Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (1 Viewer)

[SIDA!]

Pretty tough to open a latch with gloves on. Plus, I'd assume he has sausage fingers like most mechanics. So I could see him pulling the glove off to open the latch. The fact that Kratz said it makes me doubt it moreso than the plausibility.

The blood soaked ones that he had to put back on to close the hood but still didn't leave any blood on the hood either?

Btw, hope I'm not sounding argumentative with you. Just fleshing it out.

 

[Billy Bats]

The other thing that amuses me is the job of "hiding" the car. If it wasn't Dassey the kid who did it, whoever did sure made it look like it was him.

Which makes me believe that Steven wasn't involved in that part, because he's such an expert blood cleaner, there's no way he couldn't do a better job hiding a car, in a lot full of thousands. Especially since he had a car crusher readily available.

 

[Dickies]

This reddit thread seems to clear up the controversy around the vacutainer hole:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xpof9/hole_in_the_top_of_the_blood_tube_normal/

The broken evidence seal is still an issue though.

Just to make sure we are on the same page...you believe that that discussion confirms what the defense was arguing in the documentary, correct?

No, it explains why there would be a hole at the top of the vial.

Gotcha now...I was looking a discussion in that thread with a link to an image of the old technology (pre-used) vs the new technology. The hole in the top appears to be the older technology/version of the vacutubes after it has been used.

So, you are right...the tampering with the evidence box is the big deal because other than that...one can't deduce or prove that any blood was taken out of that vial (unless there was a test for the preservative with a detection level low enough to detect it).

Not sure that is even as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be. Box could have been sealed after initial collection, then opened later for testing for the 1985 case and just never resealed. No way to know when the seal was broken.

Shouldn't there be logs indicating when the seal was broken and then documentation of a new seal being made?

 

[gianmarco]

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?

And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

Would make sense if she weren't killed in the trailer or garage. Say she was killed somewhere else on the 40 acres (or even off the 40 acre compound), and then he brought her back with the SUV.

How about this theory - which could explain his blood stain locations (if I'm remembering where they were), as well as hers. She meets with him at the trailer or garage to take pictures of the van. He somehow coerces her to drive him out somewhere (maybe he says we've got another vehicle we'd like you to photograph, let me show you where it is). The two of them hop into her RAV4 and drive off. If he's in the front passenger seat, and a finger on his right hand is cut/bleeding - that blood could end up on the seat movement lever between the passenger seat and the door (which I believe is where his blood was found, right). When they arrive at this "location" somewhere on the property, that's where he kills her. He then puts her body back in the back of the RAV4 (which is why her blood was found in the back) - and drives back to his trailer to later burn her. When he's starting her car at this point, his finger is still bleeding - so that blood would be found around the key ignition area - which again, it was. He burns the body in part or whole in each of 3 different burn locations in an effort to hide his tracks. Maybe he "stores" the body (likely wrapped up in plastic or something) in the garage for a period of time until it's dark out so he can move the body to the burn locations - which is why he later asked for Dassey's help in cleaning it up, fearing some of her DNA might have gotten out. He then stores the car near the car crusher (picture earlier in this thread shows that it was found near the crusher) waiting for a good time to crush it without anyone else knowing about it.

Thoughts? Fits all the blood evidence together.

And in the midst of all this, he has the time to have a couple 15 minute phone calls with his girlfriend, which are recorded, during which he sounds like he's kicking back and drinking a beer.

 

[gianmarco]

I think one of the most damning things that isn't talked about much is how Lenk perjured himself about the time he arrived -- 2pm vs. 5pm (daylight vs darkness). Factor in that he didn't sign into the log when everyone else did and that it's possible he arrived later, then how was he never investigated and charged with perjury at a minimum?

 

[Hooper31]

Especially since he had a car crusher readily available.

I would guess that crushing a car involves a lot more than just sticking it in the press and hitting a button. I think you have to remove tires, axle, engine, etc before you can crush if you want it to get flattened. Total guess work on my part. I don't know for certain either way.

I'm 5 episodes in. I mention this above because the film makers specifically had it mentioned (one of the lawyers said it) in one of the episodes about having the car crusher available. That bothered me as nonsensical at the moment and trying extra hard to make the case of his innocence.

Brenden's brother's testimony felt damning to Avery. Saw the girl walking to the trailer. Saw the car without her there. I don't see anyone discussing this point. Was it somehow rebutted later in the trial?

 

[Billy Bats]

Especially since he had a car crusher readily available.

I would guess that crushing a car involves a lot more than just sticking it in the press and hitting a button. I think you have to remove tires, axle, engine, etc before you can crush if you want it to get flattened. Total guess work on my part. I don't know for certain either way.

