Says person that was not supposed to be involved in the investigation.

lol, if only we could be as smart as the juries in these cases.

Itt people ask for alternate theories and then speak on absolutes about their impossibilities

Lol repeated appeals to the authority that is a jury in a rural part of ****ing Wisconsin while simultaneously discounting the scathing decision of a federal judge as just like one opinion man.

It's not just about intelligence though.

I think you're a reasonably intelligent person and probably smarter than the average member of those juries.

However, there are two issues:

1. you're clearly biased from the show in a way that prevents you from objectively analyzing the case*

2. you haven't read/heard the facts and testimony of the case.

That makes the juries immensely more qualified than you in analyzing the cases and rendering fair verdicts.


*The juries may have been biased too (Kratz's statement!), but the voir dire is an attempt to eliminate those obviously biased. Furthermore, we can't see the juries' discussions of the case in order to determine if they were clouded with bias, but we can see your posts ITT.

Why are you trying so hard to explain away all of the evidence?

lkasigh was making a big deal about the 'coincidence' that Steven had a cut.

"Moreover Avery had a cut on his hand in the days following the murder. Pretty strong coincidence that the death of someone last seen with him, her cell phone ceasing to work around the time and place that she was with him, and the police launching a massive conspiracy to frame him all happened the same day he cut his hand in a completely unrelated incident, no?"

Yes, one's hands do come into contact with a lot of stuff (useful things to have!). So if Steven had this cut and left blood in some places around that time, there would be plenty of examples around and no need to take blood from any old vials of evidence that were not properly secured.

It's rather odd that seeking justice is considered by some cops as a declaration of war against law enforcement.

Generally, the rules and regulations about how police should conduct themselves are there to protect the general public from rogue cops engaging in their own personal war against the people they are paid to protect and serve.

That's why it was a good idea to prohibit Manitowoc police from participating in this case - the obvious conflict of interest. Too bad they couldn't follow through on this policy.

The sheer number of deviations from protocol in this investigation is sketchy at best.

We could be, if only our mothers had imbibed enough alcohol while they were pregnant with us.

...asks the guy trying to explain away all the evidence of police incompetence and corruption.

[QUOTE=golfnutt;50693881][QUOTE=lkasigh;50693695] I'm sorry I'm still not following you.

Let me give an example. Avery's blood in the car is evidence of his guilt because if he was innocent his blood almost certainly wouldn't be found there, while if he was guilty there's a good chance that it would. The lack of Halbach's DNA in Avery's cottage is evidence of Avery's innocence, because if he was guilty there's a good chance that something would be there, while if he was innocent it most likely wouldn't.

I don't see any similar line of reasoning applying to the number of teeth discovered, either in support of guilt or innocence.

This whole insulting of the jury thing is really not a good look, not to mention jokes about alcoholism and fetal alcohol syndrome. Not cool guys.

There were actually 24 tooth fragments found, as per Dr. Simley's testimony.

You were the one talking about Occam's razor earlier right? So which theory has fewer unproven assumptions?

Known: Avery had a cut, his blood was in the car.
Theory 1: he bled in the car.
Theory 2: he bled somewhere else, someone else took that blood stain and planted it in the car.

Halbach was reported missing on the evening of the 3rd - the car was found on the morning of the 5th. So in a period of about 36 hours, someone would have had to find her car, establish who the real killer was, clear away all the evidence of the real killer (I guess maybe if she committed suicide or died of natural causes you can omit these two steps), hatch a plan to frame Avery, recruit a bunch of conspirators to come on board with the plan, obtain information that Avery had a cut on his hand, sneak into Avery's cottage and obtain blood stains, test them to make sure they are his, plant them in Halbach's car, and plant the car. All without anyone noticing anything suspicious.

Frankly, I don't think someone who comes up with this type of theory should be insulting anyone else's level of intelligence.

My point was people seem to think that if SA cut his hand working then he did not kill TH. When imo it could be more likely he did cut himself working and the wound opened back up while he was trying to subdue the victim.

The problem one way or the other , is that alot of stuff is not right and people will extrapolate over some details because of it and make terrible conclusion from the lack of proper information.

People who think avery is guilty deserve a better explanation than the bull**** one they have been served and same for the one who think he is not guilty.

