Just a reminder of where the dogs discovered Teresa went while Steven stayed at home:

Yes, the rape charge was dropped against Avery due to lack of evidence.

Curiously, the jury also apparently didn't believe Steven disposed of Teresa's corpse and found him Not Guilty on charges related to the alleged burning of the body:

However, the jury, drawn from Manitowoc County, acquitted Avery of mutilation of a corpse, a charge alleging that he burned Halbach's body to conceal the crime.

https://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...ilty/77694984/

IMO that was the strongest case they had against him.

If you had a video of me shooting someone in the head, would anything else be required to be known to convict me of murder?

How would that be relevant to this discussion?

Are you in possession of a video depicting Teresa's murder?

No, it wouldn't. Blood would be much more difficult to plant than something like a glove. This blood was fresh, it wasn't coagulated. This means from the moment the blood hit air to the moment it was in the car was less than 30 mins.

[QUOTE=smacc25;54442131] You mean, what do I think happened? A mentally challenged 20 year old shot and killed over 20 people at an elementary school; most of them kids.

You seem to think every aspect of everything that happened that day with avery needs to be known to not have "reasonable doubt" if you had a video of me shooting someone in the head would you have to know how I obtained the gun, when I arrived or even when I shot this person to convict me?

It would help enormously if the prosecution case weren't full of holes that force its defenders on threads like this to keep saying 'maybe this' and 'maybe that' and 'who knows' and 'anything could have happened'.

It would also help if there weren't exculpating evidence - like scent dogs dragging their handlers from Avery's to burned bones and a burial site far away from where Steven was all night according to every witness.

It would have also helped if the prosecution didn't withhold exculpating evidence from the defense as required for a fair trial and from the jury as required by any desire to see justice done for both the victim and the accused.

Even if law enforcement employees didn't already railroad the same guy for a serious crime in 1985 resulting in a long stretch in prison and then faced legal problems for that travesty the above is more than enough to induce doubt in a reasonable person.

The two situations aren't even remotely parallel.

Yes, this is similar. You are arguing that there is reasonable doubt because we dont know how Teresa was carried around the property. That is NOT how reasonable doubt works.

If there is evidence I shot someone should we require to know all the other details before convicting me? Is it relevant that we don't know what time I showed up, when I shot the victim or why I did it if we have a video of me doing it? Would you convict me without the additional surrounding knowledge if you knew from the video I shot the victim and you knew from the video it wasn't self defense?

No, this is not true. If it is beyond all reasonable doubt that you committed the crime then the jury is supposed to convict you. The other circumstances do not matter legally, only if the juror feels those circumstances create reasonable doubt.

If you have a video of me killing someone and its clear I was not defending myself there is absolutely no reasonable doubt available there. It doesn't matter what time I did it, where I did it etc.. I should be convicted.

I also don't agree that was necessarily the reason casey Anthony wasn't convicted. I think she wasn't convicted simply because there wasn't any real evidence to tie her to the crime.

Clearly she did it but it would be like if all we had in the avery case was the lies avery and bd told at the start of the investigation. That imo would not be enough evidence to convict them but would still be very good evidence to conclude they most likely did it.

What the evidence shows is that Teresa was at a location where Steven wasn't. That is how reasonable doubt works. It's the same thing with the 1985 case - Beerntsen was attacked while Steven was in the next county.

Of course someone like corpus will come derping along and remind us that 'it was good enough for a jury'. But as Steven's exoneration showed, 'close enough for government work' isn't enough for either truth or justice.

There is no video in evidence of anyone - let alone Steven Avery - shooting Teresa Halbach.

Well said.

As I have watched the in depth documentary and examined court documents and other sources on this story I disagree with your opinions expressed above.

I recall in one trial the prosecution claimed Steven, and Steven alone, was responsible for crimes against Teresa Halbach.

Then in another trial they contradicted that claim and said there was a conspiracy to murder Teresa.

If the prosecution doubts its own theory, why should I be more confident than they are?

Watch the documentary and you'll discover otherwise about their withholding evidence in the 2007 trial.

With regard to the 1985 Beerntsen case, law enforcement employees with a grudge against Steven pushed his name and his likeness on the traumatized victim, then went on to ignore exculpatory witness testimony and documentary evidence which showed he couldn't possibly have assaulted Beerntsen.

Interesting interview with one of the principals in the ongoing case - looks like more filings coming in December.

_____________

Steven Avery had already contacted me a couple of years before that, and he flunked our screen, because there was so many pieces of forensic evidence that seemed to implicate him.