I'm 5 episodes in. I mention this above because the film makers specifically had it mentioned (one of the lawyers said it) in one of the episodes about having the car crusher available. That bothered me as nonsensical at the moment and trying extra hard to make the case of his innocence.

Brenden's brother's testimony felt damning to Avery. Saw the girl walking to the trailer. Saw the car without her there. I don't see anyone discussing this point. Was it somehow rebutted later in the trial?

Real good points about the car crusher. He may not have had the time or the manpower to get it done. In rebuttle to his brothers testimony, the school bus driver said she dropped off Dassey around 3:30-3:40 and she seen Teresa taking pictures of the van. Dassey's "confession" States that he got the mail and was walking to the trailer at 3:45 and heard her screams. A whole lot had to have happened in 5 to 10 minutes inside that trailer. Then again if she seen Teresa when she dropped Dassey off, then she wasn't tied to the bed inside the trailer.

 

[Dickies]

1. I don't think anybody has said he is clearly innocent, but IMHO he pretty clearly should have been found 'not guilty'. There is a difference between those two

2. Most people in Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots

3. I have probably read more about this case than I care to admit from both sides. I keep hearing from Kratz and everyone who wants to bury their heads in the sand that the documentary left out "mountains of evidence" and it is simply not true. There are maybe 5 pieces of evidence that the prosecution presented that were left out and they are all very weak/irrelevant.

I keep hearing this, but they simply aren't weak and irrelevant. The sweat on the hood latch is irrelevant? It is only irrelevant if you simply say all evidence was planted. Calling somebody twice on the day they died using *67 when you left a contact phone number that didn't match your own? The rifle that matched the bullet was Avery's and is irrelevant only if you think they planted the bullet. The bones being intertwined with tire radial belts is pretty important too.

So was it mountains of evidence left out? No, but the only way you think these are irrelevant is if you are convinced all the evidence was fabricated.

I'm mulling over the sweat thing - and the battery thing (no battery was in the RAV4 when they found it, correct?). So lets say he removed the battery from the car himself - that would explain both, but not necessarily make him a murderer. Now why would he do that? Not sure. Has he given any reason as to why no battery and how his sweat could have gotten there?

So she was shot - and with that bullet. If you're doing this to frame Avery from the get go - you'd be sure to fire that bullet from his gun. (Again may point to an Avery). Or that bullet didn't hit her at all, and her DNA was placed on it afterwards and the bullet itself was planted there to be found.

As to the bones being "intertwined" - what does that mean? I haven't heard that from any actual source yet. The bones were the size of a usb thumb drive or smaller (as in the teeth), so how could those be "intertwined" in anything?

There is no such thing as sweat DNA from what I understand, it is just shed skin cells. Why are there no fingerprints on the underside of the hood? If he is shedding skin cells transmitted from his hands, there should be prints. The prosecution would probably claim that he was wearing gloves. If he is wearing gloves then how is he shedding skin cells on the underside of the hood? I am not saying it could not happen, but it seems highly unlikely.

The bullet was found under extremely suspect circumstances MONTHS after the initial investigation. How does the garage get searched extensively with no evidence being found? There was no blood, no evidence that anything was even cleaned up, and they even searched the exact spot where the bullet was found in the initial investigation and found nothing. Suddenly they coerce a confession from Dassey who says she was shot in the garage and they find a lone bullet with her DNA on it, but no DNA of hers anywhere else? I can only speculate how they got the bullet, but they clearly shoot guns on the property and the police were holding on to the gun for months as well.

The bones being "intertwined" with the tire belts is one of the more ridiculous things I have heard too. I have seen the picture they present and it does not look like anything. If someone dumped bones on top of the steel belts I am sure a few bones would get "intertwined". From everything I have read the sheriffs department did everything incorrectly as to the handling of the bones in that burnpit. They should not have touched it and called in experts to analyze the bones placements to make a more accurate determination of how the bones got to be there. Instead they scoop them up with a shovel and put them into a box to ship to some "experts" to analyze. I have also read some information that the way the prosecution claims Avery burnt Halbach would not have been feasible as it would have taken far longer to get the bones to the state they are in than what the "bombfire" was described as. I have also read that no tire residue was detected on the bones which would be expected if she was burned with tires. Not sure how accurate all of this information is as I am reading from a number of sources

 

[matttyl]

Good find.

