PoorSkillz,

Don't be ashamed, 104 is a very respectable score.

Yeti,

I asked you to share a theory that you think is reasonable, but instead you take unsubstantiated jabs at my intelligence.

I suspect that you're afraid to attempt providing a theory that you think is realistic, because deep down you realize there are none that aren't bat**** insane conspiracy theories that involve numerous people from several different agencies along with numerous improbable coincidences.

If you think his guess of 104 is a jab then you have no idea how you come across in this thread. 104 was being very kind.

Just finished watching the documentary The Seven Five, about a bunch of crooked cops in New York. The police interviewed for the film laid it out that being a 'good cop' meant covering for your fellow officers, and no matter what you don't 'rat' on them.

Under such a culture it's clearly not extraordinary at all to expect police to cooperate with one another engaging in criminal activities, or at the very least look the other way.

The one cop that cooperated in providing evidence against his partner was viewed with contempt by the others as a traitor.

The 1985 Beernsten case is strike one against Manitowoc law enforcement.

The Brendan case is strike two.

Can't imagine giving these cops the benefit of the doubt when they have established a record of railroading innocent people.

Can you present an example for why you think my IQ is lower than 104?

Do you hold the same opinion regarding revots' IQ?

It's unfortunate, but I can totally appreciate it.

Steven got out of jail with nothing.

He had been separated from his family for 18 years.

It's not like he was independently wealthy and could just move to Hawaii.

This is where he lived when he was first released from the wrongful conviction:

You have some weird agenda. Plug some strange website and promote griesbach book. I don't think you are dumb just dishonnest.
Revot on the other hand is plain stupid

Random observation: Ole boy Fraleyight hasn't been seen in this thread for a few weeks now.
Just as things seem to be heating up again, one of the main and most vocal members from the start of the guilty group has gone awol.
He admitted very early on he was "invited" to join some pro guilty Facebook groups with TH's family and friends, I wonder just how close to the players he really is and if his or any of of his friends' arse are gettin a lil sweaty right now?

And no, this is not a conspiracy theory. Just making an observation, drawn from things he himself has said and the fact he's now choosing to remain silent.

Is this a serious post? I mean there are valid arguments for and against reasonable doubt, but all this stuff about the sheriff's department killing Halbach to frame Avery or collaborating with the victim's brother and ex-boyfriend to cover up the real killer and frame Avery is conspiracy nutbar territory.

Your description of the prosecution case is a bit off.

Avery was not charged or convicted of rape. The prosecution's theory is that she was shot. As far as I know the number of times was not presented at the trial, nor is it an essential element of the crime. It occurred in a private residence that happened to be on a large property where a business was operated - so what? Yes there was little physical evidence left - because the body was burned - presumably other physical evidence such as clothes and sheets would have been burned as well. Avery had a cut on his finger which could be evidence of a struggle.

What does the number of teeth have to do with anything? Was the body burned or not? Weren't a bunch of the bones smashed up? Why couldn't that have happened to the teeth? How does the number of teeth found make it more or less likely that the body was burned by Avery or someone else?

I mean, you believe that the evidence is insufficient for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I get that. But you'd have to acknowledge that Avery being involved is the most likely scenario, given all the evidence that is known. Even if it doesn't come up to the 95% or 99% that you consider to be reasonable doubt, you would still attach some degree of probability to it. And that the scenarios involving police committing the crime or covering up for someone else are not supported by any evidence whatsoever and have a probability very close to 0.

So just to clarify. What I am saying is that the difference between people believing Avery is probably guilty and the conspiracy nutbars is that the conspiracy nutbars assign a positive probability to something that objectively has a probability of 0 (or as close to zero as possible under the circumstances - let's say the same likelihood that OJ Simpson is innocent of murder.)

The people who believe Avery is probably guilty are assigning his guilt a probability of 99% or 95%, when you think it should be 75% or 50%. Ie., within the range where reasonable people can disagree.

There's no equivalency.

There is virtually no evidence a murder was committed on the Avery property.

