He lied about who mentioned the make and model of the car first, why would he have any reason to lie about it unless he wanted to cover up that he was looking at the car?

When the dispatcher says "halbach" you can hear a women in the background saying "the cars here"

You mean like they did with the rape case? So yes I guess they would be capable.

To me the only strong evidence that is difficult to explain away is the blood in his car.


Every other bit is definitely not "direct evidence"

1. The key - most likely planted
2. The bones - most likely where moved to the pit and there was a massive amount of error in the way they were handled
3. The bullet - despite passing though her skull (allegedly) it has such a small trace of DNA on it that it gets used up in a contaminated test
4. None of her blood anywhere in the Avery property
5. The car - anyone could have put it there

Don't forget that the Dassey testimony was not used in this case (since it is flawed on its own) so Avery was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence all of which was surrounded by question marks.

I just cannot get sold on the fact that Avery can clean the garage like a CIA investigator yet can leave extremely obvious blood smears in a car (but no fingerprints in it). The spots where his blood was located in the car don't make much logical sense either.

I could think of another reason - maybe he legitimately thought that the dispatch lady had said that? Otherwise, why choose that to lie about of all things when they can just play the tape back?

Also, how do you think he would know it was a 99 Toyota just by looking at it? Did you know the model looked identical for several years?


Seems like one of those "Paul is dead" situations, but I'll entertain you: who do you think is saying "the car's here"?



Do you know what happened in the rape case? Nothing was planted, let alone a Rav4 and a dead body!

Also, only 3 people from the original case, and none of those involved in potential misconduct, were still around in 2005. None of them were involved in the 2005 case.

So you're going to have to try harder for a motive than that!


I'd love for you to present me with a reasonable theory!

Let's focus on the bones: why do you think they were "most likely moved to the pit" when the forensic anthropologist working the case came to the opposite conclusion?

This is Coburn we're talking about, you know the guy who does his reports years later so obviously he has a steel trap memory of events on specific days

Idk who is saying the car is here, could be Pam Sturn could be anyone, not sure if it really matters.

He doesn't need to know if it's a 2000 Toyota or a 99 Toyota, hes asking to confirm that the plates his looking at and to confirm the model of car he's looking at


No they didn't plant anything, but the boss said "this is our man" and the entire dept. Failed to investigate anyone else which bears a striking resemblance



Let me ask you: who do you think is saying "the car is here"?

Ah yes, the lady who definitively said "these bones were not moved" despite them being shoveled out of a pit and moved to where she inspected them?

You're being sarcastic right? Because this is the first time I've seen Colborn's memory characterized anywhere even close to "steel trap".



It certainly does matter if you ever want to present a credible theory. Do you think Sturm was more concerned about framing Avery than finding her missing relative?



But how did he know it was a 99 Toyota?



Does it really bear a striking resemblance? I don't remember any accusations of anyone planting anything in 1985, as is the case here.

You still haven't answered what motive Colborn and Lenk have to plant a Rav4, blood, and dead body on Avery's property.



While it could have came from dispatch, I don't think it's said at all and is merely a case of you and many others hearing what you want to hear.

http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ind...io-pareidolia/


I'd still like to hear a theory for how it all went down! It doesn't have to be the theory, just any plausible theory!


Yes, that lady, and yes despite them being shoveled out (lol it's not like she was hiding this fact), she was still able to draw a conclusion because she has expertise in that field. So what I was asking was why do you think the opposite is true?

the blood, bones, bullet and key would all be considered direct evidence. Also, the dassey testimony was not used because he changed his mind about testifying against steven. The state can't use a confession like this unless he agrees to testify, otherwise it kind of violates dassey's 5th amendment rights. Not to mention how stupid it would look to use a confession that someone is now recanting as evidence to convict someone else.

The bullet may have passed through her skull, could have passed through her arm, finger whatever.. We don't know. he shot her multiple times. Also, contamination shouldn't have created a false positive for TH dna. How would that even happen?

Not true, several people from the department wanted to investigate others and even suggested that gregory allen should be a top suspect. It was kocurek and the DA (the ones being sued) that were not willing to look into alternatives. Even colborn was trying to get his boss to look at someone besides avery.

oh boy some more good conspiracy stuff. Now there are secret voices in the background. Are you sure it wasn't just a Beatles record being played backwards?

Edit: slow pony, PoorSkillz beat me to it

Pam Sturm? The Colburn call to dispatch double-checking the plate number was 2 days before Sturm found the car.

You should listen even closer, I'll bet you can hear someone in the background saying "Lenk will be over there tomorrow to plant Avery's blood".

LMAO!

