I have no idea what kind of misinformation posters like proud/golf/smacc/oski/etc are spewing unless I see it quoted by someone like you, but I keep seeing this idea that RH accessed her voicemails.

Again, there is no reason to believe RH ever accessed TH's voicemails, only her phone records (which he testified to accessing while with a few other of TH's friends).

MH accessed TH's voicemails after finding out she'd been missing, not RH.

Ah yes, sorry. You are correct. Many things get stated as fact itt, easy to get confused.

Similarly, I keep seeing stated as fact that Jodi's AA meeting was mysteriously canceled for no reason the day of. As far as I know this comes only from an interview Jodi gave. I believe she actually lost release rights a week or so earlier because of outstanding unpaid warrants. If that is the case then SA would have known ahead of time that he would not be taking her to the meeting that day.

No one in the innocence camp has a horse in the race. We have absolutely no conflict of interest and we are not conspiritards. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by the truth coming out and an innocent man being released from prison.

Perhaps a few of us care about civil rights and justice and thus carry on with our involvement in the discussion.

But what is your excuse? How do you justify in your head that BD DESERVES to be in jail for the rest of his life based on what happened? Do you honestly and truly believe he had something to do with this murder based on those police interviews? I don't think so...you've got some other connection to this. You must be close to the Halbachs or somehow or another gaining (or not losing) something. Your stance is just to narrow-minded and frankly pathetic.

PoorShillz is selling books and thus has ignored anyone who rightfully sh*ts all over his book campaign (profiting of the exploitation of innocent people...disgusting). Fraleyight admitted to being close to the Halbachs so that was his motivation. But you? You've got no excuse. You can't really be this naive, can you?

I see. The source of the info is the actual person who was to attend the AA meeting and she herself states that the cancellation occurred THAT day and for "some unknown reason" . Sources provided down to the exact second of the interview.

Yet you interject some guess as to what really happened and don't provide a source or any type of evidence to back up your claim.

Well done. You should give press conferences. Somewhere, Kenny Kratz is smiling, and not because his shipment of oxy just arrived.

I'm hoping Zellner will be able to shed some light on this issue.

You'd think if the session was cancelled for cause, Jodi would know why.

Spewing misinformation about the case - par for the course when it comes to trying to make Steven look bad.

The picture of Ken 'The Prize' Kratz smiling is grotesque.

I'm glad he lost his job, but you'd hope anyone who used their position of public trust to harass, molest, and rape vulnerable women would see the inside of a prison as an example for the others.

The problem is that no one seems to know how or why the voicemails were deleted.

In a missing person case, such data could be revealing. Teresa did complain of receiving harassing phone calls.

That Hillegas was able to hack her phone account would seem to indicate means and opportunity.

I mean it's just hilarious that you have to explain this.

I'm confused with regards to revots33 posts tbh, in some posts I believe he thinks that just because we don't have evidence yet it does not mean it did not happen (rh getting looked into) & when there is evidence then it defo did not happen ( log on 3rd Nov).

His excuse for not looking at ANY evidence is trust the jury guys they know stuff.

Sure you can make an argument that as evidence was found, it starts to point to SA.

However, the problem is that people who should have been considered suspects or at least "persons of interest" were actively involved in the investigation, before any evidence was found at all!

Will grant that RH had all the best intentions. I have no clue. He may have forgotten the time of day. No big deal. Forgetting the password. Ok. People forget things.

He loves for her and cares for her. He is in charge of the search party. He wants her home alive. He has 12 people he can deploy.

At this point, he knows her last phone call and last meeting was with Steve Avery.

SA is giving TV interviews describing his interactions in detail. He let the person who he deposed the prior week in a civil action search his property.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtrzOgH2k10

You can search hundreds of miles of forest and cities and streets and skies. Or you can go exactly to the place she was last known to be alive and interacted with a convicted felon.

