A bit late to the party. Here's what I don't understand. It seems there is a high likelihood that the key and bullet were planted. So that raises the question of why? Wouldn't the bones and car be more than enough to prove guilt? So if we assume it makes no sense to plant only 1 or 2 pieces of evidence, then there are only two options: either it was all planted and SA was set up, or none of it was.

It's understandable that the cops may hate SA, but to go to those lengths and plant all the evidence and murder an innocent woman seems way far fetched. So that leaves the theory that SA (or someone else) killed her and none of the evidence was planted. But the key, bullet, lack of blood, etc makes that scenario tough to believe.

In short, I have no ****ing idea...

Good read. Now, regarding that EDTA test, am I wrong in saying that it was super obviously a corrupt move anyway? From my comprehension, Strang/Buting proved that the FBI got the test done in a hurry even though they couldn't have known what that blood test was without a nod from the state/prosecution.

Seems to me that that test was never going to help anyone except the prosecution, to the point that I wouldn't even be surprised if they didn't even perform a test in the first place.

I think he did it. I admit alot of the evidence is questionable but there are two things that make me think he is guilty. First the girl just disappeared off the face of the earth after meeting with him. Second, maybe the key and his blood in her car could have been planted but no way the cops are gonna plant her bones in Avery's fire pit. If the cops wanted to get rid of Avery over his lawsuit it would have been much easier to just plant a kilo of heroin or coke on him.

I really don't see the cops saying "Well someone murdered this girl but f it, let's let him go free and take this body and her car and plant it on Steve's property."

The cops could have planted the key and blood but not the bones though.

The murderer, knowing Avery's past and his reputation in the community, could've dumped the bones in his fire pit bc the murderer was aware the cops would focus all their intention on Avery. The cops could have independently planted the key and blood separately.

Clearly, if SA is innocent, someone saw her after.

That logic has been defeated entirely IMO. If any evidence is planted, it makes further planting more likely.

Arguing that it would've been easier to plant drugs on Avery is exactly the same as that Sheriff saying "well it would've been easier to kill him." Yeah, true, doesn't mean you didn't frame him, though.

That's essentially what they did 18 yrs prior with the rape by Allen. Not hard to believe at all once you grant they've done it before.

I agree the cops could have and probably did plant the blood and key. But there is no way some random psycho grabs this girl minutes after she meets with Avery, murders her, returns and plants her car and bones on Steve's property. This random killer would have to know Steve was meeting the girl at 2;30 for his plan of framing Steve to be successful. How could the killer have possibly had that information?

I agree that this is one of the most difficult issues to contend with from the innocence side, but the lack of info about where she went after meeting Avery isn't enough to be sure he did it.

It may've been pure coincidence that he was the last person who saw her. You'd probably say that this is quite a coincidence and I'd agree with you.

I think it was the cops.

IMO it is like 50/50 that he did it. Folks posting here stating that it is like 1% or less that he did it are way off.

Posted this before without an answer:

There also could be a very simple explanation. For example couldn't he have just knocked her out, taken her to the quarry, shot and burnt her and all the rest would be the cops planting false evidence? Maybe it is far less complex than everyone thinks.

I am happy if anyone manages to debunk this theory

Except the timeline does not indicate that all of this would have happened on the same day within a few hours.

Oct. 31 - TH goes missing

Nov. 3 - TH reported missing; Colburn calls in the license plate not long after

Nov. 5 - TH's car found on Avery property

Nov. 8 - Bone fragments found in SA burn pit

If he did it, that's what happened. I don't think that's what happened because:

1. No motive
2. Phone call to gf was too normal (except if it took place before the murder)

1. she could have just rejected a pickup effort or sth, punched her in rage and then panicked realizing that he won't get any $ now.

2. fair enough but we do not know if he is capable of staying cool/cold

Kratz, then Strang on Fox News

Good point. It's like they would have had to have been watching and listening to his phone calls or something, I mean, who the hell has the means and ways of doing that? Can't really think of anyone that would be interested in SA's activities at that time.

This.

Guy is a bellend.

LOL KRATZ. When asked what was the most important part of the prosecutions case that was left out Kratz opens with an actual lie. He says Brendan Dassey was the first to alert the police to the hood latch....lolololooll. I have linked the transcript earlier itt, and if you want to read it and decide for yourself you can, but spoiler alert: the police were the only ones to bring up the hood latch; not Dassey. And they did so the most suspicious manner ever. Read the transcript if you doubt what I am saying.

