Support NeoGAF

[Kuro Madoushi]

Damn that dateline piece at least did some digging on the blood vial and it does place a hole into the defense's claims even though there is still no answer for the broken seal.

I also hope for Avery's sake he really is innocent because it seems a more thorough investigation and more detailed testing is going on now. If the evidence still comes up pointing to him, his lawyer doesn't seem the type to continue the case and I get the feeling if she decides he's guilty and no longer worth her time, it's game over.

 

[Haines]

Ok, so as far as i can see most of gaf thinks avery and his nephew are both innocent, and all eveidence and ommisions of guilt are essentially false or planted or what have you.

So, what is it you guys believe actually happened, or what theory do you follow?

I have to assume you guys think it was a frame job by another killer?

I wonder how much of that 400k avery has spent on lawyers.

 

[MMaRsu]

Fuck I hate Kratz, Colburn, Lenk, Brendans first lawyer, And Wiegert and Fassbender

They are all guilty of being lying sacks of shit.

I dont believe either Steven or Brendand killed Teresa

 

[Culex]

Ok, so as far as i can see most of gaf thinks avery and his nephew are both innocent, and all eveidence and ommisions of guilt are essentially false or planted or what have you.

So, what is it you guys believe actually happened, or what theory do you follow?

I have to assume you guys think it was a frame job by another killer?

I wonder how much of that 400k avery has spent on lawyers.

I really do not know who else it could be because no other suspects were interviewed that I know of. There were no other suspects, actually. It was Avery and no one else!

There was just too much convenient evidence and "evidence" that defies all logic.

Based on that, Avery should be free. Brandon should never have been convicted to begin with.

 

[MMaRsu]

Fuck I hate Kratz, Colburn, Lenk, Brendans first lawyer, And Wiegert and Fassbender

They are all guilty of being lying sacks of shit.

I dont believe either Steven or Brendand killed Teresa

 

[Weckum]

Ok, so as far as i can see most of gaf thinks avery and his nephew are both innocent, and all eveidence and ommisions of guilt are essentially false or planted or what have you.

So, what is it you guys believe actually happened, or what theory do you follow?

I have to assume you guys think it was a frame job by another killer?

I wonder how much of that 400k avery has spent on lawyers.

Well, like I said before:

Did Avery kill the woman? I don't know after seeing Making a Murderer.
Do I think there was reasonable doubt to have him be found not guilty? Absolutely.

 

[gogosox82]

Ok, so as far as i can see most of gaf thinks avery and his nephew are both innocent, and all eveidence and ommisions of guilt are essentially false or planted or what have you.

So, what is it you guys believe actually happened, or what theory do you follow?

I have to assume you guys think it was a frame job by another killer?

I wonder how much of that 400k avery has spent on lawyers.

I'm not sure what happened because of how bad the initial investigation was. A lot of the evidence the state had was tainted or compromised in some way. There are some theories that are in the thread that you should read as to who did it but there needs to be a new investigation into the case but Avery needs to get a new trial before that happens. I read an interview with one of Avery's lawyers and he said Avery only got $240,000. Avery had to pay his previous lawyers and court costs and other fees and he ended up with $240,000. The $240,000 went directly to his two lawyers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenst...-cost-of-defending-steven-avery/#4d49ba303d63

Edit: Brendan also needs to be released. I'm still dumbfounded as to how he was convicted in the first place.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Ok, so as far as i can see most of gaf thinks avery and his nephew are both innocent, and all eveidence and ommisions of guilt are essentially false or planted or what have you.

So, what is it you guys believe actually happened, or what theory do you follow?

I have to assume you guys think it was a frame job by another killer?

I wonder how much of that 400k avery has spent on lawyers.

I believe that the police planted the evidence to make Avery look guilty.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Ok, so as far as i can see most of gaf thinks avery and his nephew are both innocent, and all eveidence and ommisions of guilt are essentially false or planted or what have you.

So, what is it you guys believe actually happened, or what theory do you follow?

I have to assume you guys think it was a frame job by another killer?

I wonder how much of that 400k avery has spent on lawyers.

I feel like you are really having a difficult time grasping how the justice system is supposed to work. You know if your accused of a crime you are presumed innocent right?

