Dude, I just told you why the avery's and the zipplers were looked at first. Evidence kept coming up pointing to the salvage yard, why would they then just start looking at people she knew when all her stuff kept coming up on the salvage yard? That is counter productive.

LOL! Ok dude, you guys are literally using the same arguments truthers use but just applying it to the sa case.. I gave you several examples of this itt. If you refuse to see it you are just being willfully ignorant.

At one point the truther movement was very large. Despite the doc that pretty much started the truther movement being much much smaller in popularity to making a murderer. The sa movement is slowly seeing its decline as well and soon will be a small minority just arguing conspiracy theories. Pretty soon all you guys will have is people like smacc. Mark my words sir. I have been debating people from these groups for a very long time.

If you realize, no one has offered an alternative theory. Not one that has any supporting evidence. Pointing out gaps in knowledge is not an argument because once one gap is filled there is just another gap. That is how knowledge works.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=9-11%20truth

^truther movement trends. You can see how it was once very popular. I would argue (this is just a guess ) but of people participating in that debate (whether or not islamic terrorists were responsible for 9-11) over 50% of the people participating were of the opinion that they were not. The same can be said about avery. Honestly, most people who get involved in these discussions are people who hold strong opinions, and it just so happens that the people with the most outlandish opinions usually scream them the loudest. Usually anyway.

Word

I don't think a fire in the pit could have gotten hot enough or burned long enough for the body to be in the condition it was. I wish we knew how the bones were aligned when found, but unfortunately that was not documented. It would have been nice to know if the bones were laid out similar to a body or if neck bones and toes were all mixed together.

I don't think SA would have invited people over for a body burning bonfire, while he has burn barrels, an incinerator, and other ways to dispose of the body.

If SA is the killer, it would make more sense to me to have burned the body elsewhere, say in the quarry or another site. Then, he could have moved the bones to his burn pit, where perhaps he felt he could control the finding of the bones and burn other items on top (like tires) to try to hide the bones. That makes more sense.

This could also explain putting the body in the back of the car, if he did murder her on his property. However, as I've stated I doubt the validity of the garage as the scene, though it is possible she was killed there and it was meticulously cleaned.


You are truly terrible at reading comprehension. I'm not even asking those questions as a direct reason to discover guilt or innocence. To me, those questions make no sense and I just want to know what actually happened, whether he is guilty or not. But again, I will applaud your deflection of anything that could cause any shred of doubt.

With all due respect, I am not sure that Yeota was looking to you to answer those questions. He stated he has questions about the case, and to be honest, I do not believe you have established that you are the one that can answer them.

Your approach is fundamentally wrong. Aside from one or two posters, there is nobody in this thread that claims they "know" S.A. did not kill T.H. The issue is, and always has been, whether the process was fair. As for whether S.A. was the killer, people are simply raising questions for discussion, they are not positing arguments for innocence.

You and Poorskills, on the other hand, ignore the fact there are serious issues with the process and simply rely on the result. Then (for some reason) you guys defend the result even though you have not addressed the process.

Anyhow, your approach is annoying and intellectually dishonest - you seek to quash actual discussion of the case. This is basically why I have limited my participation here. Every time someone raises a question for discussion, you and Poorskills rush in and give the same pat answers as if you believe these people are too stupid to read the thread where you've given the same answers dozens of times.

Nobody is looking to you as an authority. You are only an authority on being able to link to the Avery murder case site.

1. Somebody was harassing T.H. in the weeks (months?) leading up to the murder.

2. R.H. stayed very close to the Halbach family, even though he and T.H. had broken up (real world experience allows us to understand this is typical of a boyfriend that cannot let it go - he stays close to a mutual friend of family member to keep tabs and keep hope of reconciliation alive).

3. R.H. "ran into" T.H. the day before the murder at a mutual friend's house. He says he and T.H. discussed her plans for Halloween.

4. R.H. calls T.H. the day after Halloween, to see how her night turned out.

5. R.H. gets a message that the V.M. inbox is full.

6. R.H. hacks into her V.M. and (most likely) deletes messages. R.H. hacks into her email as well. No explanation as to why he would know her passwords (he just "guessed").

7. R.H. leads the search party, but instructs someone else about finding the car - and gives her a camera and phone number to sheriff.

8. R.H. presented himself to the crime scene and for some reason was allowed to be on the S.A. property for many hours.

I guess you don't care about whether those are investigated, but understand, there are many who do. Just because you don't care about the answers to the questions raised by these issues, doesn't mean others are unreasonable when they say they believe these issues were not properly investigated.

I for one thought Avery was a coin flip to beeing guilty, since Zellner and the innocence project took his case that definitely changed my opinion to 80/90% innocent as obviously it's more likely he is innocent if they decided it was worth defending him because they believed in his innocence and most likely have good reason to believe so.

