...and get lucky with the fact that Steven took off work in the afternoon for the first time in forever and had no alibi...

...and get lucky with the fact that Steven spent all night having a huge fire with a bunch of tires and other **** thrown in there...

...and get lucky with the fact that no one caught them sneaking around and planting everything on the Avery property, even with a dog right by the burn pit...

poorskillz, revots,

i'm not obsessed with IQ. i am curious to know how broadly intelligent the people still passionately debating this case are. my assumption from reading your posts is that you are both super dumb, whereas i assume someone like oski has a 125+ IQ, and i know he is legally trained. as a result, i take his posts much more seriously than yours.

every person who reads this thread or the amanda knox thread is doing a similar thing, that is, constantly weighing up which posters they think are most legit.

fwiw, this is a perfect example of a comment that makes you look incredibly stupid!

Had a scheduled AA meeting to take Jodi to that was mysteriously cancelled at the last minute.

An ultra standard occurrence that many people were invited to but all cancelled on by their own accounts and testimonies. Was not all night because he made at least one recorded phone call with Jodi where sweet nothings, marriage proposals and other nonsense was mentioned during the alleged masterclass crime scene cleanup.

Scott Tadych.

"But who could pull off the murder? A member of Law Enforcement? No way. Too risky. If their DNA is somehow found on the scene mixed with TH's, or someone witnesses the act, its over for everybody. A hired hitman? Maybe, but again, too risky. If cops get caught talking to a hitman and Avery's name is in the convo, its game over. No, it's gotta be someone on the inside. Someone with access to SA's yard and knows the area and can move about both day and night. Someone who's close, but not TOO close so as to have ties and allegiances too strong that might cause 2nd thoughts. Someone who's controllable that we have history on and if they fail or get caught, we can simply deny everything and say he's trying to fabricate this stuff to play on the fact that his brother-in-law had the same thing happen. Someone who knows how to handle a weapon well. Someone who knows how to handle bodies, dead bodies, bloody dead bodies and fire....like a hunter or something." - Me (way back in January)

I speak way too much truth and obviously I have been ignored by TrollShillz for a while so there won't be a response from her/him on the above.

You're trolling, right? You have to be.

LMAO, do you honestly not realize how blinded with confirmation bias you are?

Do you also accept scores on SAT/GMAT/etc? I am happy to provide those.

You ok?

LMAO Yeti probably considers lostinsauce a genius.

Yeah, good bro. You?

Anyone else take an unexpected day off work that day? Happen to know what they were doing? Did they have any weapons? Did they have a credible alibi? Did they lie to police about what they saw that evening?

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...yers/89602552/
Cool article

In ooorskillz land skippityhoppity knows more about the case than Zellner because he crowd sourced documents.

Revots what will you take from that : what a media whore bitch ambulance chaser trying to free the biggest monster of our time?
Or maybe poor girl manipulated by Brendan Dassey the criminal mastermind.

If only we had more people like revered author Michael Griesbach or Ken " the prize" kratz instead of those horrible people working pro Bono trying to get murderers back in the street

It would be like a leprechaun being surprised leprechauns existed.

well given you want to supply those i assume they're pretty good, but sure, let's take a look

let me guess, 800 math, 800 verbal, with results dated the 3rd november?

Police are very insular and protective. They are one of the most likely organizations to cover up for each other even if they know it is wrong. Due to loyalty and/or fear crossing the foundation of all law enforcement where you work and live is incredibly risky.

It has been pretty clear in all this the entire criminal justice system in Wisconsin is a horrible mess. It would have only taken one or two bad actors to do this and a few others to be complicit in their silence. If you don't think that the influence held over a rural community like that by the Sheriff's department and prosecutor is not enormous you are ignorant on the subject.

Potential motivations can be simple. Everyone on the Mantiwoc Force knew who Steve Avery was and what had happened with him. This was a great opportunity, potentially. Make a few key discoveries and you are the centerpiece investigator to solve the biggest case in forever around there while also putting a bad guy away. It would be trivially easy for a law enforcement officer to honestly think Avery is a bad guy and deserves what he gets even if he didn't do it.