So starting with that as your baseline that you are innocent the prosecution has to prove your guilty.

Did they prove that Avery was guilty?
Not even remotely.

Just because the police didn't pursue any other suspects doesn't matter.

Your job Haines as a jury member should it ever happen is to see if there is reasonable doubt. in the case with Avery there is almost only reasonable doubt.

 

[Ayt]

Ok, so as far as i can see most of gaf thinks avery and his nephew are both innocent, and all eveidence and ommisions of guilt are essentially false or planted or what have you.

So, what is it you guys believe actually happened, or what theory do you follow?

I have to assume you guys think it was a frame job by another killer?

I wonder how much of that 400k avery has spent on lawyers.

Strang mentioned in an interview that all of it was spent during the trial.

 

[MMaRsu]

There is basically zero actual proof he killed her by his hands

 

[Haines]

I understand reasonable doubt.

I was merely asking what you guys believe happened. If someone believes he did not commit the crime, what do they believe happened?

Like, the bones and the car. If evidence comes out tmrw that lets him go free. Proves in no way he killed her bc theres e idence so strong, or the real killer is caught or whatever.

In that situation. Did the killer plant the car, and the bones? Or was it all done by only cops? Like maybe they found the stuff and planted all of it

 

[Ayt]

I have no idea what happened or who killed her because the police didn't do their jobs. I don't need to have any alternative theories to think Avery and Dassey should not be in prison.

 

[Haines]

I have no idea what happened or who killed her because the police didn't do their jobs.

Its a fair response. if you dont know, you dont know.

 

[Fusebox]

Ok, so as far as i can see most of gaf thinks avery and his nephew are both innocent, and all eveidence and ommisions of guilt are essentially false or planted or what have you.

Are we reading the same thread? Seems most people here are smart enough to realise there isn't enough evidence either way at this stage and at the very least he deserves a retrial.

 

[Haines]

Fuck I hate Kratz, Colburn, Lenk, Brendans first lawyer, And Wiegert and Fassbender

They are all guilty of being lying sacks of shit.

I dont believe either Steven or Brendand killed Teresa

Are we reading the same thread? Seems most people here are smart enough to realise there isn't enough evidence either way at this stage and at the very least he deserves a retrial.

Only a few up.

it will be interesting with how much pressure and eyes on the topic if anything does happen. im pretty doubtful tho.

 

[poppabk]

Ok, so as far as i can see most of gaf thinks avery and his nephew are both innocent, and all eveidence and ommisions of guilt are essentially false or planted or what have you.

So, what is it you guys believe actually happened, or what theory do you follow?

I have to assume you guys think it was a frame job by another killer?

I wonder how much of that 400k avery has spent on lawyers.

I think for definite that the confession that Brendan made was completely false. Whether he was guilty of something or knew something I don't know, although I doubt that he would be able to hide it.
As for Steven Avery, I have no idea. He may have been just dumb enough to believe that the cops wouldn't dare come after him after the first case.
The victim was obviously killed somewhere other than Steven Averys shack or the garage. I think that the key and bullet were planted by the police. Probably the blood in the car was planted as well. When they were planted, I don't know - although the key was probably planted when it was found.
And probably every last penny of that money went to the lawyers. Just watch Staircase to see how costly a defense can be.

 

[Haines]

I think for definite that the confession that Brendan made was completely false. Whether he was guilty of something or knew something I don't know, although I doubt that he would be able to hide it.
As for Steven Avery, I have no idea. He may have been just dumb enough to believe that the cops wouldn't dare come after him after the first case.
The victim was obviously killed somewhere other than Steven Averys shack or the garage. I think that the key and bullet were planted by the police. Probably the blood in the car was planted as well. When they were planted, I don't know - although the key was probably planted when it was found.
And probably every last penny of that money went to the lawyers. Just watch Staircase to see how costly a defense can be.

Many people say his confession was false.

Why would the court put him away when he admitted to it being false. Thats so crazy to me.

 

[poppabk]

Many people say his confession was false.

Why would the court put him away when he admitted to it being false. Thats so crazy to me.

He went back and forth on whether he was telling the truth or not. After coming up with the story for the police he had obviously told his cousin the story and told his mother the story on a recorded phone after been pressured by the police to call her. People put a lot of stock in confessions, the assumption being that you wouldn't confess to something you didn't do. You have to ask yourself though, why does anyone ever confess, guilty or innocent?