I also found this in the same thread

"

The blood was however used for DNA testing for the 1985 case before it was sealed into the evidence locker; In the lab, they do not puncture the tops, but to ensure a clean sample, they sanitize the vial then remove the stopper, draw their sample, and replace the stopper. While sanitizing the vial, the blood would be cleaned off, and since it is a self-sealing lid, the hole is closed and would therefore not leak a new blood drop. That is my first issue. The blood also seemed overly red to me. Oxidation of the Iron rich hemoglobin causes blood to turn black and flakey over time, and certainly from 1985-2005 would be plenty of time for that to occur. EDTA vials contain the EDTA inside and in fact the blood doesn't mix thoroughly with it until the procedural shake after the draw. As such, the drop on the lid shouldn't have any EDTA in it and thus should be black, dehydrated, and flaky. However, if it was drawn from the vial after mixing, a few months exposure to oxygen, even with EDTA present, some dehydration would occur, resulting in the mostly dry, reddish blob on the lid. This is why I believe there was an unauthorized draw from that vial."

I couldn't grab a perfectly clear picture, but I don't see any sign of blood on the lid. If there is some there, it definitely looks black.

http://i.imgur.com/UQLJ5bz.jpg?1

Thanks again for the picture. You can CLEARLY see the word "Vacutainer" (twice in fact) on the purple lid. Do a quick search, and you can clearly see those tubes are filed by puncturing the lid itself and the blood is "sucked" (vacuumed....hence the name) out. The hole is supposed to be there. Now about the tape being cut.....I don't know.

Also, if you were to take blood from that vile to be planted....you wouldn't puncture the lid, you're simply remove it entirely.

Not sure why you couldn't use a syringe and the hole that is already there.

You could, but it would be tricky. Also, I think you'd then have blood on the purple part from two different time periods (one when it was originally put there, and then other blood when you took some out). That might be hard to cover up and make it look legit.

 

[parasaurolophus]

1. I don't think anybody has said he is clearly innocent, but IMHO he pretty clearly should have been found 'not guilty'. There is a difference between those two

2. Most people in Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots

3. I have probably read more about this case than I care to admit from both sides. I keep hearing from Kratz and everyone who wants to bury their heads in the sand that the documentary left out "mountains of evidence" and it is simply not true. There are maybe 5 pieces of evidence that the prosecution presented that were left out and they are all very weak/irrelevant.

I keep hearing this, but they simply aren't weak and irrelevant. The sweat on the hood latch is irrelevant? It is only irrelevant if you simply say all evidence was planted. Calling somebody twice on the day they died using *67 when you left a contact phone number that didn't match your own? The rifle that matched the bullet was Avery's and is irrelevant only if you think they planted the bullet. The bones being intertwined with tire radial belts is pretty important too.

So was it mountains of evidence left out? No, but the only way you think these are irrelevant is if you are convinced all the evidence was fabricated.

I'm mulling over the sweat thing - and the battery thing (no battery was in the RAV4 when they found it, correct?). So lets say he removed the battery from the car himself - that would explain both, but not necessarily make him a murderer. Now why would he do that? Not sure. Has he given any reason as to why no battery and how his sweat could have gotten there?

So she was shot - and with that bullet. If you're doing this to frame Avery from the get go - you'd be sure to fire that bullet from his gun. (Again may point to an Avery). Or that bullet didn't hit her at all, and her DNA was placed on it afterwards and the bullet itself was planted there to be found.

As to the bones being "intertwined" - what does that mean? I haven't heard that from any actual source yet. The bones were the size of a usb thumb drive or smaller (as in the teeth), so how could those be "intertwined" in anything?

Again, the only reason you can dismiss any of the stuff we are discussing is by saying the cops planted everything. I can't say 100% for certain you are wrong. I don't believe that the cops planted all of it for one second, but I can't prove 100% it wasn't.

As far as being intertwined, they mean in stuff like this...

 

[matttyl]

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?

And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

Would make sense if she weren't killed in the trailer or garage. Say she was killed somewhere else on the 40 acres (or even off the 40 acre compound), and then he brought her back with the SUV.

How about this theory - which could explain his blood stain locations (if I'm remembering where they were), as well as hers. She meets with him at the trailer or garage to take pictures of the van. He somehow coerces her to drive him out somewhere (maybe he says we've got another vehicle we'd like you to photograph, let me show you where it is). The two of them hop into her RAV4 and drive off. If he's in the front passenger seat, and a finger on his right hand is cut/bleeding - that blood could end up on the seat movement lever between the passenger seat and the door (which I believe is where his blood was found, right). When they arrive at this "location" somewhere on the property, that's where he kills her. He then puts her body back in the back of the RAV4 (which is why her blood was found in the back) - and drives back to his trailer to later burn her. When he's starting her car at this point, his finger is still bleeding - so that blood would be found around the key ignition area - which again, it was. He burns the body in part or whole in each of 3 different burn locations in an effort to hide his tracks. Maybe he "stores" the body (likely wrapped up in plastic or something) in the garage for a period of time until it's dark out so he can move the body to the burn locations - which is why he later asked for Dassey's help in cleaning it up, fearing some of her DNA might have gotten out. He then stores the car near the car crusher (picture earlier in this thread shows that it was found near the crusher) waiting for a good time to crush it without anyone else knowing about it.