Do small county investigators not have ambition? Again this is a small rural area with probably zero community oversight of law enforcement even after the first Avery case. Officers probably felt comfortable fudging things. It is clear the department failed on a large number of basic policy and procedures, with nobody checking their work this was a lifetime opportunity to put the bad guy away. They could easily rationalize this as a win-win-win. A guy they think is bad goes back to prison, family gets closure, officer(s) get higher profile career trajectories based on case.

We know cops can falter without oversite and accountability, and it seems obvious the later did not exist and I have seen no evidence of the former. Police officers have done some really bad things just to keep their current job and probably had a harder time rationalizing it than one would have locking Avery up. One of the main motivations found among arsonist firefighters is to be a hero and save the day. People do weird stuff for reasons they completely rationalize in their head.

Since the police and prosecution guessed the crime took place in any number of locations i would say no, nobody is accusing anyone of staging a crime scene.

Lolol

Agreed. However it is clear evidence of further incompetence in the investigation that leads to an insurmountable amount of reasonable doubt. No amount of tap dancing on a needle is going to explain how people who MUST provide accuracy in their reports were incapable of doing so. There is no way to explain why they would place that date on the line item for the car other than laziness or incompetence.

It continues to amuse me to no end that every "gotcha" just boomerangs back to support the total incompetence of the investigation which must lead to these men being freed. You don't have to believe any officer planted or did anything to purposefully taint the investigation but the incompetence is still glaring and overwhelming.

Of course people are bored and everyone goes with this ever increasingly crazier scenarios on all sides when the reality is the f-wads were at least so incompetent that a fair trial was not possible and was not had.

Although it is not hard to push through the incompetence and realize it was a Petri dish for the infection of corruption. With everyone half arsing their job there is little chance anyone would notice or care if someone decided to act in an unsavory manner during an investigation.

You would think that all those involved, knowing this is likely the biggest case they ever work on, would be on their best behavior and dot all their is and cross all their ts. The scary part is what if this was their behavior and normally they adhere to procedure and policy less and are even less attentive and competent?

Well, none of this fits in with the theory that it was the evil masterminds Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos who hypnotized everyone into thinking there was something wrong with coercing a confession from a 16 year old kid.

Is there something better I can provide without giving out personal details?

Is there a specific IQ test you prefer? Maybe I can take it sometime next week.


Think about this for a second: you could say the same for any IQ score I would tell you. Do you really think I would say I don't know my IQ and then lie about my SAT score?

It's almost like you were never actually interested in knowing our intelligence as much as you were in insulting it...

My SAT score was 780 math / 770 verbal, about a dozen years ago, but I might have grown a bit dumber since then.

I haven't seen any evidence that this was the first afternoon Steven took off in 'forever'. Does PoorSkillz have documentation that Steven never took time off from work in the couple years he was free after the wrongful conviction?

According to Jodi he was meant to take her to some sort of alcohol rehabilitation event that day, which coincidentally got cancelled at the last minute.

Steven does seem to have an alibi in that he fielded several calls from home, and was observed close to home while despite umpteen searches there is zero evidence any crime against Teresa was committed there.

If Steven did have a bombfire that night, it doesn't sound to me like it's 'huge'. About the size of a table top is how cops described it. Hardly big enough to burn a human body. Too bad police forbade the County Coroner from examining the burn pit so there'd be some valid documentation. You have to wonder why the investigators didn't want this investigated.

Whatever the dog might have seen, he hasn't been able to tell us. Coincidentally, the bones weren't 'found' until police had fully occupied the property and the Averys were out of town. So luck had nothing to do with it.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that reading PoorSkillz's posts has made us dumber.

This ****ing rhodes scholar said you need evidence of planted evidence.

The whole innocent-until-proven-guilty stuff is just a total mind**** for you guys.

To establish reasonable doubt of a suspect's guilt based on a claim of framing, you need to establish a reasonable probability of framing.

I.e., the standard of proof is lower (in fact the inverse) than for a criminal conviction - reasonable probability rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. But you still need evidence. Just saying "he was framed" won't cut it.

Since Steven and Jodi had to talk over monitored phone lines it would be clear to anyone in LE who was interested what their plans were.

Maybe Steven expected everyone to be OK making s'mores over a burning corpse. The stench of burning human flesh just adds that special Wisconsin touch to an old favorite.

No evidence was 'found' that could not have been planted out of sight of the Averys.