...and why wouldn't the Crivitz cabin be searched for a missing woman the police might believe Steven had kidnapped?

It seems like the police knew she wasn't there.

Sort of like they knew Steven would be charged with murder within hours of the missing person report. And that the RAV4 would be seized before it was found.

Reason doesn't seem to work for some folks, who must believe in spiritual guidance or mountains of coincidences to maintain their illusions that police and courts can do no wrong.

Torn to shreds by internet sleuths < life in prison for crime you did not commit

If Sturm is hating her life, she can always trade with Steven.

So you admit that there's no difference between your "self-reasoning" about things that seem suspicious and certain peoples' "self-reasoning" that there is a supernatural being that can intervene in their lives?

Sorry, I'm not really following you.

Is the length of time it took for the search party to find the car indicative of planting or not? If so, what hypothetical length of time would you consider not to be indicative of planting?

On what do you base your opinion on the correlation between the length of time it takes to find evidence and the likelihood of that evidence being planted?

The length of time the two person search party took is one factor. Even luckproof considers that to be suspicious.

You should realize I allow myself to consider all relevant information.

More than one data point would be required to determine whether there is a pattern.

https://i.redditmedia.com/6ZmgJdJ9Xj...RWI.png?w=676&
let's see if CASO can produce the phone that was collected in T.H. apartment.

This is why it's so hard to discuss the case with you guys, I have said I lean towards guilt so that apparently puts me in then "he's 100% guilty **** you camp" when I honestly am just trying to be fair on each point.

You guys say he was framed but do you even have a theory that doesn't sound bat **** crazy at this point?

When a missing person's vehicle is found & NO-ONE enters that vehicle, but it is then covered & taken away BEFORE EVIDENCE is found of a crime to be processed at the WI Crime lab YEAH that's suspicious, imo, plus the chain of custody was also broken when it had a recorded stop to insure that it has been properly secured on the pick-up vehicle.
The key, found after the 7th search of the trailer( disputed obv ) but when the search warrant say's it is for collection of PORN material, & then SAID PORN MATERIAL is mentioned in the same report IS NOT COLLECTED, yeah we ain't bat **** crazy.
The bullet( put T.H. IN garage/home) is found month's later of off a false statement by B.D, plus it cannot be tested again, & A bullet cannot be matched to a specific gun, only that it can be matched to a Marlin .22 again not suspicious.
The Bones- mtDNA lOl give me a ****ing break & read this if you don't believe me, or look up MTDNA... https://stopwrongfulconvictions.word...investigation/

We then have to question the blood, both S.A. & T.H. blood found in the Rav4 because in the sample of T.H'S blood there is NO HAIR fibers which is very unusual....
Have you read Steve Moore's analysis of the case Luckproof? http://www.gmancasefile.com/moore-to-the-story.html Enjoy.

Okay, great. Can you state a search time that you would consider to be not indicative of planting?

On what do you base your conclusions regarding the correlation between time of search and likelihood of planting? Like you said, more than one data point is necessary to establish a reliable correlation. Do you know of any studies that have been done analyzing across multiple cases that establishes that such a correlation exists?

I'm aware of the sloppy/sketchy police work, I'm just looking for you guys to go a couple steps deeper and tell me what this points to as far as TH's killer. Are you saying the cops did it? Someone else on the property? Is the blood definitely planted? That seems to be the crux of the case, the blood in the car.

You did write that if the 'search party' was just two people who walked straight to the RAV4 it would look suspicious to you.

I agree that it does seem a little odd, but sometimes coincidences do happen. Which is why I'm also being fair. That alone doesn't count for a whole hell of a lot, any more than the fact that Steven might have had a bonfire that night means anything by itself.

I'm not sure I even have to have a theory of the crime. But if it turns out the evidence for the state's theory is planted, then I have good reason to dismiss it.

Some crimes are never solved. Like the Jack the Ripper murders. Just because I don't know who did it doesn't mean I can't criticize someone else's theory that it was Prince Albert Victor.

We can't & here-in lies the problem, as you said sloppy/sketchy police work. Off all the people that have tried to investigate this case who have dug deep into it & tbh I.ve been impressed with the way the people have conducted themself's in trying to do so ( with exception to a few ofc) NO ONE can say with any degree off truth that T.H. was even murdered, but do agree she is dead.
And that's just sad/pathetic.

Did you read the Steve Moore blog-G.Man? I said earlier itt that he would not do this case the justice that it deserve's & he has decided ( after the 10 episode review ) to take a step back, Hmm I wonder why, but do hope he does finish it.

Well, if the blood in the car was all that mattered, the trial would take about 30 minutes.

There is the possibility that SA was the most amazing crime scene clean-up artist in history and the worst. Scrubbed a trailer of gunshot and knife residue but hid a car with a couple of branches. And left it there while he went on vacation.

Why wasn't SA even charged with rape, yet BD not only was charged with rape, he was convicted of it as well? By the same prosecutor for both cases.

And yet, the investigators went around for years saying that Steve Avery raped TH. You would think one would have to be tried and convicted of the actually crime. But who cares. He is in jail. Good luck suing for slander. Let's take that right away from him too.


