Making a Murderer

[CATCH17]

Everything at that point becomes external and circumstantial.

Anyone could walk behind the house and dump burned bones.

And there was no blood evidence at her house so IMO all of the evidence at his house was brought there.


If Avery did it then he did it in the car is what I think.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

They found her cremains in a neighbors burn barrel as well and some other random fire pit.

That's not true.

They found remains in a burn pit where the Avery brothers would burn animal carcasses and such from hunting, but they could not identify her remains as being in that burn pit.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Everything at that point becomes external and circumstantial.

Anyone could walk behind the house and dump burned bones.

And who would have abducted her between the time she arrived at Avery's to take the pictures (3:30ish) and the time Steve Avery tried calling her cell phone at 4:35 and her phone was off/dead/destroyed?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Burn pit evidence:

In Avery's case, the defense attempts to provide proof that bones had been moved to the burn pit from another location. Leslie Eisenberg, a forensic anthropologist, gives testimony regarding the bones found on the Avery property. She states that a fragment of almost every bone in the human body was found in the burn pit, which she believed to be the primary burn site of the body. She suspected two bone fragments found in a quarry on the Avery property appeared to be human pelvic bone. However, these bone fragments were never linked to Teresa. If the bones had been moved to the burn pit from another location, she would've expected to see breakage due to transport, which she did not see. She finds it "highly unlikely" that the bones were not burned in the fire pit.

Additionally, Rodney Pevytoe, who worked with the Arson Bureau at the Wisconsin Department of Justice, testified regarding his work in investigating the burn pit. He found wiring from in excess of five steel-belted radial tires in the burn pit. He found bone fragments "inside the wire, deeply inside of it in some cases [...] to the point where I actually had to, physically, pull apart the wire in order to get it there." The bones could not have been thrown on top of the wires after having been burned- they were most definitely burned with the tires found in the burn pit. he also testifies to the heat generated by tire fires, stating the average tire can generate twice the amount of BTUs that an average home furnace does, and the polyurethane foam found in the van seat also burned in the fire is referred to as "solid gasoline" by fire investigators. Burning a body in a fire pit, accelerated by tires and polyurethane foam, would've been possible and taken several hours. There were also a number of implements found near the fire, with evidence of charring and oxidation, that clearly had been used in the fire pit at some point. A rake, which could've been used to stir the fire and had wires from steel-belted tires in its teeth, and a spade and screwdriver, which could've been used to chop up bones as the fire died down, where all found near the pit with evidence of charring. The soil in the pit was consistent with what soil looks like after being exposed to the oils from burning tires.

Dr. Scott Fairgrieve, who had not worked on the case, had been contacted by Strang and Buting and shown pictures and reports. He said that he could not, in his professional opinion, conclude with perfect certainty that the remains had not been moved. He stated that in cases where bones were moved, the majority of the bones ended up in the location the bones were moved to, not the original burn site.


- See more at: http://stevenaverycase.com/was-evidence-planted/#sthash.G4A7Si9n.dpuf


Pretty solid evidence that the body was burned in the burn-pit and not moved from another spot.

 

[BlindFaith]

The questions were interesting conjecture... I didn't think answering them would advance things as far as my own perspective. Maybe someone else will.

He knew the phone calls were likely recorded plus it was his GF... what's he going to say? "Hey hon, captured a sex slave... I'm going to cut her up after the nephew and I hose her."

Read or study true-crime situations and you'll find many murderers who have the ability to completed shield their misdeeds from others... like they're flipping a switch.

Interesting conjecture? Its called plausibility.
http://www.exposingtruth.com/looking-at-the-evidence-in-the-steven-avery-case/

Read the viable suspects at the bottom. Very interesting.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Interesting conjecture? Its called plausibility.
http://www.exposingtruth.com/looking-at-the-evidence-in-the-steven-avery-case/

Read the viable suspects at the bottom. Very interesting.

Lot's of wrong in that article.

The pieces of bone found in the quarry were never matched to Teresa

As I posted previously there were experts that reported that Teresa's remains were burned in the burn barrel she was found it.

The two supposed conspirators Lenk and Colburn were not named in Avery's lawsuit and were not liable either criminally nor personally.

 

[Dodger12]

In planting evidence, you never OVER plant and become obvious, duh

OK. So then just plant it at the most important place......duh.......