When I watched (the show), I knew there was a huge problem. Like when I heard the testimony of the state experts, most of them were people that were not well-credentialed. The testimony was not very precise. I had just gotten someone exonerated on blood spatter, and blood spatter (in Avery's case) made absolutely no sense.

I was very focused on Steven Avery's demeanour, because I've learned, over the years, particularly when the verdict came in, you'll see people that are guilty sobbing and all that, but there's a certain look that you just would have to have seen it a bunch of times like I have. And it really struck me when I saw that, that he could well be innocent.

So I came in the office the next week, and I pulled the letters from our system that he'd written me, and I asked him if I could come and visit with him. And I explained to him that if I took the case, I'd want to do all the scientific testing. At that time, I was saying to him, "I'd probably want you to do a polygraph before I'd even accept it, blah, blah, blah." And he was like, "Anything you want to do." That is never what someone guilty tells you, ever. So just in the first meeting with him, I was very struck with that.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainmen...thleen-zellner

Yes... A jury of 12 democrats in a Cop killers case and a fair judge.

No that is not what the evidence shows. It shows Teresa had been moved around in the wooded area behind averys house. That is not evidence avery didn't kill her.

Your initial contention was that there is reasonable doubt because I am only presenting hypotheticals as to why steven would be driving around with Teresa in the back of his car. You pointed out there is no real evidence one way or another why the dogs picked up on her scent.

What I am arguing is that it doesn't matter. All the details do not have to be known, if there are multiple explanations for a particular fact (IE dogs picked up teresas scent in the wooded area behind averys house) it becomes a non starter. To doubt that avery killed her because she could have been driven around his wooded area in the back of her own car is not "reasonable"

Doesn't matter, if we had a video of me killing someone would it matter what time I did it and where I did it? Is it ****reasonable**** to doubt I killed this person because we don't know what time I did it and where it occurred?

[QUOTE=fraleyight;54446214] So do you agree that the US needs stricter gun control, like banning AR15's, Bans on people on the terrorist watch list/Domestic violence & anyone suffering from mental health?

You need to do more research bro, this trolling ain't a good look.

They were in two separate places, unless you imagine Steven's arms are a quarter mile long.

It's purely speculative that Steven ever drove Teresa around - you're already assuming too much even to frame your hypotheticals. You pile hypothetical upon hypothetical and act puzzled that someone, somewhere has reservations about your shaky ad hoc structure made of maybes, could bes, not impossibles and perhapses.

If you're now suggesting these dogs are unreliable when they indicate exculpatory facts then you should be calling for a ban of scent and cadaver dogs.

I perfectly understand that it doesn't matter to you what happened to Teresa and that you only want to believe Steven is guilty of something and this will do.
If there are multiple explanations for a crime and who might be responsible, that is why I would suggest there is 'reasonable doubt' about arbitrarily choosing one 'plausible' scenario and sending someone to prison on a whim.

I doubt Steven killed Teresa because there is no compelling reason to believe he did so, and because there is compelling evidence which indicates the prosecution 'theory' is garbage.

There is no video in evidence of Steven killing anyone, or of anyone killing Teresa.

I cannot understand how you think your silly story has any meaning in this context.

[QUOTE=smacc25;54447251] Yes I do.

I'm sure Manti's finest would have difficulty whatever that something something is.

As noted by KK stalling the fbi_edta test, at least he knew he had Sherry (burp!! Excuse me) rapped in so as to get the desired results anyway.

When KZ gets the Rav4 we will know a lot more than we do now... And will be able to match those fingerprints (maybe blood too) to a suspect, might also get soil samples of the tyres ect.
Instead of the b.s. the state paid actors fed the jury, we will see real results from real scientists.

^^ add to post above... we cannot be sure about how fresh the blood was until competent people examine it.

You're being silly lol. Nobody is suggesting he is stretching his arms from one place to the other lolol. All I said is its completely consistent with the evidence to say he drove her around the wooded area behind his trailer in her car.



Its equally as speculative to say he "stayed home" you have no evidence of this.

I think there is better evidence but I think they are more or less reliable.

Project much?? haha.


There are not "multiple" explanations for this crime. There are multiple explanations for why a dog would pick up her scent where he did.



Ive been pretty clear on my point here. The video of me killing someone is enough to convict me. It doesn't matter if I did it at 9pm or at 9am. It doesn't matter if I did it in my back yard or in my neighbors yard. We have a video of me killing someone.

The evidence that steven killed Teresa is enough to convict him. It doesn't matter if he drove her around, if someone else did like Brendan, if he carried her around on his back, if she tried to drive away and he followed her etc... None of that matters. We have an insurmountable mountain of evidence that points to his involvement in her death.

Agree with all this.

With no crime scene photographs & no coroner's report, how could they.