Avery hurt his hand and so did theresa ex boy friend. guess what it look suspicious for both side, one has been investigated the other didnt

This is actually the first time I've heard about RH's hand. I have to look into that.

Well said.

There is more to it though. Belief in the system. Burden of proof. Innocent until proven guilty.

On the Cat Burning Incident

CLAIM: The police report stated that Avery took a cat, poured gas and oil on it, threw it into a bonfire and then watched it burn until it died. A friend who was present at the time told police that the cat jumped out of the fire and Avery caught it and poured more gasoline on it before the animal died... Managing to score two of the most common psychological sign posts for potential homicidal behavior--animal cruelty and a fascination with fire--into a single act. [This is repeated elsewhere in the book as well, wherein he explains Kratz's attempt of comparing that incident of throwing the cat back into the fire, to him shooting Halbach multiple times to make sure she was dead, from the 'Other Acts' motion, which even Griesbach admits was stretching it].
FACT: The actual criminal complaint states that Jerry Yanda, along with Steven Avery, were both complicit in this crime. The written statement provided by Yanda indicates that Yanda was the one who actually threw the cat into the fire, not Avery. Yanda's statement says that "I then threw it into the fire. the cat then jumped out of the fire and ran around until it ran out of power and died." Peter Dassey, the other witness to the crime, wrote a statement that "They got the cat. Steve pored[sic] gas and oil on it. Jerry threw the cat into the fire. It burned up." There is no documented reference in the criminal complaint or written statements by either parties to substantiate the claim by Kratz and Griesbach that the cat was chased down and doused again after jumping from the fire or thrown back into it.

The Actual criminal complaint.... http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...al-Cruelty.pdf
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...ine.pdf?page=3

Booth you & luckproof should research more info regarding the B.S. propaganda attached to this case. And please stop getting your pussy in a twist.
#Gotravel #wheninrome #chinesefoodstall's
#

The "war" lol.

Seems a bit 9/11 truther tbh.

Now I sound like the other side. I don't believe the actual criminal complaint. I don't think he cared about burning a cat or trying to save it. It doesn't at all make him a rapist or a killer. He does lose a lot of sympathy votes, right or wrong, from domesticated animal lovers.

Yes, someone was claiming the mountains of assumptions regarding the prosecution case was 'simple' and I was pointing out many unstated and unsubstantiated assumptions therein.

Assuming this cut was obtained on the 31st - unproven.

Assuming he left blood somewhere from the cut, which is an unproven assumption.

Assuming he drove the car. Unproven.

Assuming he left blood from his wounded finger without leaving fingerprints in the car.

I guess we assume he was wearing gloves.

Then we have to assume the gloves had a hole or leaked blood somehow.

Assuming the car was actually 'found' on the 5th (contra Colburn's calling in the license plate and police documentation of the car being seized as evidence on the 3rd).

See above.

Why assume this was a necessary step?

Who says all evidence of 'the real killer' was cleared away?

True, we don't know how she died, where she died, or when she died. All matters of unstated assumption.

Since we have good evidence that the Manitowoc crew already hatched a conspiracy against Steven in the past (hence the lawsuit) this is not as unrealistic as it might seem.

You are assuming a 'bunch' would need to be recruited. We already know that police are all too often willing to 'go along to get along' with the questionable activities of their 'brothers in blue'.

That would be very difficult, wouldn't it? It's not like anyone actually observed Steven or held a conversation with him during the relevant time period...

Police were already in Steven's home on November 5th - not even sneaking!

Assuming the blood came from inside his home.

Not sure why you are assuming this is a necessary step - I guess to make it seem more complex?

Assuming blood smears said to belong to Steven were in the car before car was 'found'. Not reported by anyone on the scene on Nov 5th.

Mysteriously, when lab techs examine the car after it's arrival at the garage the door is unlocked.

The key isn't supposedly 'found' until Nov 8th.

Who unlocked the car between its 'discovery' on Saturday and examination on Sunday?

I suppose we'll have to assume overnight someone had a key made and helpfully unlocked the door? Quite innocently, no doubt?

Which cops are going to 'rat' on their fellow cops (even if they are observed)?

Obviously, this is your theory and includes elements which I've never heard anyone claim.

Yes, there's a huge conspiracy against cops.

Steven was already punished for animal cruelty charge in 1982.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...al-Cruelty.pdf

No need to frame him for rape or murder.