 

[MMaRsu]

How big is the chance for a retrial? Im not familliar enough with the US justice system to know either way..

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

He went back and forth on whether he was telling the truth or not. After coming up with the story for the police he had obviously told his cousin the story and told his mother the story on a recorded phone after been pressured by the police to call her. People put a lot of stock in confessions, the assumption being that you wouldn't confess to something you didn't do. You have to ask yourself though, why does anyone ever confess, guilty or innocent?

Yeah exactly. I mean sure the kid is not all 100 percent there in the head, that much is clear. But can he actually be influenced so badly that he would just keep lying and lying about it? Making up a whole story based on a movie and later admitting he made it all up? I don't get that either. But the fact is, there's no hard evidence at all. Plus the niece, did she really made things up or did Brendan really told her those stories too? If so, wasn't Brendan just lying to her as well then? This family man.... family should be sticking out for eachother and the parents sure do, but can't say the same about the rest.

 

[Haines]

Yeah exactly. I mean sure the kid is not all 100 percent there in the head, that much is clear. But can he actually be influenced so badly that he would just keep lying and lying about it? Making up a whole story based on a movie and later admitting he made it all up? I don't get that either. But the fact is, there's no hard evidence at all. Plus the niece, did she really made things up or did Brendan really told her those stories too? If so, wasn't Brendan just lying to her as well then? This family man.... family should be sticking out for eachother and the parents sure do, but can't say the same about the rest.

Yeah that entire family has been through so much it makes my head spin and still most of them had no idea what the hell they were doing or who was guilty etc. The person i felt for was the mom and boy did she look rough for what shes been through.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

I've been following this thread since the beginning and it's frustrating to see the same ignorant themes come up every few pages.

We need a comprehensive outline of all of the bullshit that's been discredited as well as quick summaries on coerced confessions and reasonable doubt that posters should be required to read before attempting to contribute.

 

[The Beard]

I've been following this thread since the beginning and it's frustrating to see the same ignorant themes come up every few pages.

We need a comprehensive outline of all of the bullshit that's been discredited as well as quick summaries on coerced confessions and reasonable doubt that posters should be required to read before attempting to contribute.

The defense couldn't really create a "reasonable" doubt though. Mainly because the judge ruled they couldn't point to any other potential suspects. There really wasn't any doubt that Steven was the last person to see Teresa alive. There wasn't any doubt that Steven happened to have a bonfire that same night. There's no doubt that Teresa's bones and belongings were found right outside of Steven's house. There's no doubt that Teresa's vehicle was found on the Avery property with Steven's and Teresa's blood inside. Unless they can find that preservative in that blood sample, Steven is fucked.

 

[LSauchelli]

The defense couldn't really create a "reasonable" doubt though. Mainly because the judge ruled they couldn't point to any other potential suspects. There really wasn't any doubt that Steven was the last person to see Teresa alive. There wasn't any doubt that Steven happened to have a bonfire that same night. There's no doubt that Teresa's bones and belongings were found right outside of Steven's house. There's no doubt that Teresa's vehicle was found on the Avery property with Steven's and Teresa's blood inside. Unless they can find that preservative in that blood sample, Steven is fucked.

Didn't an expert state that a body couldn't be set on fire leaving only bones by a bonfire? I'm fairly certain that they weren't even sure if the bones were human.

 

[Nappuccino]

The defense couldn't really create a "reasonable" doubt though. Mainly because the judge ruled they couldn't point to any other potential suspects. There really wasn't any doubt that Steven was the last person to see Teresa alive. There wasn't any doubt that Steven happened to have a bonfire that same night. There's no doubt that Teresa's bones and belongings were found right outside of Steven's house. There's no doubt that Teresa's vehicle was found on the Avery property with Steven's and Teresa's blood inside. Unless they can find that preservative in that blood sample, Steven is fucked.