I am just imagining this laid back conversation over a game of UNO or something where they are discussing their plan out loud in front of a bunch of people.

if remiker was first on scene and there was blood, then either:

a) avery put the blood there himself

b) the planter put the blood there (this includes remiker)

c) remiker is lying or mistaken that there was blood

--

if under your hypothetical, blood was not in the car when remiker arrived, then either:

a) remiker did not investigate thoroughly and did not see blood that was there, or

b) remiker lied about there being blood and someone obviously planted blood


I'm not sure where you are going with this thought experiment

There were, I believe, 150 officers at the scene. Why did Lenk/Colburn have to search his residence so many times, including their days off? Other officers would have found evidence in the due course of time. They could have called in other police departments. To have two people that were just deposed days before in a civil suit for police misconduct searching his bedroom reeks of the opportunity for potential misconduct.

It corrupted the investigation and the trial. And led to all these 'conspiracy' theories. If it was handled properly from the beginning, we could all feel more comfortable with the investigative outcome.

Probably, yeah.

I am talking about the lack of police procedure's (Mostly from FBI Guy Moore's blog) regarding the MISSING piece's of evidence that would support any evidence that was gathered, Like... FOOTPRINTS to & from the Rav4.

So I ask you AGAIN.
Why was there NO impressions of the Footprints taken at the location of where the Rav4 was found?
And do you not find it strange that no impressions of the footprints where ever taken?
Like FBI Guy Mr Moore says in his blog, preserving as much evidence as possible at a crime scene is up most in priority so why did the LEAD investigator forget basic fundamental procedures & allow people to contaminate the crime scene with Footprints?
Gathering the Obvious Entry/exit points of the Vehicle by getting impressions of any footprints at the crime scene is usually No 1 on a lead investigators priority. Why was this information never gathered?

You get what I'm saying now? And don't get Strange. lol

Now do you find it strange that the fingerprints found on/in the Rav4 were never send for identification?
Pls don't say that they were, cos the fingerprints were only compared to members of the Avery family & close friends/in laws.


Btw whose blood are we talking about when you mention Remiker said that there was blood in the car?
I agree that Remiker would/could/should have found/seen TH blood in the car, i am in no doubt about that. But by doing so he contaminated a crime scene by not allowing the Crime Lab to take a Fresh look at the Rav4 in it's last resting place & according to Mr Moore that is unforgivable.


Moore to the Story..........Episode 8.

I am convinced (at least based solely on what I have been shown on Netflix) beyond a reasonable doubt that the police in this matter manipulated and/or planted at least some of the evidence. Therefore, I do not believe that the trial and investigation against Steven Avery were legitimate.

This is not my final and complete conclusion! This is a conclusion based solely and only on information attained from the documentary. I have yet to view Episodes 9 and 10.


FBI EDTA Test

I hope that I have established in this article that I have no particular pre-existing bias towards the guilt or innocence of Steven Avery, nor his trial. Therefore, what you are going to get from me is my actual feelings on the matter, not my view of what I wish were true or what might be true. What I am providing you is what I believe to be true to the best of my abilities.

In every trial, opposing experts face each other and contradict everything that the other one has said. Usually, one is not 100% right and the other 100% wrong. However, one is usually more right than the other. It's simple logic that both can't be right. So what does it jury do with that information? Is their job to assess which expert they believe to be more credible, for whatever reason. That is what I am endeavoring to do, but as an experienced FBI agent, rather than simply a ‘peer’ of the accused.
Picture
Based only on what I saw in the documentary, I find the FBI's test of the EDTA, absent any persuasive supporting or contradicting information at this point, to be the most credible.

If I believed that the FBI Lab was so compromised that none of their work could be trusted, then what you would've heard from me as a reasonable person was that I give more credibility to the defense expert because frankly, the prosecution seems crooked and the FBI Lab can’t be trusted. But my experience in 25 years in the FBI, even aware of the small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of prior FBI Lab examinations in error, leads me to believe that the FBI test is more likely correct than not. I say this not because I am a fan of the FBI, but because I believe it to be true. My integrity, my reputation and therefore “my money” depends upon my skill as an investigator and my ability to come to correct conclusions, not my loyalty to my former agency.
If I am subsequently made aware of reliable scientific evidence which indicates that the FBI lab erred on this test, I will just as quickly allow that information to affect my conclusions. If you as a reader believe that my bias has influenced my decision in this matter, I would suggest that you stop wasting your time reading these articles, because if I am biased on that point, then why would anything else I say be of value to you? Blind, actionable bias, like corruption, is an all-or-nothing proposition.
Picture
That said, I did not mean to infer in earlier articles that because the EDTA test done by the FBI Lab was negative for the presence of EDTA that Steven Avery was definitively guilty of the crime.