Thoughts? Fits all the blood evidence together.

And in the midst of all this, he has the time to have a couple 15 minute phone calls with his girlfriend, which are recorded, during which he sounds like he's kicking back and drinking a beer.

I believe only one of those calls was 15 minutes, but I think you are right in that there are multiple calls. If the first call is short, maybe it's because he has to go finish up some of these things I'm describing and tells her to call him back later. Remember, we don't have to match up the prosecutor's timeline. There doesn't need to be this huge drawn out multiple hour rape/torture scenario. He could have killed her by 4PM for instance, had the phone call with the girlfriend and such, and then had the bonfire around 8 or whatever.

 

[parrot]

And if he was or wasn't wearing gloves why didn't any of his blood dna come up on the latch or battery case area?

Is there any reason to assume the car was parked and the battery removed while he was still bleeding? 5 days elapsed between the killing and the discovery of the car.

 

[Hooper31]

Wondering how I would respond if I were a cop. Would I plant evidence and break the law if I thought I was putting a dangerous person behind bars? I think I might given the right circumstances.

 

[matttyl]

I'm mulling over the sweat thing - and the battery thing (no battery was in the RAV4 when they found it, correct?). So lets say he removed the battery from the car himself - that would explain both, but not necessarily make him a murderer. Now why would he do that? Not sure. Has he given any reason as to why no battery and how his sweat could have gotten there?

There is no such thing as sweat DNA from what I understand, it is just shed skin cells. Why are there no fingerprints on the underside of the hood? If he is shedding skin cells transmitted from his hands, there should be prints. The prosecution would probably claim that he was wearing gloves. If he is wearing gloves then how is he shedding skin cells on the underside of the hood? I am not saying it could not happen, but it seems highly unlikely.

Go out to your car right now with gloves on and remove your car battery without your arms touching anything. Now do it in a small SUV which is likely a bit higher off the ground than a normal car and report back.

 

[SIDA!]

Especially since he had a car crusher readily available.

I would guess that crushing a car involves a lot more than just sticking it in the press and hitting a button. I think you have to remove tires, axle, engine, etc before you can crush if you want it to get flattened. Total guess work on my part. I don't know for certain either way.

I'm 5 episodes in. I mention this above because the film makers specifically had it mentioned (one of the lawyers said it) in one of the episodes about having the car crusher available. That bothered me as nonsensical at the moment and trying extra hard to make the case of his innocence.

Brenden's brother's testimony felt damning to Avery. Saw the girl walking to the trailer. Saw the car without her there. I don't see anyone discussing this point. Was it somehow rebutted later in the trial?

Real good points about the car crusher. He may not have had the time or the manpower to get it done.

Another poster in this thread who has experience in this industry and been to the Avery site in the past said it is a one person job that could be done rather easily. (hope I am not putting words in his mouth)

 

[matttyl]

1. I don't think anybody has said he is clearly innocent, but IMHO he pretty clearly should have been found 'not guilty'. There is a difference between those two

2. Most people in Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots

3. I have probably read more about this case than I care to admit from both sides. I keep hearing from Kratz and everyone who wants to bury their heads in the sand that the documentary left out "mountains of evidence" and it is simply not true. There are maybe 5 pieces of evidence that the prosecution presented that were left out and they are all very weak/irrelevant.

I keep hearing this, but they simply aren't weak and irrelevant. The sweat on the hood latch is irrelevant? It is only irrelevant if you simply say all evidence was planted. Calling somebody twice on the day they died using *67 when you left a contact phone number that didn't match your own? The rifle that matched the bullet was Avery's and is irrelevant only if you think they planted the bullet. The bones being intertwined with tire radial belts is pretty important too.

So was it mountains of evidence left out? No, but the only way you think these are irrelevant is if you are convinced all the evidence was fabricated.

I'm mulling over the sweat thing - and the battery thing (no battery was in the RAV4 when they found it, correct?). So lets say he removed the battery from the car himself - that would explain both, but not necessarily make him a murderer. Now why would he do that? Not sure. Has he given any reason as to why no battery and how his sweat could have gotten there?