We know Steven was at home due to people coming and going, and phone calls.

Having eliminated Steven as a suspect, it is now a matter of speculation who killed Teresa, how she was killed, where this occurred, and when.

You eliminated Steven as a suspect? Where were you when Strang and Buting needed you.

You did watch the series, correct?

I mean sure if you want to create a scenario where all the evidence was planted, then I suppose it's easy to ignore it.

The Avery property was the last place where TH was known to be seen alive.

Steven was witnessed having fires in both his burn barrel and burn pit by numerous people only a couple hours after TH went missing. TH's burnt bones and other items were subsequently found in these locations.

A bullet with TH's DNA was found in Steven's garage.

The unique markings on the bullet matched the gun that was found in Steven's bedroom.

TH's Rav4 was found on the Avery property. The Rav4 contained the blood of both TH and Steven. The key to the Rav4 was found in Steven's bedroom.

Steven has no alibi.

The only person with Steven that afternoon/night confessed to committing the crime with Steven.

You can come up with a convoluted conspiracy theory to explain away all the evidence, but to claim there is none to begin with is simply false.

I'm adding you onto my ignore list now.

That is not evidence she was killed there.

For instance, in a murder case that occurred close to where I live, the last place the victim was known to be seen by innocent people was at a convenience store. But he wasn't killed there.

At most, evidence of mutilation of a corpse, which Steven was not convicted of.

Forensic lab botched test. Not reliable evidence.

Bullet fragment came from a .22 rifle. There is more than one of those in existence.

Not evidence Teresa was killed on Avery property.

This is really the strongest point. But there are any number of ways Steven's blood could have gotten into the car without Steven having murdered Teresa.

Again, this is not evidence that the murder was committed on the Avery property.

No evidence Teresa ever touched that key. Key was 'found' under suspicious circumstances. Was not there during previous searches.

Steven was at home as evidenced by witnesses and numerous phone calls throughout the night.

No evidence Teresa was killed there.

That is an alibi.

Brendan Dassey was coerced to make statements implicating Steven Avery. The story Brendan repeated for the benefit of police lacks substantiation (no evidence of binding, gang rape, stabbing, throat slashing, shooting human in garage or other places Brendan guesses).

As you can see, none of what you posted in your response is really evidence of anything but speculation.

Good. Then I can expect no more quotes from me in your nonsense posts.

Meanwhile I will continue to debunk your bull****.

They should have given me a call!

But pretty hard for the defense when the jury was tainted by the coerced confession Kratz read out on live television, a judge that tied their hands during the trial, and police who visited with the jury during deliberations.

I think the fallacy of people who are 100% convinced of his guilt are to put the police on a pedestal, as if because they are cops then any wrongdoing by them is the most ludicrous statement ever.

Problem is the same Copa already did it once. Let's say for the sake of argument is that it was not SA who killed TH. It you lived in that town, would you not try to stash the evidence on the Avery lot? Knowing the bias of the LE against him?

I don't think the cops had to have a part in the murder in order to plant evidence to bolster the case against Avery. From the first 20 minutes of the case they were already asking if Avery was in custody! They had tunnel vision and made sure that he was convicted, and it is their bias that brings doubt upon the evidence.


To me, the only true evidence is the body on the property and the blood in the car. I have yet to come up with a way to explain the blood. However the magic bullet, that was in a contaminated test? Not viable evidence imo. There was so little blood on the bullet that it could only be tested once. Seems to me if it passed through a human body that would not be the case.

Not to mention if it passed through a human body there would be blood splatter... Which there was no trace of.

The key? The fishiest piece of evidence and the strongest case for planting. You cant honestly believe that a bookcase was searched for hours and hours and then a key magically popped out, fell against the grain of gravity and also fell underneath some slippers. That is fishy.


The bones appear to have been moved and they were not properly excavated or logged as they were found. They were on his property, but that doesn't mean it was SA.

