show up in a barrel THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN SEARCHED behind SA's trailer.
or account for the fact that the RAV was found out by the highway, and only later wound up in the avery yard, after the witness notified the very cop who called in the licence number.
or account for the fact that the coroner was forcibly kept out of the crime scene.
who knows the exact scenario? all we know is the evidence is planted.
Uhm no, all we know is someone claiming evidence is planted because there's too much evidence against him for which he has no explanation. You have no proof for anything beyond sloppy police work.
sharethose bones, i suppose, walked from the quarry into SA's barrel. the dogs alerted in the quarry, NOT in SA's barrel.
the car, i suppose, drove itself from the highway onto the avery lot
the car, moreover, that supplied a day-planner to the boyfriend with notes from the day of the murder.
you are quite cavalierly talking around the exculpatory evidence, while failing to mention any of the indisputable evidence tying SA to the crime. what is it?
what about the bedroom? any evidence there? where is the crime scene? where is the blood? there is not near enough blood in the car for that to have been the crime scene. just a few carefully placed wisps of blood.
Very simple, Avery did ALL of that. You only believe he didn't, because his lawyer says he didn't.
There does not need to be any blood in the bedroom to convict Avery. Just because Dassey's confession is inconsistent, does not negate all the other evidence against Avery.
no. you neglected the paradox of the rav being identified by the witness off the avery property and IMMEDIATELY reported to the police.
also the migration of the bones, why would SA move the bones onto his own property.
you are doing exactly what you accuse the documentary of doing - ignoring the evidence.
No evidence that the car or bones were moved onto Avery's property by anyone but himself. You only start with the assumption someone else must've done so, because Avery's defense claims he was framed.
shareCan you explain what you mean by "no evidence that the car or bones were moved onto Avery's property by anyone but himself."?
Are you implying that there's only evidence that he done it or that he's the only one that said they were moved onto his property?
Just what it says. There is no evidence that a party other than Avery moved the car or bones onto his property.
shareAh, I see.
Is there actual evidence that he did indeed move them though?
Technically there isn't really evidence against anyone moving them, no?
My only question would be, why would he move the car onto his property two days later?
No, there isn't evidence against anyone moving the bones or the car onto his property. I think it's funny the other poster acts like it's a fact. There is evidence and witness testimony, though, connecting Avery to the car and the bones.
He did not move the car onto his property 2 days later. It had been on his property all along.
The car was spotted on the roadside two days before it was found, I believe. It was also reported to a police officer (Colbern) just after it was spotted, but nothing was done about it.
Of course, it was only that one eyewitness that saw the car so we have to take it with a grain of salt but then we also can't be sure if the car definitely was on Avery's property all along.
There's only the report of Colborn verifying the plates two days before the car was found. That does not mean the car was spotted. And there's one guy who now claims he saw the car, but he was no official witness and did not testify during the trial.
There is no evidence of somebody else moving the car and bones onto Avery's property, so no reason to assume they hadn't been there all along and that he was framed.
All of this has been, not surprisingly, disproven.
shareI've already addressed the 2nd RAV4, which was not Teresa's. The flyer the witness saw was in black and white, and he, reasonably, thought it was hers, but it wasn't. The two RAVs were different colours. It had already been reported by another person, investigated, and found to be a different vehicle. There is no paradox.
There was no migration of bones from the quarry to SA's burn pit, no evidence there was. His burn pit contained grommets from her jeans, her teeth, and other tiny fragments, proving it was the burn site of her body. Because these artifacts are small and fragile, they'd have been at the original site, because of the difficulty in moving such small pieces, and they were buried in hard-packed soil in his burn pit.
There were no bones in the quarry that have been proven to be human.
Basically, there's little, possibly nothing, in either season that's either factual, or more than a fraction of truth.
Here are some important facts you apparently don't know. If all you did was watch MaM, without doing any research, it's hardly surprising you don't know them, because yes, this "documentary" is that dishonest.
SA began lying about what happened with Teresa from day 1, in fact within just a few hours after she'd supposedly left his property. He came up with a total of 6 different stories, 5 of which were within 7 days, from 10/31 to 11/6, and a 6th in his own affidavit in 2017.
10/31/05, a few hours after she'd come (after 5:00 pm), he told his brother Charles, in front of his other brother's friend, Robert Fabian, "No, she hasn't shown up yet" when asked if she'd had been there. Why would he lie about this, a perfectly innocent photo shoot of Barb's van, if he were innocent of anything?