So she was shot - and with that bullet. If you're doing this to frame Avery from the get go - you'd be sure to fire that bullet from his gun. (Again may point to an Avery). Or that bullet didn't hit her at all, and her DNA was placed on it afterwards and the bullet itself was planted there to be found.

As to the bones being "intertwined" - what does that mean? I haven't heard that from any actual source yet. The bones were the size of a usb thumb drive or smaller (as in the teeth), so how could those be "intertwined" in anything?

Again, the only reason you can dismiss any of the stuff we are discussing is by saying the cops planted everything. I can't say 100% for certain you are wrong. I don't believe that the cops planted all of it for one second, but I can't prove 100% it wasn't.

As far as being intertwined, they mean in stuff like this...

No way bones were "intertwined" anywhere near what your showing here.

And by "everything" being planted - wat all are we talking about? Some bones (apparently in 3 locations), one bullet found months later, her key with his DNA but not hers found after multiple searches by the "wrong cops", and her car with his blood (but not fingerprints) on it found two days after the mysterious Colburn call. We aren't talking about the possibility of "mountains" of planted stuff. Anything I'm leaving out in terms of evidence that would have had to have been planted?

 

[SIDA!]

And if he was or wasn't wearing gloves why didn't any of his blood dna come up on the latch or battery case area?

Is there any reason to assume the car was parked and the battery removed while he was still bleeding? 5 days elapsed between the killing and the discovery of the car.

I suppose it is possible that he bled in the car on the day of the killing and then later moved the car after that...but that seems like a bit of a stretch.

You are basically saying that even after at least a night to sleep on it where he dismembered and burned a body to get rid of evidence and got rid of all traces of the victims DNA...everywhere...that he couldn't formulate a better plan to dispose of the vehicle or hide it better?

I have been kicking around a theory in my head that maybe she wasn't even killed that day/night. But...I haven't gotten to far with it. It all stems from my belief that she was never killed or assaulted in either the trailer or the garage. And if you believe that...where did it happen? I don't think she was killed in her van unless it was just strangulation with some blunt head trauma. Otherwise there would have been more blood in my mind.

 

[SIDA!]

I'm mulling over the sweat thing - and the battery thing (no battery was in the RAV4 when they found it, correct?). So lets say he removed the battery from the car himself - that would explain both, but not necessarily make him a murderer. Now why would he do that? Not sure. Has he given any reason as to why no battery and how his sweat could have gotten there?

There is no such thing as sweat DNA from what I understand, it is just shed skin cells. Why are there no fingerprints on the underside of the hood? If he is shedding skin cells transmitted from his hands, there should be prints. The prosecution would probably claim that he was wearing gloves. If he is wearing gloves then how is he shedding skin cells on the underside of the hood? I am not saying it could not happen, but it seems highly unlikely.

Go out to your car right now with gloves on and remove your car battery without your arms touching anything. Now do it in a small SUV which is likely a bit higher off the ground than a normal car and report back.

It is Halloween night...not exactly summertime short weather in Manitowoc County. You think he is wearing a t-shirt at what would have been dark or close to it?

 

[Dickies]

Here is an article that shows the picture of the tire belts the prosecution claims have bones "intertwined". Doesn't look like much of anything to me.

 

[Billy Bats]

Wondering how I would respond if I were a cop. Would I plant evidence and break the law if I thought I was putting a dangerous person behind bars? I think I might given the right circumstances.

Wow.

 

[Dickies]

I'm mulling over the sweat thing - and the battery thing (no battery was in the RAV4 when they found it, correct?). So lets say he removed the battery from the car himself - that would explain both, but not necessarily make him a murderer. Now why would he do that? Not sure. Has he given any reason as to why no battery and how his sweat could have gotten there?

There is no such thing as sweat DNA from what I understand, it is just shed skin cells. Why are there no fingerprints on the underside of the hood? If he is shedding skin cells transmitted from his hands, there should be prints. The prosecution would probably claim that he was wearing gloves. If he is wearing gloves then how is he shedding skin cells on the underside of the hood? I am not saying it could not happen, but it seems highly unlikely.

Go out to your car right now with gloves on and remove your car battery without your arms touching anything. Now do it in a small SUV which is likely a bit higher off the ground than a normal car and report back.

If I had just slit someone's throat and shot them in the face, sweat DNA would not be the most likely DNA I am going to smear on the car.

 

[Billy Bats]

Especially since he had a car crusher readily available.

I would guess that crushing a car involves a lot more than just sticking it in the press and hitting a button. I think you have to remove tires, axle, engine, etc before you can crush if you want it to get flattened. Total guess work on my part. I don't know for certain either way.