Most of that is barely circumstantial. And some of the key bits (the bon-fire) don't actually add up to the state's case--the fire wasn't big enough to damage the body/bones like we see with Teresa's remains. The only DNA that ties Steven to the victim is his blood in her car, and who knows how that got there at this point--a car that was otherwise devoid of DNA evidence, "swept clean," just happens to have a few random drops of blood days after the whole event, stocked in a yard where Steven could crush the vehicle with ease? Not to mention the property was basically open and several people lived there. It's suspicious.

Steven could have committed the murder, but hardly beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Raging Spaniard]

Its not that I dont think Avery could have done it, he very well could have.

Its just that a bunch of other people could have as well and they were never investigated. He was pronounced guilty way before the sentence and thats not how shit works.

 

[The Beard]

Didn't an expert state that a body couldn't be set on fire leaving only bones by a bonfire? I'm fairly certain that they weren't even sure if the bones were human.

The bones by the garage were found to be Teresa's. I believe there were bones across the property which they were unsure about whether they were human or not.

Most of that is barely circumstantial. And some of the key bits (the bon-fire) don't actually add up to the state's case--the fire wasn't big enough to damage the body/bones like we see with Teresa's remains. The only DNA that ties Steven to the victim is his blood in her car, and who knows how that got there at this point--a car that was otherwise devoid of DNA evidence, "swept clean," just happens to have a few random drops of blood days after the whole event, stocked in a yard where Steven could crush the vehicle with ease? Not to mention the property was basically open and several people lived there. It's suspicious.

Steven could have committed the murder, but hardly beyond reasonable doubt.

At this point it's not reasonable to assume someone else murdered Teresa and did the frame job of the century.

There would have to be proof that Steven's blood and DNA were planted in Teresa's RAV4. Steven's new defense lawyer really needs some hard hitting evidence to suggest that this was in fact an epic frame job.

 

[hawk2025]

The bones by the garage were found to be Teresa's. I believe there were bones across the property which they were unsure about whether they were human or not.



At this point it's not reasonable to assume someone else murdered Teresa and did the frame job of the century.

There would have to be proof that Steven's blood and DNA were planted in Teresa's RAV4. Steven's new defense lawyer really needs some hard hitting evidence to suggest that this was in fact an epic frame job.

But is it reasonable to assume that Avery did the cleanup job of the century in the garage and trailer?

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

The defense couldn't really create a "reasonable" doubt though. Mainly because the judge ruled they couldn't point to any other potential suspects. There really wasn't any doubt that Steven was the last person to see Teresa alive. There wasn't any doubt that Steven happened to have a bonfire that same night. There's no doubt that Teresa's bones and belongings were found right outside of Steven's house. There's no doubt that Teresa's vehicle was found on the Avery property with Steven's and Teresa's blood inside. Unless they can find that preservative in that blood sample, Steven is fucked.

Well his lawyer apparently has something that is likely to set him free from what I understand. But I don't know how such things work and if she has to send that evidence to the judge first or whatever. Definitely wondering what's gonna happen now.

 

[Princess Carl]

The bones by the garage were found to be Teresa's. I believe there were bones across the property which they were unsure about whether they were human or not.



At this point it's not reasonable to assume someone else murdered Teresa and did the frame job of the century.

There would have to be proof that Steven's blood and DNA were planted in Teresa's RAV4. Steven's new defense lawyer really needs some hard hitting evidence to suggest that this was in fact an epic frame job.

Meanwhile We assume that Avery with the help of his slow nephew, engaged in brutal and messy murder and then proceeded to Become Dexter Morgan but only some of the time?

 

[CouldBeWorse]

The defense couldn't really create a "reasonable" doubt though. Mainly because the judge ruled they couldn't point to any other potential suspects. There really wasn't any doubt that Steven was the last person to see Teresa alive. There wasn't any doubt that Steven happened to have a bonfire that same night. There's no doubt that Teresa's bones and belongings were found right outside of Steven's house. There's no doubt that Teresa's vehicle was found on the Avery property with Steven's and Teresa's blood inside. Unless they can find that preservative in that blood sample, Steven is fucked.

I'm just talking about the concept in general and how our legal system works. Too many posters seem to believe that the defense has to prove innocence, which is not how our legal system works.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

The defense couldn't really create a "reasonable" doubt though. Mainly because the judge ruled they couldn't point to any other potential suspects. There really wasn't any doubt that Steven was the last person to see Teresa alive.