People who are still sure he is guilty for sure have poor deduction skills if they believe they took the case without some kind of guaranty that they aren't defending a murderer.
It's still possible Avery is a huge sociopath who fooled them but thinking it's the most likely possibility considering all the shady stuff around the investigation and the trial is not giving you great odds to be right.

Kudos to people who knows Zellner is a fraud with no basis, from what I've read so far my limited understanding did not allow me to understand that

Correct. So, now that you have established you know the difference between:

a) asking a question/raising an issue, and b) making an argument, perhaps you can comport your posting accordingly.

You think she has a guarantee yet are only 80/90%? Makes no sense.

they can be wrong and/or can have incorrect info because Avery is dexter in disguise

Good post. I want to add that, yes, we know S.A. has/had some unsavory aspects to him - such as the cat burning. That cannot be overlooked.

But, by the same token, you cannot overlook the fact that S.A. without any motivation to do so, presented himself after being released as a humble, forgiving person. He showed genuine compassion for his rape accuser and forgave her - this behavior was evident before the whole civil case got underway, so it is unlikely he was "acting" for some perceived advantage in that case.

Anyhow, as you say, he would have to be an exceptional sociopath to have staged these demonstrations of emotion and compassion.

Well, I don't know what you're basing your opinion on, but you're wrong. Here's a good compilation of info regarding the fire: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd..._the_burn_pit/


If the bones were all mixed together, that wouldn't tell us anything. They could have been mixed together by Steven. In fact, it's likely he was using the shovel, hammer, etc. that were found at the scene to smash the bones.


He didn't invite anyone over, except for Brendan.

Find me one other account by a person saying they were invited to the fire that night.


First, the quarry wasn't his property, so it'd probably be quite odd for him to have a fire there.

Secondly, you talk of what "would make more sense", but did it make any sense for SA:

• to douse a cat in gasoline and burn it at a party?
  
• run his cousin down and point a loaded gun at her then hide the gun under his kid's bed?
  
• write the letters he wrote to Lori?

just to name a few.

SA is a moron.



In SA's phone call to Jodi that night, he told her he was cleaning and that Brendan was over.

At Brendan's trial, he testifies that he helped clean a 3ftx3ft space of what "looked like blood" (not the whole garage) with a mixture of bleach, paint thinner, and gasoline.

When luminol was used in the garage, a 3ft x 3ft stain was found.

Brendan's mom told investigators that Brendan's jeans had bleach stains on them that night and that he told her he was helping Steven clean the garage.

There's no doubt in my mind that they did some kind of cleaning in the garage that night



Another question for you: Why do you think, days before the bones were found, Steven lied in his initial stories to police about not having any fire that night?

because he's not her. It's her guarantee, not his.

+1

And BTW wether avery is guilty or innocent was not much of question in my mind watching the documentary.
The main point remain, the initial investigation and the trial were a joke and should be reviewed by competent people and sanction have to be taken against several people who worked on the case instead of the bull**** promotion and reward they got.

I think that is pretty impressive considering he has walked away from this thread for good like 3 or 4 times so far. Imagine if he never quit!

1. could have literally been anyone.

2-4 are also the behavior of someone who is just close friends with her. They broke up years before all this happened. You make it sound like they broke up and she didn't want to be around him. Based on testimony from everyone that knew them, they didn't have that kind of relationship.

5. Yes as did everyone

6. This is false, He never listened to her voicemail. Him and a bunch of friends that were over at Scott and TH house pulled up her phone records. They needed her password for this but according to RH the password was saved so when they entered her phone number the pw auto generated. they also immediately gave a copy of these phone records to police.

7. Yep, and is that the behavior of someone who should be a suspect? Someone who is devoting all his time to finding her?

8. Yes, after we already knew that someone near the salvage yard had either kidnapped or killed TH.

Again, she fell off the face of the earth at 3:30, her last phone call was at 2:40 and she was last seen with avery around 3:30. Never to be seen again.

So if she left the salvage yard, someone got ahold of her shortly after that. There is no reason RH should be a suspect with that information. There is no way he could even know she was going to be at avery's.

Should her dad have also been a suspect? Just curious.

I suppose if in some world 1 time means 3 or 4 sure..

You guys can pretend "you are just asking questions" but you're not. You are making unwarranted implications and most of you won't even admit what you are implying.

I'm sure you guys have discussed this theory at length in this thread before. However, I'm new to this giant thread and just recently watched the documentary series.

Avery set up by serial killer who frames people as his MO...

http://www.businessinsider.com/makin...edwards-2016-1

Did that theory gain any traction in the thread?

Yes, that is old news. It was dismissed. If I remember correctly the guy in the video was identified and it wasn't edwards.