 

[Dodger12]

Do I need to point out the juror that came forward recently and point to their comments about how they were threatened????

What juror? Do you have a name? Or just someone speculating on morning TV? At this point, nothing would surprise me and a "juror" coming forward now might make me believe that he/she has a financial motive.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

What juror? Do you have a name? Or just someone speculating on morning TV? At this point, nothing would surprise me and a "juror" coming forward now might make me believe that he/she has a financial motive.

Well, I'll tell you this, before they came forward, when the verdicts were read I said "WAIT! That doesnt even add up?! Guilty of murder but not destroying the body?"

Ironically, when I heard what this juror that came forward said after I said that, they explicitly said as well "We voted on the counts like we did hoping it would insure a retrial for Steven"

Things that make you go hmmmmm

 

[Dodger12]

Well, I'll tell you this, before they came forward, when the verdicts were read I said "WAIT! That doesnt even add up?! Guilty of murder but not destroying the body?"

Ironically, when I heard what this juror that came forward said after I said that, they explicitly said as well "We voted on the counts like we did hoping it would insure a retrial for Steven"

Things that make you go hmmmmm

Can you point me to this juror's interview? And there is nothing wrong with the verdict and you can have a split verdict....happens more than we know. It depends on the evidence...it's only shocking when you're looking for something to go "hmmmm" about.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-believes-he-deserves-a-new-trial

 

[Dodger12]

That tells me/us nothing that we didn't already know. It's the film makers claiming they have a juror but no juror has come forward. But it's funny you add weight to what the film makers say they heard from an un-named juror but you don't give any weight to what his ex-girlfriend thinks about his guilt or innocense.

 

[Nightman]

Without a drop of blood, its just an urban legend...yet he's still serving time for it!

How much blood comes from strangulation?

Burnt bones 20 ft from his house, in his fire pit = game over

 

[65fastback2plus2]

How much blood comes from strangulation?

Burnt bones 20 ft from his house, in his fire pit = game over

Typically, you know, with slit throats and bullets going through the body...there is blood. I mean, you know, holes in the body tend to produce blood.

Unless Teresa had some super capability where she was bloodless.

 

[Nightman]

Lot's of wrong in that article.

The pieces of bone found in the quarry were never matched to Teresa

As I posted previously there were experts that reported that Teresa's remains were burned in the burn barrel she was found it.

The two supposed conspirators Lenk and Colburn were not named in Avery's lawsuit and were not liable either criminally nor personally.

He has it 100% backwards yet won't listen to ACTUAL testimony.

Her bones were found in SA's fire pit and her stuff was found in the burn barrels, yards away.
Her jeans were found in the burn pit.

The bones found in the quarry were NOT identified as TH's or even human.
Brendan said SA kept stoking the fire and crushing bones. He also said he tried to bury them in various spots and even put some in a bucket and threw them over a cliff on the property.

There is no question that TH's bones were found in the pit. Any talk of movement is just a theory by the Defense Attorneys. To paraphrase "Could these bones have been moved?" " Yes it is possible. but I believe 90% of the cremation happened in SA's burn pit"

 

[Nightman]

Typically, you know, with slit throats and bullets going through the body...there is blood. I mean, you know, holes in the body tend to produce blood.

Unless Teresa had some super capability where she was bloodless.

If someone is strangled there is no blood, to answer the question you refuse to.

Or there could be a tarp or a blanket that was burned.

Lack of blood evidence is a strawman.

You don't believe Brendan's testimony because that would mean they are both murdering rapists, but your whole "blood theory" rests entirely on Brendan's story.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

 

[65fastback2plus2]

 

[65fastback2plus2]

 

[TellerMorrow34]

One sided propaganda designed to bias public opinion. Without any attempt what-so-ever to present the other side, that's all I can say about this "documentary".

That's the biggest problem with things like this. They're bias and slanted toward the side the people doing the documentary want it to be.

I don't know if the guy is innocent or guilty. I do know that it's entirely possible that they falsely accused him and screwed him. That's always a possibility with our judicial system.

I also know I don't need a bias documentary series to show me that and I don't need their bias documentary to try and sway my opinion of the situation because they're too gutless, or scared, to show both sides. If you're truly interested in the truth you present all the facts, from both sides, and let people decide.

When you heavily slant to one side you've shown right away that truth and knowledge are not at all part of your agenda.