The last known person. Being the last known person to see somebody alive doesn't make them guilty of murder.

There wasn't any doubt that Steven happened to have a bonfire that same night.

There were contradictory testimonies as to the size of the fire, from the same witness.

There's no doubt that Teresa's bones and belongings were found right outside of Steven's house.

Some of them, with other bits of bone found elsewhere. Having a body found outside your house, while not exactly a brilliant look, doesn't make you guilty of murder.

There's no doubt that Teresa's vehicle was found on the Avery property with Steven's and Teresa's blood inside. Unless they can find that preservative in that blood sample, Steven is fucked.

His blood was found inside, but no fingerprints. So was he wearing gloves to hide his prints but somehow bleeding out of them? Or did he clean up his fingerprints without touching the blood he left everywhere? Why was her body in the car when he allegedly disposed of her right outside his house?

Is it that unreasonable to think that people directly involved with his wrongful imprisonment, people who stand to lose their jobs, their livelihoods and their reputations to some petty criminal could take advantage of a situation presented to them? Or that they could make the same mistake that they made 20 years previous and do whatever it takes to justify their first suspicion?

Again, not saying whether he's guilty or not because not one person here knows whether he is or not. As people keep saying over and over and over, it just comes down to reasonable doubt. That's all his defence has to do, and this time there's one hell of a spotlight shining on the case. It's not just a local oddity any more.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Weren't the possessions found the Janda barrel behind the Janda trailer?

 

[The Beard]

But is it reasonable to assume that Avery did the cleanup job of the century in the garage and trailer?

It is more reasonable to assume that someone could completely clean up blood in the span of 3 or 4 days, than it is to assume some unknown person perfectly set Steven up.

Meanwhile We assume that Avery with the help of his slow nephew, engaged in brutal and messy murder and then proceeded to Become Dexter Morgan but only some of the time?

No, "we" don't. We don't know where exactly she was killed, but all of the available evidence pointed to Steven being the murderer. Unless a frame job can be proven, it's not reasonable to think Steven didn't kill her.

The last known person. Being the last known person to see somebody alive doesn't make them guilty of murder.



There were contradictory testimonies as to the size of the fire, from the same witness.



Some of them, with other bits of bone found elsewhere. Having a body found outside your house, while not exactly a brilliant look, doesn't make you guilty of murder.



His blood was found inside, but no fingerprints. So was he wearing gloves to hide his prints but somehow bleeding out of them? Or did he clean up his fingerprints without touching the blood he left everywhere? Why was her body in the car when he allegedly disposed of her right outside his house?

Is it that unreasonable to think that people directly involved with his wrongful imprisonment, people who stand to lose their jobs, their livelihoods and their reputations to some petty criminal could take advantage of a situation presented to them? Or that they could make the same mistake that they made 20 years previous and do whatever it takes to justify their first suspicion?

Again, not saying whether he's guilty or not because not one person here knows whether he is or not. As people keep saying over and over and over, it just comes down to reasonable doubt. That's all his defence has to do, and this time there's one hell of a spotlight shining on the case. It's not just a local oddity any more.

When the victims bones are found outside of the last known person to see the victim alive, it raises a huge red flag. When the blood of the victim and the blood of the last person to see her alive (who had no business being in her car whatsoever) are found in the victim's vehicle, that makes him the murderer. Unless that blood is proven to have been planted, there's no way of looking past that.

Contradictory accounts of the size of the fire is irrelevant. He had a bonfire the same night that Teresa disappeared, and her bones were later found in that fire pit.

The other bits of bone were never determined to be Teresa's, or even human.

Could Steven have been wearing gloves? Yes
Is it possible to bleed through some gloves? Yes

His new defense lawyer says they have evidence to set him free, we shall see.

 

[hawk2025]

It is more reasonable to assume that someone could completely clean up blood in the span of 3 or 4 days, than it is to assume some unknown person perfectly set Steven up.

Yes, it is.

But clearly the setup, if it exists, was nowhere near perfect, and that's abundantly clear. You put up a irrelevant comparison.

 

[alr1ght]

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/693203900309045248

 

[Mackenzie 92]

Meanwhile We assume that Avery with the help of his slow nephew, engaged in brutal and messy murder and then proceeded to Become Dexter Morgan but only some of the time?