11/3, 3 days later, he tells LE she had been there, but only for 5-10 minutes. He said he only saw her taking photos when he glanced out his window, which was the only reason he knew she was on the property. Hmm, that's not suspicious, is it?
11/4, the following day, he told LE she'd come, taken photos of the van, he'd had minimal conversation with her (5-10 minutes), then she came into his trailer, he'd paid her, and she'd left.
Later that day, the 4th, Teresa's cousin stopped by the yard, and SA told him she'd been there around 2:00, had been taken to a vehicle behind the office garage to shoot it, which is why she was there that day.
11/6, two days later, LE asked "Did she go in the house at all?" He answers "No." He said she came to his house but didn't come in, and now adds she knocked at his door.
In his 2017 affidavit, he says he saw her from his window taking shots of van, put on his shoes to go pay her, she started walking to his trailer but then waved and walked to her car, got in, engine running, he gave her $40 for the ad, she gave him a copy of AT, and left.
Giving 6 different and conflicting stories is what an innocent person does, right?
The dogs started alerting at SA's trailer door. Naturally, this was omitted from MaM. The barrel behind SA's trailer had not been searched prior to 11/7/05. This is more propaganda.
"On Monday, 11/07/05, at approximately 1545 hours, I (Deputy KENNETH R. MATUSZAK of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) took into evidence a 50-gallon burning barrel. It was located on the northeast comer of STEVEN AVERY's property. The burning barrel was filled approximately one-quarter way with burned debris. The burning barrel was placed in an enclosed trailer. I then transported the burning barrel to the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT."
It was searched only after it was transported to CCSD.
The 4 burn barrels behind Barb's residence were collected and transported to CCSD the day before, 11/6.
Her RAV4 was not found out by the turnabout on the highway, nor did that witness speak to Colborn. Turns out, that RAV4 was reported by someone else, at the same location, but wasn't hers. Colborn was off duty that day and nowhere near the location where this witness claimed he spoke to him. Not in uniform, not anywhere in the area. Turns out he'd been arrested by Colborn for a DUI prior to this, and that's why he recognised him.
Sorry, but no, we don't know evidence was planted.
Good to hear you don't think MC murdered her.
There's no evidence that anyone other than SA murdered her, cremated her body (let alone in the quarry), found and moved her car, moved bones, etc. No evidence that Bobby, Scott, or Ryan killed her either, yet Zellner had no problem speaking as though that were fact, even though on top of there being no evidence, she was either slandering or libeling all of them by stating it as fact, and even though her stories contradict one another.
This is what I think happened.
SA got it into his head he wanted to have sex with Teresa. It was an impulsive decision. Even he described himself as impulsive. I don't think he planned it much in advance, nor do I think he intended to murder her. He made a lewd and clumsy pass at her at some point after she arrived, and she rejected him. He became angry and assaulted her, probably did rape her. He has a history of being violent with women, at a minimum. Things got out of hand.
Brendan either came over on his own, or, more likely SA called him over on the pretext of helping him move the Jeep. Brendan was intimidated by and afraid of SA, as many were, with good reason, but would have acquiesced if SA had asked him to help with something like moving a Jeep, or helping him clean up something. SA involved Brendan because he needed help, having gotten in over his head, and if he involved Brendan, forcing him to rape or shoot or whatever Teresa, he thought that'd guarantee Brendan's silence and serve as his unwilling ally.
The rest is obvious. I don't know where her murder, and probable rape, took place. I don't believe it happened in SA's bedroom, as Brendan said, along with many other goofy and obviously untrue things he said.
MC may have gilded the lily with one or two things; don't know that either. But they did have every reason to focus their attention on SA, and if they hadn't, they'd have been stupid at least, criminally negligent at worst.
thanks. i'll check all this out and get back with you.
shareYou're welcome. I look forward to your checking all this out, and your future comments. I have more I could say, but there's no right, point now anyway.
I'm not saying I have all the answers. No one but Avery knows exactly what happened. Brendan knows a fair amount too -- as far as whatever his participation actually was, or wasn't.
IMO there's no way Brendan would have gotten involved in any of this were he not manipulated, coerced, and threatened by SA. He's clearly a naturally mild-mannered, easily manipulated person, who IMO wouldn't willingly harm anyone.