The blood in the car could only have gotten there if the police were planting evidence. If you believe they are capable of that, then you belive how there can be blood in the car. It doesn't make sense that he can meticulously clean the murder scene aka garage, while at the same time leave a perfect blood smear in plain sight on the dashboard of the car.

Was it just a coincidence that Steven had literally just seen her and spent the next few hours doing absolutely nothing? Was it just a coincidence he used both the burn barrel and burnpit that night (and lied about it when investigators asked)? Was it just a coincidence that they didn't get caught planting all this evidence on their property?

I call bull****. Please cite a source (try to do better than Zellner does).

If you read the investigative report, he was one of many people who were questioned. They were even discussing going back to interview the Zipperers the morning the Rav4 was found (a part which was conveniently cut out of the call shown in the series).

That's still plenty. Why are you trying so hard to explain away all of the evidence?

The Wisconsin Crime Lab disagreed, and presented good reasoning for why it was still viable evidence.

What are these opinions based on? Can you provide sources or do you have any experience with the amount of blood on bullets after half a year or the amount of splatter from a .22? Do we know there wasn't a tarp?

True, and yet still no evidence that it was planted.

It wasn't searched for hours and hours. The key did not "fall against the grain of gravity" and was not underneath the slippers. Colborn claimed that when he moved the bookcase from against the wall, it came out.

Human bones were found by both the burn pit and in one of the barrels, so of course they were moved. The forensic anthropologist who investigated concluded that they were most likely moved from the burn pit to the barrels and gave good reason for that opinion. There is no evidence they were moved beyond that.

There were no human bones found in the quarry, only bones suspected of being human, most of which were later confirmed to be animal bones, and one or two which couldn't be confirmed either way.

Seriously, think about this for a minute: if the body was burned in the quarry and moved to the burn pit, that would mean the framer would have somehow managed to pick up all the human bones, down to every little dental and bone fragment, while only leaving behind the bones that couldn't be confirmed human (even though they were suspected of being human by someone whose job consisted of identifying bones).

Maybe he ran out of time between cleaning everything up. Hiding the Rav4 in the back seemed like a temporary solution. Also it doesn't make sense to rape your niece or burn a cat. Steven doesn't make sense.

It's actually a matter of evidence, circumstantial and physical. Around 3 months and we'll have it.

Tick, tock, amirite?

Why are you so obsessed with SA's actions making sense? He's an inbred dimwit. Much smarter criminals than him have made much stupider mistakes.

That is supposedly your "evidence" that the blood was planted on the car? Because if Steven wasn't a moron he would have cleaned it up? That's not evidence. Blood that matches SA, is evidence. Bullets that match his gun, is evidence. DNA is evidence. All you guys have is a vague distrust of cops and zero evidence.

Post from https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAvery...w_book_steven/ where it's better formatted.



Attorney and author Michael Griesbach has graciously agreed to answer questions posed by the SAIG community, and to participate in a follow-up AMA on SAIG in the near future.
Simultaneous with his launching today of his new book about the Avery case, INDEFENSIBLE, SAIG brings you Part I of the Series: Michael Griesbach Talks about his new book, Steven Avery, Teresa Halbach and Making a Murderer.


VERY IMPORTANT
Mr. Griesbach has requested us to include the following disclaimer: "I am not speaking on behalf of the prosecution in the Avery case or the Wisconsin Innocence Project, where I serve as a member on the board of advisors."



Q: What are your thoughts on Zellner's brief?

A: It’s exceedingly difficult to figure out Kathleen Zellner and her recently filed motion is no exception. She claims to know with certainty that Steven Avery was framed by the police in 2005, probably with the assistance of “Person A” and “Person B,” who are widely believed to be Ryan Hillegas and Josh Radandt. She says the test results will confirm what she already knows and will serve as the basis for her next filing, a motion for a new trial or, more likely, an outright dismissal. So if she’s fishing, she’s doing so in a pond where she’s confident the fish will bite. She even promised to share the results with the state, something the defense is not required to do unless otherwise ordered by the court. The exception is the blood found in the car: the trial court entered an order during the trial permitting the defense to test it post-conviction and to share the results with the state. So either she truly believes Avery is innocent, which I strongly doubt, or she game-planned this very carefully, knowing which items of evidence the court is likely to permit her to test and which it will deny. If the court denies certain testing, she can continue MAM’s portrayal of Avery as the victim of police corruption and unjust courts, which have denied his ability to prove he was framed. I spoke briefly on this issue in a radio interview yesterday. (You need to play the actual interview to see what I said about Zellner’s brief, it’s on this link).