If he strangled her it's not messy at all. Also gunshot wounds caused by a 22. typically bleed very little, even head wounds.

Obviously it didn't happen like Brendan described, but it's not impossible to kill someone and clean up the mess without being a super genius. Especially if you have several days etc.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

If he strangled her it's not messy at all. Also gunshot wounds caused by a 22. typically bleed very little, even head wounds.

Obviously it didn't happen like Brendan described, but it's not impossible to kill someone and clean up the mess without being a super genius. Especially if you have several days etc.

Your telling me he has the ability to clean up a crime scene in a way that most professionals would have a hard time managing and forgot to account for her keys that fell behind an end table, an auto trader receipt and bill of sale, and In the 3-4 days of having her car didn't think of at the least cleaning up the visible blood on the inside paneling or better yet putting it into a crusher? You have to be kidding me

It is more reasonable to assume that someone could completely clean up blood in the span of 3 or 4 days, than it is to assume some unknown person perfectly set Steven up.



No, "we" don't. We don't know where exactly she was killed, but all of the available evidence pointed to Steven being the murderer. Unless a frame job can be proven, it's not reasonable to think Steven didn't kill her.



When the victims bones are found outside of the last known person to see the victim alive, it raises a huge red flag. When the blood of the victim and the blood of the last person to see her alive (who had no business being in her car whatsoever) are found in the victim's vehicle, that makes him the murderer. Unless that blood is proven to have been planted, there's no way of looking past that.

Contradictory accounts of the size of the fire is irrelevant. He had a bonfire the same night that Teresa disappeared, and her bones were later found in that fire pit.

The other bits of bone were never determined to be Teresa's, or even human.

Could Steven have been wearing gloves? Yes
Is it possible to bleed through some gloves? Yes

His new defense lawyer says they have evidence to set him free, we shall see.

Is there reasonable doubt? Absolutely. Almost very piece of evidence carries a strong counter narrative of reasonable doubt.

 

[hawk2025]

If he strangled her it's not messy at all. Also gunshot wounds caused by a 22. typically bleed very little, even head wounds.

Obviously it didn't happen like Brendan described, but it's not impossible to kill someone and clean up the mess without being a super genius. Especially if you have several days etc.

So why not crush the car?

Let's talk "reasonable", then: How is it reasonable that he meticulously cleaned everything, but did not crush the car?

Under your assumption, we have to believe that:

1) Brendan's story is true, but only up to a point: They strangled and killed her, but did not slash her throat.

2) Steven killed her, shot her, burned her, and cleaned up the garage and trailer fully.

3) No blood whatsoever seeped into the cracks of the garage flooring, which was thoroughly drilled into and checked for evidence.

4) Steven proceeded to re-clutter, fill up, and dust up the garage and the trailer again.

5) Steven forgot to crush the car, but remembered to drive it close to the edge of their property, and only cover it up marginally with branches. He also, despite meticulously cleaning the trailer and the garage, completely forgot to even look for evidence he was leaving behind in said car.


Do we buy this?

 

[The Beard]

So why not crush the car?

Let's talk "reasonable", then: How is it reasonable that he meticulously cleaned everything, but did not crush the car?

Under your assumption, we have to believe that:

1) Brendan's story is true, but only up to a point: They strangled and killed her, but did not slash her throat.

2) Steven killed her, shot her, burned her, and cleaned up the garage and trailer fully.

3) No blood whatsoever seeped into the cracks of the garage flooring, which was thoroughly drilled into and checked for evidence.

4) Steven proceeded to re-clutter, fill up, and dust up the garage and the trailer again.

5) Steven forgot to crush the car, but remembered to drive it close to the edge of their property, and only cover it up marginally with branches. He also, despite meticulously cleaning the trailer and the garage, completely forgot to even look for evidence he was leaving behind in said car.


Do we buy this?

We don't know if a meticulous clean up was even necessary. He could've hit her over the head with something, he could've strangled her and thrown her in the back of her RAV4 and stabbed her. The point is, we don't know exactly how/where he killed her. How/where doesn't really matter though. All that matters is what evidence is available. Unless all that evidence is proven to have been planted, including his blood in her RAV4, then Avery is fucked.