I'm 5 episodes in. I mention this above because the film makers specifically had it mentioned (one of the lawyers said it) in one of the episodes about having the car crusher available. That bothered me as nonsensical at the moment and trying extra hard to make the case of his innocence.

Brenden's brother's testimony felt damning to Avery. Saw the girl walking to the trailer. Saw the car without her there. I don't see anyone discussing this point. Was it somehow rebutted later in the trial?

Real good points about the car crusher. He may not have had the time or the manpower to get it done.

Another poster in this thread who has experience in this industry and been to the Avery site in the past said it is a one person job that could be done rather easily. (hope I am not putting words in his mouth)

I thought I had read that but didn't want to misquote or use info I wasn't sure of. Even still, if I murdered someone I wouldn't be worried about removing parts, I'm crushing the whole damn thing and trying to make it disappear however I can. I certainly wouldn't park it in a single row of cars with a couple branches behind it and a hood leaning up against it.

 

[Dickies]

Wondering how I would respond if I were a cop. Would I plant evidence and break the law if I thought I was putting a dangerous person behind bars? I think I might given the right circumstances.

And what if the person you thought was a dangerous person was 100% harmless and totally innocent? Not saying Avery is either, but who granted you that power to decide someone's fate?

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Here is an article that shows the picture of the tire belts the prosecution claims have bones "intertwined". Doesn't look like much of anything to me.

Also the defense had an expert testify none of the bones were melted together with tire belts or anything. The intertwining was a huge stretch by Kratz. There were bones and tire parts in the fire pit together, but no proof they were burned together at the same time.

 

[Joe T]

Wondering how I would respond if I were a cop. Would I plant evidence and break the law if I thought I was putting a dangerous person behind bars? I think I might given the right circumstances.

Would you plant evidence to put a person behind bars that was actively suing you and making you look bad and happens to be a bad person?

 

[parrot]

And if he was or wasn't wearing gloves why didn't any of his blood dna come up on the latch or battery case area?

Is there any reason to assume the car was parked and the battery removed while he was still bleeding? 5 days elapsed between the killing and the discovery of the car.

I suppose it is possible that he bled in the car on the day of the killing and then later moved the car after that...but that seems like a bit of a stretch.

You are basically saying that even after at least a night to sleep on it where he dismembered and burned a body to get rid of evidence and got rid of all traces of the victims DNA...everywhere...that he couldn't formulate a better plan to dispose of the vehicle or hide it better?

I have been kicking around a theory in my head that maybe she wasn't even killed that day/night. But...I haven't gotten to far with it. It all stems from my belief that she was never killed or assaulted in either the trailer or the garage. And if you believe that...where did it happen? I don't think she was killed in her van unless it was just strangulation with some blunt head trauma. Otherwise there would have been more blood in my mind.

He could have stashed the car closer to his house sometime shortly after the murder, then moved it to it's final spot later, possibly even later that evening, but once he had stopped bleeding. The proximity to the crusher suggests to me that maybe he did plan to crush her car but had to wait for the right opportunity so as not to arouse suspicion. He might well have had that time if his brother hadn't granted searchers access to the yard.

 

[SIDA!]

And if he was or wasn't wearing gloves why didn't any of his blood dna come up on the latch or battery case area?

Is there any reason to assume the car was parked and the battery removed while he was still bleeding? 5 days elapsed between the killing and the discovery of the car.

I suppose it is possible that he bled in the car on the day of the killing and then later moved the car after that...but that seems like a bit of a stretch.

You are basically saying that even after at least a night to sleep on it where he dismembered and burned a body to get rid of evidence and got rid of all traces of the victims DNA...everywhere...that he couldn't formulate a better plan to dispose of the vehicle or hide it better?

I have been kicking around a theory in my head that maybe she wasn't even killed that day/night. But...I haven't gotten to far with it. It all stems from my belief that she was never killed or assaulted in either the trailer or the garage. And if you believe that...where did it happen? I don't think she was killed in her van unless it was just strangulation with some blunt head trauma. Otherwise there would have been more blood in my mind.

He could have stashed the car closer to his house sometime shortly after the murder, then moved it to it's final spot later, possibly even later that evening, but once he had stopped bleeding. The proximity to the crusher suggests to me that maybe he did plan to crush her car but had to wait for the right opportunity so as not to arouse suspicion. He might well have had that time if his brother hadn't granted searchers access to the yard.

Yeah...but you are saying he didn't have time to do it over several days before the authorities came to the property?

Also...can you elaborate on the brother giving access. I thought Avery himself consented to the searching, but I am hazy on this aspect of the case.

 

[Billy Bats]

And if he was or wasn't wearing gloves why didn't any of his blood dna come up on the latch or battery case area?

