Also none of the theories the people siding toward guilty make sense to me.

With respect, I don't think you're getting my point. I never said that they planted "all" the evidence or even that they planted it.
What I said was, is that you appear to be dismissing the mere possibility of them planting evidence as utterly ludicrous. Including the possibility that they genuinely felt he was guilty and felt that while evidence existed, they probably still wished to make it even more damning and a slam dunk, so manipulated or planted certain evidence. I'm not saying I necessarily subscribe to this either as I tend to think that cops would pretty much know what they have to make or break a case.
However, due to the overall strange circumstances of Avery wrt his previous wrongful conviction, who knows how they felt?
But the actual possibility to me is not outlandish again within context and that's what you need to take on board.

What theories are you referring to?

SA lured a young woman to his house and killed her. That's pretty much the working theory, no?

here is my theory as to what happened.

SA had called and requested TH with the intent of raping and killing her. She shows up and he restrains her and brings her in his trailer. Beats her up and tires her to the bed.

BD comes over and SA basically tells him to rape her while he watches. They then do stuff to tease her, cut her neck, cut off some of her hair, then SA strangles her to death, to make sure the job is done they shoot her in the garage.

After shooting her they start a fire to burn all the evidence, sheets,clothes,shoes etc.. they put her in the back of the truck and bring her to the pond to dump the body, the pond is dry so they bring her back to his property to burn the body. After this BD and SA clean up the bloodstain in the Garage then SA takes the car somewhere to hide it and disconnects the battery so it can't be located with the key fob. His intention is to crush the truck later.


All this is corroborated with BD testimony and although some evidence is missing to tie this all together there is enough evidence to reasonably conclude something similar to this happened.

Theory:

Teresa came by, maybe Steven strangled her or bludgeoned her on the head or something, it's impossible to tell (hard to know when the bones are burnt, you know?). Steven put her body in the back of the Rav4 and probably puts the Rav4 in the garage.

Steven brought the Rav4 into the garage. Steven possibly laid out a tarp or something on the ground, but maybe he didn't. Steven shot Teresa's dead body anywhere between 2 and 11 times (I think it's closer to 2). This could've happened anywhere on the property, but probably in the garage. A bit of blood may have gotten on the ground.

Steven put a bag of Teresa's accessories in a burn barrel and began burning them at around 4 or 5pm.

Steven called Teresa's phone at 4:35 to make sure it was off.

Steven called Jodi for 15 minutes around 5pm.

Steven goes over to Barb's house after this to tell Brendan he needs help with something.

Steven started a fire sometime between 5-7pm.

Around 7pm, Steven cleaned up a blood spill on the floor of the garage with Brendan's help using bleach, gas, and paint thinner.

With Brendan's help, Steven collected several tires and a car seat and burnt the body that night.

Barb calls Steven around 9 something telling Brendan to wear a jacket and be home by 10pm.

Steven talks to Jodi around 9:30 for 15 minutes, telling her that Brendan is with him and they're cleaning something.

Brendan heads home with bleach on his jeans. His mom asks about them and Brendan says he was helping Steven clean the garage.

Steven stopped tending the fire sometime after 11pm.

After the fire is over, Steven hid the bigger, lesser burnt bones in a barrel that also contained animal bones, hoping they would be unnoticed and burnt with the rest of the stuff in the barrel.

At some point, Steven hides the Rav4 in the back of the salvage yard behind the pond.


Pretty much all of what I said was substantiated by the evidence and sworn testimony.

Was I asking you fraley?

Yeah, I never said I "thought" anything, I was merely making an observation about you and that other bloke. You appear to be either willfully or else unwittingly misconstruing what I'm saying, so I reckon it's useless continuing here with you, cheers.

Wait, you're asking people who don't have a conviction one way or another what happened? that is kind of strange but ok. My mistake, I read your post wrong.

Well, your belief of my opinion is wrong. I don't think it's impossible for evidence to be planted - far from it. I think it's improbable in this case though, with no evidence pointing to it happening. I'm not going to discuss this again though. Feel free to read here, as I share most of the same opinion: http://stevenaverycase.com/was-evidence-planted/

But the fact that all the evidence pointed to Steven and there was no evidence pointing to this evidence being planted means it's ludicrous to investigate some crazy axman who is completely unrelated to this case.

Its upsetting that no one will just read that. It pretty much eliminates any real reason to suspect this evidence was planted.

I should've wrote those who think he didn't do it or are undecided and know a fair amount about the case.

Fair enough. I am curious what they think happened too.

If you open it up to people who think they "know a fair amount about the case", then a lot more people (like mark and oski) can participate.

But according to Fraley we do know exactly what happened.

Also, quit spewing off this nonsense that Lenk/Colburn have no connection to the civil suit other than being deposed. Plenty of people they knew were heavily involved and that alone is enough they should be no where near the investigation.

Lenk's own mother could have been a principle in the suit and Fraley would see no problem with him collecting evidence.

No, I do not know exactly what happened in every detail. I know with a good degree of certainty that SA killed TH though.

Who exactly, did Lenk and Cloburn know that was responsible for SA being wrongfully convicted or his continued prison sentence? There were two people being sued, the da and colburns old boss. He told on his old boss so idk what makes you think he would care to protect him.. And why would he care what happened with the DA? The insurance from the County was going to cover any lawsuit that was awarded.. It was only the insurance of one of the defendants that was being challenged.

Sure anything is possible, which is why you have all the dumb "the brother did it"/"the ex-bf did it"/"the police did it"/"random nearby serial killer did it" theories floating around. Are any of those things possible? Sure. Is there a shred of proof that any of those things happened? No.

If you are going to argue that the police planted evidence, then you need some proof. Otherwise you're just talking out of your a**. The fact that it is POSSIBLE for police to plant evidence, is not proof that police planted evidence. Any more than saying it's POSSIBLE the ex-bf killed TH, is proof that he killed her.

As an example, had the test on the blood in the car found EDTA, then that would be PROOF that the blood was planted. Then, the claims of police planting evidence are no longer just random speculation based on nothing. There is now proof. But absent that, all you have are conspiracy theories based on nothing.

This is a fact. Feel free to provide a source showing another connection.

Revots always says it best.

(Although EDTA found in the blood isn't absolute PROOF the blood was planted [see: OJ]. It does make it very likely it was planted though, and Steven should easily be found not guilty and a deeper investigation into the evidence being planted should be performed.)

Fraley asks a question with the answer in it and refutes answer.

The entire department was connected enough that they weren't going to be a part of the investigation. The idea that only the people being sued shouldn't be involved is absurd.

Jacob, if you work for Walmart and Walmart gets sued, are you being sued? Especially when Walmarts insurance company is going to cover the damages in the lawsuit?

Also, for anyone interested in knowing why the judge decided not to allow the defense to have a continuance or mistrial to test the blood themselves, you can read his explanation on pages 233-254 here:

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...-2007Mar05.pdf

It sheds a lot of light on just how much opportunity the defense had to test the blood themselves, and just how much they tried not to have it tested at all (e.g. submitting it as evidence at the latest date possible).

Fraley, Can you see how my interactions with the plaintiff suing the walmart I work in may not be impartial even if I was not directly involved in the suit?

Even if I work at another store I likely believe the lawsuit is frivolous.

can you see how saying something "may not be" is speculation? Is there any reason for you to think that they had a motive to plant evidence? They were not going to be effected in any real way by this lawsuit.

They work for a Sheriff's department being accused of misconduct. They weren't effected?

Lol

So many fails in one post. It's quite amazing.