Q: From your unique perspective as a local prosecutor, knowledge of both the '85 and '05 Avery cases, as well as serving on Innocence Projects, what are some of the more practical bits of information that laypeople throughout the world may not be aware of, that serve to speak to Avery's guilt, or may serve to dispel some of the misconceptions that lead people to conclude he was framed in 2005?

A: Colborn and Lenk had nothing to do with Avery’s wrongful conviction in 1985. They played no role in the investigation or his conviction. In fact, I don’t believe Colborn even worked here at the time. In addition, the county had insurance to cover an award of several million dollars to Avery in his wrongful conviction lawsuit, which is where the case was likely to end up – not the thirty six million dollars he was seeking.



Q: What was your reaction to the recent Dassey Habeus Corpus decision?

A: Given his age and intellectual limitations, the public’s misgivings about the interrogation methods used on Dassey are understandable. Whether they were coercive and overcame his ability to resist, and whether the state courts’ rulings were so clearly erroneous that the federal courts should have intervened is a difficult call. I should probably not say more than that.



Q: You have been a vocal critic of Making a Murderer and the bias and seemingly intentional intellectual dishonesty with which it was presented. You were interviewed by its creators. Was that bias and the potential for the film to be agenda-driven apparent at that time? If so, in what form?

A: I addressed this in my book. Feel free to use as much or as little of this excerpt as you like:


Q: Can you shed light on the seeming "turf war" between the Manitowoc medical examinerand MTSO? Did this contribute to her not being allowed at the remains recovery by CASO et al? Conspiracy theorists have used this to indicate a desire to obscure the true nature of the bones discovery.

A: I recall there being some sort of conflict between the county coroner and MTSO prior to 2005, but I don’t know any of the details or the circumstances of her not being allowed to enter the salvage yard.



Q: By any measure the prosecution decision to test the RAV4 blood evidence for EDTA was a gutsy call. There is no "out" from a positive result as planting is proved. Are you aware of what went into this decision? Did the prosecutors do any special communication with investigators prior to making this decision, to receive assurances the result wouldn't blind side them?

A: I believe the parties played cat and mouse with testing the blood for EDTA. The defense waited late in the game to file their motion to present frame-up evidence, so until the court ruled on their motion, the testing would not have been relevant.


Acknowledgement: Thanks to /u/HOOPLEHEAD for organizing Mr. Griesbach's interview and upcoming AMA, and members of /r/MicksRumbleCorner for submitting questions.

What does IQ matter?

Peter Duesberg is unquestionably a genius but he doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS.

Kari Mullis is unquestionably a genius but he doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS.

[QUOTE=lkasigh;50689378]

I have never said the sheriff's department killed TH. All I wrote was that there is/was incredible doubt that SA/BD killed TH remotely near the manner suggested.


I am sorry. You are right. It was just at the press conference for SA. And after the trial, law enforcement at seminars paraded SA as raping TH. Brendan Dassey though was indeed tried and convicted of sexual assault.

How do you explain that?


The last remnants typically remaining after a body being burned are teeth since they take much longer to burn. That is why we always hear that we need "dental records". I am dubious that a pelvic bone and a Motorala phone survived (with a fingerprint), yet just one tooth made it through.

PoorSkillz, regarding your latest post, your apparent shilling for a certain author and certain book have become annoying and tiresome. If I were a moderator of this forum your latest post would be deleted and you would be infracted.

Please stop.