Is there any reason to assume the car was parked and the battery removed while he was still bleeding? 5 days elapsed between the killing and the discovery of the car.

I suppose it is possible that he bled in the car on the day of the killing and then later moved the car after that...but that seems like a bit of a stretch. You are basically saying that even after at least a night to sleep on it where he dismembered and burned a body to get rid of evidence and got rid of all traces of the victims DNA...everywhere...that he couldn't formulate a better plan to dispose of the vehicle or hide it better?

I have been kicking around a theory in my head that maybe she wasn't even killed that day/night. But...I haven't gotten to far with it. It all stems from my belief that she was never killed or assaulted in either the trailer or the garage. And if you believe that...where did it happen? I don't think she was killed in her van unless it was just strangulation with some blunt head trauma. Otherwise there would have been more blood in my mind.

He could have stashed the car closer to his house sometime shortly after the murder, then moved it to it's final spot later, possibly even later that evening, but once he had stopped bleeding. The proximity to the crusher suggests to me that maybe he did plan to crush her car but had to wait for the right opportunity so as not to arouse suspicion. He might well have had that time if his brother hadn't granted searchers access to the yard.

Yeah...but you are saying he didn't have time to do it over several days before the authorities came to the property?Also...can you elaborate on the brother giving access. I thought Avery himself consented to the searching, but I am hazy on this aspect of the case.

Well for one he was way too busy scrubbing the hundreds of items in the garage clean of her blood/DNA. But decided to leave the 12 shell casings from when he murdered her on the floor.

And the brother gave access to the miracle car finding ladies.

 

[SIDA!]

And if he was or wasn't wearing gloves why didn't any of his blood dna come up on the latch or battery case area?

Is there any reason to assume the car was parked and the battery removed while he was still bleeding? 5 days elapsed between the killing and the discovery of the car.

I suppose it is possible that he bled in the car on the day of the killing and then later moved the car after that...but that seems like a bit of a stretch. You are basically saying that even after at least a night to sleep on it where he dismembered and burned a body to get rid of evidence and got rid of all traces of the victims DNA...everywhere...that he couldn't formulate a better plan to dispose of the vehicle or hide it better?

I have been kicking around a theory in my head that maybe she wasn't even killed that day/night. But...I haven't gotten to far with it. It all stems from my belief that she was never killed or assaulted in either the trailer or the garage. And if you believe that...where did it happen? I don't think she was killed in her van unless it was just strangulation with some blunt head trauma. Otherwise there would have been more blood in my mind.

He could have stashed the car closer to his house sometime shortly after the murder, then moved it to it's final spot later, possibly even later that evening, but once he had stopped bleeding. The proximity to the crusher suggests to me that maybe he did plan to crush her car but had to wait for the right opportunity so as not to arouse suspicion. He might well have had that time if his brother hadn't granted searchers access to the yard.

Yeah...but you are saying he didn't have time to do it over several days before the authorities came to the property?Also...can you elaborate on the brother giving access. I thought Avery himself consented to the searching, but I am hazy on this aspect of the case.

Well for one he was way too busy scrubbing the hundreds of items in the garage clean of her blood/DNA. But decided to leave the 12 shell casings from when he murdered her on the floor.

And the brother gave access to the miracle car finding ladies.

Thanks!

But, didn't Steve himself consent to a search of his garage/trailer or both, too?

 

[Billy Bats]

I'm pretty sure he did S!, because I do remember him telling someone while he was interviewed outside that "go ahead I got nothing to hide".

 

[SIDA!]

I'm pretty sure he did S!, because I do remember him telling someone while he was interviewed outside that "go ahead I got nothing to hide".

Now, I know after watching some episodes of The First 48 and Cops and what not that people will commit a crime and still give permission to search their homes/vehicles without a warrant. Etc.

One of the things that gives me pause though is that Avery has never wavered in his repeated protestations of innocence, be it the first case or this one. And he has admitted guilt when he did something wrong though some would argue he minimized it (cat).

Of course, admitting to murder is a whole different ballgame. Still...he has never struck me as a "killer" or at least not a psychopath who is dismembering, burning and roasting marshmallows over a body.

From what I have seen in his interview he was always resolute and steadfast.

My recollection was that in that interview where he answered questions he was supposed to be polygraphed. Do you or anyone else remember that or know if anything became of it?

 

[parrot]

And if he was or wasn't wearing gloves why didn't any of his blood dna come up on the latch or battery case area?

Is there any reason to assume the car was parked and the battery removed while he was still bleeding? 5 days elapsed between the killing and the discovery of the car.