***Thursday, September 26 - Friday, September 27, 2013
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Keynote Speakers

Lt. Mark Wiegert and
Special Agent Thomas Fassbender

These two seasoned investigators are currently working in law enforcement in Wisconsin. They will present an incredible case study in which they will walk you through their investigation and how they assisted in the prosecution of Steven Avery in 2005. On Halloween in 2005, Steven Avery lured Teresa Halbach, a photographer for Auto Trader Magazine, to the Avery Salvage Yard with the pretense to have her take a picture of an automobile he wanted to sell. It was later discovered that his real plan was to rape, murder and mutilate Teresa Halbach. Steven Avery was previously convicted of rape in 1985; however, he was later exonerated in 2003 through DNA. It was later that the same technology would be used to convict him.***

As I think I've made clear, that alone doesn't mean much. In conjunction with other evidence it seems to fit a pattern.

You do realize that in order to make a pattern more than one data point would seem to be required? A dot is just a dot - a lot of dots is a polkadot pattern.

AFAIK no such study has ever been undertaken, anymore than I know that using *67 is correlated to committing a murder, or having a fire pit in one's yard correlates to being a murderer.

It would appear that the police were unable to establish that any crime against Teresa was committed on the Avery property.

Nothing that would indicate a rape, or throat slashing, or stabbing, or shooting a human being 11 times happened there.

It stands to reason that if any of those things occurred, they happened elsewhere.

Meanwhile, we have some good evidence Steven was known to be where such crimes did not occur.

The 2 person search finding the car that quick does sound suspicious. I think someone a while back posted a picture of the property with markings of where they started and where the car was. I forget if it made it look more or less suspicious but the car was found on the outskirts, which is a logical place to start imo. But who knows.

I agree with the second part. I don't think you need a theory, but if so many things seem suspicious to you guys I just want to know if you think they point to anyone in particular.

Yeah I don't believe the prosecution knows how or where she was killed. It's a big property.

BD said he raped her correct? SA didn't admit to anything and you cant prove rape with a pile of bones AFAIK.

Where do you stand on the blood in the car? If you think he's innocent that blood must have been planted right? And if not he's guilty, hence the crux of the case.

Yes, I think it seems a little odd, but there could have been some reason to start there, or just by chance.

I don't have anyone in particular in mind.

But it appears to me that LE 'knows' a lot of stuff before they should have known (i.e. the car listed as seized and Steven as a suspect for murder before RAV4 found, search warrant for evidence of rape and murder before any evidence of either, etc).

Naturally, with any unsolved crime, there will be a lot of different theories and until the evidence is fully examined there's not much to go on. That is why Zellner's request for a thorough re-examination of everything relevant to the case is important.

BD said lots of stuff. He cut her hair, he forgot that she was shot, she was shot twice, shot 11 times, had sex with her, had some soda, stabbed her in the neck, stabbed her in the stomach, nothing happened, etc.

You can certainly prosecute someone with a pile of bones. Or without a weapon. Or without even bones.

The prosecution did make a case where she was killed. They didn't say we have no idea. They used two different stories. And they charged only one with rape. Who was found guilty. Ok. Will accept that.

To go around to law enforcement conferences and state that Steve Avery raped TH when he wasn't even charged or convicted for that offense? It appears that has no consequences. I say we charge him with a lot of unsolved crimes too. Now they are solved.

Here is a list of the lkasigh questions just on this page.

Something is not quite right with this dude.

-So your position is that in any criminal case in which the accused states "I was framed," regardless of the evidence, the accused should be found not guilty?

-Are you saying that if you were a police officer investigating a murder case and you found out that one of your suspects had an outstanding lawsuit with key depositions scheduled for the following week, that learning that fact would make you less likely to pursue that person as a suspect?

-So which one is suspicious - finding something after searching for a short time or taking a long time to find something?

-Is there a range of times that would you consider not suspicious?

-Do you have empirical data to support your position?

-Has anyone ever done empirical research on the length of time it takes to find evidence in cases with planting versus cases with no planting?

-What range of times for finding the key and car would you consider to be not suspicious?

-What do you base this on?

-Again, do you know of any empirical data on the correlation between the amount of time it takes to find a piece of evidence and the likelihood that that piece of evidence is planted?

-I'm just asking you what you are basing your claim on?

-Okay, not on empircal data, what then? Maybe Jesus guided you?

-So you admit that there's no difference between your "self-reasoning" about things that seem suspicious and certain peoples' "self-reasoning" that there is a supernatural being that can intervene in their lives?

-Is the length of time it took for the search party to find the car indicative of planting or not?

-If so, what hypothetical length of time would you consider not to be indicative of planting?

-On what do you base your opinion on the correlation between the length of time it takes to find evidence and the likelihood of that evidence being planted?

-Can you state a search time that you would consider to be not indicative of planting?

-Do you know of any studies that have been done analyzing across multiple cases that establishes that such a correlation exists?

In the politics forum this is called JAQing off.

[JAQ=just asking questions]

So you admit that you have no idea whether the time of search is relevant to the issue of whether evidence was planted. This is great, we finally seem to be getting somewhere.

Do you believe the time is an indication that anything wasn't planted? Do you have any empirical evidence that shows a correlation to how long it takes to find something and the chance that that evidence wasn't planted?