+1

Listen carefully to the dispatch tapes, specifically the one on the 5th of Nov when only a Car was found on 40 ACRES of accessible land "Do we have a body yet, NO-But we do have Steven Avery in custody"

And stop with the Bullet & Keys because they were not found on the 5th.
Or the Bones.
Over 150 seasoned professionals did not find any evidence for 3 whole days.
But PS was lead by God to the Rav4.

I was responding to post indicating that the ex-boyfriend of the victim should have been a prime suspect early in the investigation. This is ridiculous. She was last seen with Avery, her car was found on Avery's property, Avery is a convicted violent criminal. To any reasonable person, he would be the prime suspect.

If they had examined the car and found evidence pointing to her ex boyfriend or anyone else, they would have followed that up. They didn't, they found further evidence pointing at Avery.

I didn't say that. I stated, very clearly and honestly, that your defense of R.H. made me FEEL odd. Given that he was not properly investigated, you too, should accept that there are open questions concerning R.H. Because it is an unknown, it makes no sense for an objective poster to vehemently defend him.

Yet, you wrote what you wrote, which is very strange. You may disagree, but I think a lot of people who read that post will agree with me.

In golfnuts world - anywhere except, apparently, rural Wisconsin, an ex-boyfriend that stays connected to the ex-girlfriend, is near the top of the list of suspects in a murder case.

In golfnuts world - anywhere except, apparently, rural Wisconsin, an ex-boyfriend would not be allowed to roam around a declared crime scene concerning the disappearance/murder of his ex-girlfriend.

"Do you have Steven Avery in custody?"

How does the Sheriff declare a crime scene if they don't even know a crime had been committed?

Brilliant: So now we have two distinct timelines used to explain away holes in the investigation:

1. Poorshillz and Fraley claim all the evidence was immediately apparent, and there was no reason to expand the investigation beyond S.A; so therefore, there were no other suspects and R.H. was not investigated (as there was no reason for it).

2. Ikasigh claims everything was an unknown - so unknown that the police did not even realize they were dealing with a crime; so, therefore, there were no suspects and accordingly, R.H. would not be investigated.

When did they determine the blood to be SA's?

When did they "determine" the bones belonged to T.H.? (At least according to them)?

Meanwhile, prior to all that, R.H. is not investigated.

That's the problem, it cannot be hand waved away - the investigation was botched, regardless of who the actual killer was.

R.H. being in a satanic sex club is not an issue raised on these facts. There would be no reason to investigate that unless something further came up.

You are playing the "hindsight game" where you take all the facts you assert as true and use them to justify the non-investigation of open issues at the time the case was open.

R.H. testified he "guessed" T.H.'s password (and for what its worth, gave a smirk as he said it). That is the testimony.

As far as the rest of the list, it is and was a list of valid concerns that were not investigated. First and foremost, is "who was harassing T.H. in the weeks leading up to the murder?"

Fraley admits that is an angle that was not investigated and that "literally anyone could have done it." Aside from the hyperbole, anyone could have done it, but reasonably, only a few would have been likely to have been harassing T.H. - R.H., is among them.

Anyhow, you can argue until you are blue in the face, but the person you are defending here (Fraley) already admits the investigation of that list was not complete.

That is the issue. Sorry you don't like it. Your beloved Sheriff's department did not properly investigate.

Correct, at the time, any reasonable person would have S.A. as the "prime suspect." If you were better at reading comprehension, you would discover that most people in this thread hold that very opinion, including me.

"Prime suspect" does not mean "only suspect." Of course, if you do not investigate any other person or theory, the prosecution is going to try to make a case on what they got. Krantz prosecuted on what he got from the investigation - and as you should see, it was a case that seems, to the reasonable viewer, to be a case that provides more questions than answers.

That is not how a murder conviction is supposed to go. When a defendant walks free - those are the cases that tend to raise the questions at every turn; here, this was a conviction with a life sentence, yet there are endless questions about how the crime happened, where it happened, when it happened.

Let's also revisit Ryan's testimony:

1. He was questioned by officers on November 3rd


Q. All right. By the time that Calumet county
investigators arrived, I take it you guys were
pretty concerned about Teresa's well being, where
she was?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew that it was important that you
provide as much information, as accurate
information as you could?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the police interview you and Scott together,
or did they put you in separate rooms when they
talked to you, or how did they do that?


A. I believe we were -- I believe we were in the
same room.

Q. Okay. Now, did the investigators ask you any
questions about the nature of your relationship
with Teresa?

A. Yeah.




2. He never had access to the Avery property, just the surrounding properties

Q. Just so we're clear Mr. -- I'm sorry. Just so
we're clear, Mr. Hillegas, the area that you were
allowed access to was the outside of the Avery
property itself, in other words, the surrounding
properties, not within the salvage property; is
that true?

A. Yes.

Terrific pull! Of course, if my understanding of how calendars work is correct, Nov. 3 is prior to Nov. 5 which is when R.H. is on the Avery property. Also, if R.H. was not on the crime scene, why is he in the log book?

Yes, Nov. 3 comes before Nov. 5, but I don't see the relevance when Ryan is referring to Nov. 5 and beyond when saying that he never had access within the salvage property.


Probably because he was still searching the surrounding properties on the 40-acre land.

Which is not the crime scene - and thus, there was no reason for him to sign in.

The log book is to chronicle who is in/out of the crime scene. R.H. was on the crime scene, thus, he was logged in.

What prompts you to say the entire 40 acre land wasn't considered the "crime scene" at that time and required sign-in?

Correct. Both are true. Before they found the vehicle, they didn't know whether there was any crime to investigate.

After they found it they knew a crime had been committed and upon investigation all the evidence pointed towards Avery.

Are you instigating there was a 40 acre perimeter of police officers that all had log books?


There was only one log and it was on the property. You can't believe the place was that secured when lenk was able to log out but never log in to begin with.

I'm not instigating anything.

I'm saying there was probably a main entrance to that 40 acre property which required a sign-in. I'm saying that because:

1. it was private property
2. considered a crime scene
3. people were looking for a missing person

it's fair to assume people weren't able to just come and go on that property as they pleased.

No, he didn't testify that he guessed her password. That isn't what he was talking about. He wasn't talking about voicemails when he said that. He was talking about when him and her other friends pulled up her phone records. Buting then asked if he had ever checked her voicemail and he said no. I asked but you ignored, were all the friends in on it? Were they all working together to kill TH, cover up the murder? what.. Should this have been a thought the detectives had? Because they all collectively guessed the password and RH said that he thinks the password auto populated.

Also, I haven't see the harassing TH thing substantiated so I am not even sure if it happened.

You are right. There are not more likely suspects.

Well, that is until 6 months later when Brendan Dassey is interrogated and confesses. New information/evidence was provided which led to an additional suspect being charged.

Do you think it would have been ok for BD to have been allowed to log-in and walk the crime scene?

No, because BD lived on the property where TH went missing.

He also wasn't working with all her friends to find her.

You still have many pages of this to look forward to:

What was all the evidence the pointed towards Avery?

It turns out, according to the state, there was an accomplice in the rape/murder. Who was convicted by a jury.

His blood in her car. Her bones in his fire pit. Her car keys in his house.

Again, I know you believe there is reasonable doubt that these were all planted. I'm asking you to ignore the possibility of planting and explain whether, after these pieces of evidence were found, it would have made sense to bring the victim's ex boyfriend(s) (who had no connection to Avery) for interrogation?