Kratz: OK, Do you know Pam Sturm or her daughter Nikole Sturm?
Hillegas: I had met them Saturday morning. They showed up after the good majority of everybody else had left. But that was the first time I had met them.
Kratz: What did you and Pam Sturm discuss?
Hillegas: She just basically came right out and said, “Has anybody went to the car yard yet? You know, the Avery salvage yard.” And we just said no, that we hadn’t been sending anybody in there and she offered to and said she’d be willing to and…
Kratz: Before Pam left then to travel to the Avery salvage yard, was she provided a map or any other information?
Hillegas: Yes. Yes, I gave her a map.

It doesn't mean RH is guilty or not guilty or SA is guilty or not guilty. Are we forbidden to question his search leadership decision making?

Where else is there possibly to go besides straight to his the salvage yard in the hopes of finding her alive? Why give a person a map instead of sending the entire search team to that specific area?

Odd. I think any investigator would agree. It is legally permissible to question his unorthodox approach. He did access a homicide victim's password. He was an ex-boyfriend. He led a search party in the exact opposite direction of a homicide. At the barest minimum, there is no way he should be allowed to enter the crime scene area. By the 200 law enforcement personnel that were there. All he could do is cast doubt on SA's guilt.

Even if SA is 100% guilty with video evidence, you would never let RH into the crime scene. You want your case to be as close to perfect as possible when you present it to a jury. Nothing is perfect. This seems to be one of those little mistakes that allows truly guilty people go free though.

Are you really claiming that friends & family shouldn't have been able to search for the missing person before the Rav4 was found?

yes? Sure let them search random fields and ****, but do you really want a dozen of her friends and family, the most likely perpetrators of any foul play, stomping around the last place she was seen alive before police have taken a look? I mean forget the fact that half those people should have been persons of interest, this is the most relevant location at that time. I wouldn't want any civilians involved there until I had looked into it if I were leading the investigation.

Avery and the salvage yard absolutely should have been looked into but because it was the last place she was seen it should have been handled by professionals.

And they're looking for a missing grown woman who owns a car. Why the **** are they searching random fields? That's where you go looking for a dead body, not where you go looking to find her alive.

Maybe the jury had Buting and Strang on IGNORE the way PoorSkillz has a lot of people on this thread...

Not sure what you are getting at. My point about the Nov. 3 date was that you guys treated it like a smoking gun and assumed it was from an evidence impound form, and it wasn't. So you were citing it as proof of something even though you didn't even know where it came from.

And where did I say don't look into any evidence? My whole point is that there was a mountain of evidence, which all pointed to one person.

Strang and Buting tried to plant the seed of a police conspiracy in the minds of the jurors because they had nothing else given all the evidence. It did not work on the jury, but when edited and packaged into a dramatic TV documentary, they were able to convince a lot of armchair detectives.

So you would send people off to wander through random fields? Instead of logically looking in places she is more likely to be in? Yeah lets just waste resources.

Yes if one of my family members were missing I would want all friends and family looking, obviously. You pair people up or form a long line to rake large areas.

have you ever seen these searches in action? They're literally walking random fields every time.

And yes I'd prefer civilians searching in less key areas because the police *should* be handling those. It's the last place she was seen alive and is a possible crime scene. Do you really want a bunch of untrained folks traipsing around?

Right, a large rake line


You don't let random couples of people search and investigate a property, they are not police officers. The police are supposed to handle these things.

You guys actually still read revots and poorskillz posts?

Well that's how the car was found, and it wasn't too far from a car crusher so good thing you guys weren't in charge.

You literally don't know what random means.

Random in the sense that outside of the Avery property, anywhere they can search is of roughly the same relatively lower value.

For this case there are a handful of locations that are high value and that I'd where police should concentrate their resources. And then there's a ton of rural area in the vicinity where untrained manpower could be put to use.

I know everyone on the internet loves to quibble about semantics, but this **** isn't hard.

Source?


Do you really think it's normal for cops to prevent people from searching for their missing friend or family member?

If the Avery yard was such a great place for the search party to look, shouldn't they have sent the whole search party there, given the fact that, you know, it was acres big and full of cars.

Source?

So you think it's normal to allow civilians on a crime scene?

I thought we were talking about "before any evidence was found at all", in which case it was not yet a crime scene.

It's a bit more nuanced after the Rav4 was found, but I don't think you're ready for that discussion yet.