Yes, I completely accept the possibility that a source of blood different from the questioned vial was sent to the FBI. I noted that Kratz’ statement in court said only that the FBI test proved that the blood didn't come from “that vial.” I found that a curious way to state that fact. However, the FBI Lab not testing the vial in any way to ensure that the blood was—at least—Steven Avery’s, would be surprising to me. That type of error would seem to me to be similar to a doctor amputating the wrong leg. He may have done a nice, professional job with the amputation, but the results were doomed from the start because a basic and crucial validating step was missed. Again, I don't know the rest of the facts, such as whether the blood was typed or even DNA processed to validate that that blood sent to the FBI lab was the blood of Steven Avery.

Was the sample DNA-tested? I do not know the FBI procedures regarding this. However, DNA tests are expensive and they are time-consuming. If a rush was put on that test, it is less likely that DNA extraction and comparison, or even or even blood typing was done.
Is it possible that EDTA on in/on the RAV4 could have evaporated or in some way subsided in the drying process in the blood? I don't know because I don't know the scientific facts regarding EDTA in this matter, and I have intentionally not engaged in the necessary offline research at this point.

AVERY’S GUILT?
​
When I say that the EDTA results make it more likely that Steven Avery is guilty, I am saying that because in order for a police evidence-planting scheme to work, several more layers of conspiracy have to be added. Now, it's not just taking blood out and applying it to a vehicle, now it involves switching blood samples sent to the FBI. It's not impossible, but it raises the level of difficulty and probability.

BRENDAN DASSEY TRIAL

I can't wait to see how Ken Kratz prosecutes Brendan Dassey, absent using Dassey’s ‘confession’ which Kratz has already invalidated in court. I also wonder how he's going to do it without physical evidence of any kind. I wonder how he's going to do it after repeatedly claiming that one man and one man only murdered Teresa Halbach. I wonder how he's going to do it and sleep at night.
​
Frankly, though, he might get away with it, because evidence doesn't seem to be a big issue for Ken Kratz or some jurors.

I don't think the car was planted simply because of the random **** "covering" it up. Planting a car in this situation is so risky and taking the extra time to lean stuff up against it would make no sense, it would be all risk w/ no reward. It would arguably take longer to do that than plant the car itself and add nothing extra. Also all those things would have to be in the direct vicinity of the car (and I doubt they were), no one is going to wander the property looking for stuff to "hide" the car with. They would simply drop the car and leave. Who ever put the car there is most likely someone who lives on the property or is able to come and go w/o raising suspicion.

If I had to guess I would say someone found the car there illegally, so they went back and got permission so search the place again. And Pam couldn't help but B-Line straight for the car, ****ing rookie.

You make some good points overall, but I disagree with this part. According to Pam and her daughter, they spent ~35 minutes searching for the car before finding it. There was also another party looking for it earlier that day that didn't find it, increasing the overall amount of time spent searching for the car.

What Luckproof?
There was NO branches close to the Rav4 & they would have to go searching to find this stuff to put on/around the Rav4, Really?
If you look at the Ariel Views done on the 5th onwards you will clearly see that it is a SCRAPYARD with a whole Load of BRANCHES beside & within walking distance 1-50 feet from the location of the Rav4.
The reason it was put at the VERY END OF THE SCRAPYARD was to minimize risk & was prob done at night so as anyone from the Avery property would have to have used torches to get anywhere near close to the location of the Rav4.
Why do you think we find it strange that Pam Strum found the vehicle within 30 min of arriving on the scene when she entered the scrapyard 40 acres away? I mean why did she walk this 40 acres to get to a point to start a search?
Walking past 3800 vehicles in the process.
But you know the Avery's kept a very tidy Yard.
Pls do better.

Who was THIS other party Looking for the Rav4 on the Avery property?

She also had God, a camera, and was provided a direct phone number to the Sheriff. All rather convenient.

As you can see there is more covering the car than just branches. There is part of a fence(?) and what appear to be big flat sheets of something, maybe a sign. Cops of all people know this would add absolutely nothing in terms of damage to Avery and would take too much time to do. I do find it strange that Pam found it so quick (I thought they she said 20-25 min on the stand) but I explained why it could of happened w/o it being planted. Which also explains the sketchy call from Colburn.

Also you have to think, if someone did plant the car, covering it with stuff would not be part of the plan because they aren't familiar with the area. It would have been something they would have improvised. I find it highly unlikely that once the car is planted anyone would stick around and look for stuff to cover it with, again, since it ADDS NOTHING! Especially if its at night when visibility is low.

Yes just because I don't think the car was planted doesn't mean I believe Colburn and Pam's testimony. They def seem to be covering something up. Which I think is an illegal search.

Planting the car there would also assume that either a)the cops killed TH themselves, or b)the cops found the abandoned car of a missing woman, and rather than search for her or her possible abductor/killer, they decide to plant her car on SA's property to frame the local loser for murder. Of course since they planted TH's bones as well, they must have known she was dead which means they ignored a murder to prosecute SA.

The whole thing is so ridiculous I have to lol at people even speculating about it.