Also, Jesus dude you are on national TeeVee, stop breathing through your ****ing mouth while you are being asked a question.

And I've said this before....we know the police verified the (planted) key by starting the car; so if the battery was indeed disconnected they had to know in Nov. Why did it take you 6 months and a coerced confession to check the hood latch for DNA???????????? You know with 100 percent certainty the hood latch was touched by whoever disconnected the battery. And whoever disconnected the battery drove the car there. And whover drove the car there likely killed TH. Yea, probably don't need to check that.

Yet it isn't swabbed for DNA until 6 months later b/c BD, forensic wizard, told you to look there. Lololololololololol.

He seemed ultra calm and cool every second he was on the phone with anyone including his own sister when she was accusing him of making her son help him kill TH. I am actually quite impressed by how chilled out this guy was at every second. He did write some pretty nasty letters to his ex-wife though....

I might be able to see your side a little clearer if the I didn't have the huge fact that they've already done this to him once before blocking my view.

But I think you have some good points.

good fox link. kratz is an embarrassment. great to hear strang address some details and mention stuff we didn't see.

I stand corrected. I guess its around the around the 36 minute mark of episode six where the state's witness states that she had at least a fragment of nearly every bone in the body and that the pelvic bones she found at burn site 2 were burned in the same fashion as the bones found in Avery's yard and that she had no reason to doubt that she was looking at bones from the same body. My other sources were conjecture from other posters in other forums that I confused with facts from the Documentary.

Great to see this getting a lot of attention.

To be fair, it was not a lie.

However, IMO, it is one of points of this case that most strongly prove that the police planted evidence. I'm super glad that Kratz brought this up because if there is a re-trial, this point will surely be scrutinized and it will become painfully obvious that:

March: Interview with BD is one of the most embarrassingly bad interrogations they perform, clearly showing that they coerced BD to simply agree with them that SA opened the hood after many frustrating attempts to get him to guess what they want him to say.

April: Fassbender orders DCI unit to NOW test the hood latch for DNA after the car has been on the impound lot for 6 months, AND 6 months after they knew the battery cable was disconnected and obviously would have searched that area for DNA in Nov.

It's just more of the same, evidence intro'd by prosecution that ultimately strengthens SA's claims of planted evidence.

Does anyone know if there was life insurance claims filed by anyone in THs family?

Also, I don't remember whether they covered this or not, but were ballistic tests done on the bullet to prove that it came from SA's rifle? Seems like this should have been an obvious step so I am surprised I missed it if they did. What wouldn't surprise me though is if the the bullet was not able to be tested for some reason....

from dassey trial notes on convolutedbrian (again, not sure about the avery case):

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/dasse...pril-2007.html

Thanks.

I would think that this would be a massive victory for prosecution, one that would be brought up more often.

Doesn't matter anyways, rifle was in police possession for 6 months before bullet was found. LOL, unreal.

what bother me the most when i see those interview is how they allways ask the same questions.
Where the **** are the real one.
- About the police tunnel visionning avery and most likely missing a ton of stuff and coming up with a really unconvincing theory
- How is it possible that some officier who have a really bad history with avery can taint that trial so much that even if avery is guilty noone can ever be sure.
- The poor brendan is almost never a concern in those appart from steven lawyer feeling terrible for him noone else seems to give a ****.

Those people interviewing have some awesome material to have some carrier defining interview with a ton of people watching and to me they are doing a terrible job with it.

I agree that the most likely scenario is SA killed her in a manner like you described, but even then there are a lot of problems with that scenario. For example, we know that at some point her body was bleeding in the car and that the bones ended in the burn pit.

If SA killed her somewhere else and transported her body in the vehicle, then there would be fingerprints/hair/sweat of his in the car. Also putting a bleeding body in/out of a car would mean there's TH blood on the property somewhere. Neither of these have been found that I know of.

Something that I haven't seen mentioned that I have no clue the answer to, is how long and big of fire does it take to burn a body to bones and ash. I imagine it's not as simple as built a fire and throw a body on it, and it would have to be a large/continuously fed fire.