I don't think she ever set foot in Avery's trailer. I don't think he forgot to crush the RAV4, I think he's dumb enough to think he could hide it.

 

[hawk2025]

We don't know if a meticulous clean up was even necessary. He could've hit her over the head with something, he could've strangled her and thrown her in the back of her RAV4 and stabbed her. The point is, we don't know exactly how/where he killed her. How/where doesn't really matter though. All that matters is what evidence is available. Unless all that evidence is proven to have been planted, including his blood in her RAV4, then Avery is fucked.

I don't think she ever set foot in Avery's trailer. I don't think he forgot to crush the RAV4, I think he's dumb enough to think he could hide it.

Of course it matters. You are creating a brand new and additional story in your head based on conjecture.

A story which, by construction, requires that part of the evidence be false, made up, or impressed upon Brandon and that should not be considered as admissible.

 

[-griffy-]

We don't know if a meticulous clean up was even necessary. He could've hit her over the head with something, he could've strangled her and thrown her in the back of her RAV4 and stabbed her. The point is, we don't know exactly how/where he killed her. How/where doesn't really matter though. All that matters is what evidence is available. Unless all that evidence is proven to have been planted, including his blood in her RAV4, then Avery is fucked.

I don't think she ever set foot in Avery's trailer. I don't think he forgot to crush the RAV4, I think he's dumb enough to think he could hide it.

What does it say about the trial if you have to create an entirely different scenario than what the prosecution put forward in the trial in order to try and rationalize the absence of evidence?

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

When the victims bones are found outside of the last known person to see the victim alive, it raises a huge red flag. When the blood of the victim and the blood of the last person to see her alive (who had no business being in her car whatsoever) are found in the victim's vehicle, that makes him the murderer. Unless that blood is proven to have been planted, there's no way of looking past that.

Do you really not see the point at which fact becomes your assumption here?

Since you've disregarded the possibility (not likelihood, possibility is what you've disregarded) that desperate, corrupt police with an axe to grind could have planted evidence which they had the means, motive and opportunity to plant evidence, is Steven being the murderer the only way his blood could've ended up in that car?

 

[hawk2025]

What does it say about the trial if you have to create an entirely different scenario than what the prosecution put forward in the trial in order to try and rationalize the absence of evidence?

Exactly.

You can't at the same time say that:

At this point it's not reasonable to assume someone else murdered Teresa and did the frame job of the century.

And still require the creation of a brand new story to actually rationalize the failings of the evidence presented.

 

[figadapaura]

Frame job of the century is selling it way too much haha. A frame job that good wouldn't be found out so easy.

 

[hawk2025]

Frame job of the century is selling it way too much haha. A frame job that good wouldn't be found out so easy.

Yep.

A self-contradicting statement if I've ever seen one.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

We don't know if a meticulous clean up was even necessary. He could've hit her over the head with something, he could've strangled her and thrown her in the back of her RAV4 and stabbed her. The point is, we don't know exactly how/where he killed her. How/where doesn't really matter though. All that matters is what evidence is available. Unless all that evidence is proven to have been planted, including his blood in her RAV4, then Avery is fucked.

I don't think she ever set foot in Avery's trailer. I don't think he forgot to crush the RAV4, I think he's dumb enough to think he could hide it.

You just had to create a completely imagined scenario to discount actual facts of the case.

Also overall I know it doesn't amount to much but for me personally Avery requesting all the case files in 2013 to review and actually reviewing them means something to me

 

[FTF]

Will this eventually be available on blu-ray/dvd? I know house of cards and other Netflix shows are, so I'm hoping this is too.

 

[2MF]

Ok, so as far as i can see most of gaf thinks avery and his nephew are both innocent, and all eveidence and ommisions of guilt are essentially false or planted or what have you.

So, what is it you guys believe actually happened, or what theory do you follow?

I have to assume you guys think it was a frame job by another killer?

I wonder how much of that 400k avery has spent on lawyers.

I'm more convinced of Brandon's innocence than of Avery's innocence.

That said, there was so much wrong stuff in the investigation/trial that maybe they should both be free, even if any of them is guilty.

As for who did it, I have no idea. But it really doesn't matter for their cases, unless all other ways of getting them freed fail.