I suppose it is possible that he bled in the car on the day of the killing and then later moved the car after that...but that seems like a bit of a stretch.

You are basically saying that even after at least a night to sleep on it where he dismembered and burned a body to get rid of evidence and got rid of all traces of the victims DNA...everywhere...that he couldn't formulate a better plan to dispose of the vehicle or hide it better?

I have been kicking around a theory in my head that maybe she wasn't even killed that day/night. But...I haven't gotten to far with it. It all stems from my belief that she was never killed or assaulted in either the trailer or the garage. And if you believe that...where did it happen? I don't think she was killed in her van unless it was just strangulation with some blunt head trauma. Otherwise there would have been more blood in my mind.

He could have stashed the car closer to his house sometime shortly after the murder, then moved it to it's final spot later, possibly even later that evening, but once he had stopped bleeding. The proximity to the crusher suggests to me that maybe he did plan to crush her car but had to wait for the right opportunity so as not to arouse suspicion. He might well have had that time if his brother hadn't granted searchers access to the yard.

Yeah...but you are saying he didn't have time to do it over several days before the authorities came to the property?

Also...can you elaborate on the brother giving access. I thought Avery himself consented to the searching, but I am hazy on this aspect of the case.

I believe it was one of the brothers who allowed the ladies who found the car into the yard.

I'm not saying he didn't have "time" as much as he maybe didn't have the right opportunity. Evidently there wasn't enough probably cause to allow the police to get a warrant. Maybe he was relying on that and was in no panic to crush the car, at least not enough where he would do something that would arouse suspicion.

 

[SIDA!]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

 

[jamny]

Is it known when SA bought the handcuffs and leg irons?

 

[parrot]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much. I think the bleach on Brendan's pants and his statement (to his mother, not leading detectives) that it came from helping Steven clean his garage was huge. It would be possible to clean it to a level where something might be missed by the Keystone cops on this case. Or maybe he killed her somewhere else and brought her back. Early on Brendan says Steven told him he tied her up and stabbed her in her car. I think that could possibly be true. I do think he probably burned her there in the burn pit.

I think he probably killed her because of the circumstances of how she was brought there and the amount of evidence that surrounds Steven Avery is pretty substantial. I'm an Occam's Razor guy and generally not a big fan of conspiracy and/or frame-up theories and that's especially true in this case where things would have had to have been done just so. It would be incredibly fortuitous, or prescient, for someone to kill someone and burn the body and frame Steven Avery on the very night he decides to have a bonfire.

Not that I believe everything the police and prosecution say. The two completely different versions presented in the two trials troubles me deeply. I find the discovery of the key really strange as well, but not strange enough that I feel compelled to think it must have been planted.

 

[Hooper31]

Wondering how I would respond if I were a cop. Would I plant evidence and break the law if I thought I was putting a dangerous person behind bars? I think I might given the right circumstances.

And what if the person you thought was a dangerous person was 100% harmless and totally innocent? Not saying Avery is either, but who granted you that power to decide someone's fate?

Who granted power to me? Nobody. And please don't misunderstand me here. I'm in no way saying I would have planted evidence to incriminate Avery. I don't have any knowledge that he's dangerous or guilty other than the circumstantial evidence shown in the documentary.

I'm only trying to give the cops the benefit of the doubt that they're not evil to the core. I'm sure some of them have seen and dealt with #### we can't imagine. They're only men like you and me. I'm not sure I could describe specific circumstances* that would lead me to plant evidence, but I don't doubt they exist.

* Except if JoeT were involved. Yeah, I could get on board with planting evidence to make sure he got the chair.

 

[Apple Juice]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much. I think the bleach on Brendan's pants and his statement (to his mother, not leading detectives) that it came from helping Steven clean his garage was huge. It would be possible to clean it to a level where something might be missed by the Keystone cops on this case. Or maybe he killed her somewhere else and brought her back. Early on Brendan says Steven told him he tied her up and stabbed her in her car. I think that could possibly be true. I do think he probably burned her there in the burn pit.

I think he probably killed her because of the circumstances of how she was brought there and the amount of evidence that surrounds Steven Avery is pretty substantial. I'm an Occam's Razor guy and generally not a big fan of conspiracy and/or frame-up theories and that's especially true in this case where things would have had to have been done just so. It would be incredibly fortuitous, or prescient, for someone to kill someone and burn the body and frame Steven Avery on the very night he decides to have a bonfire.

Not that I believe everything the police and prosecution say. The two completely different versions presented in the two trials troubles me deeply. I find the discovery of the key really strange as well, but not strange enough that I feel compelled to think it must have been planted.

Strang clarified in an interview that the type of bleach found on Brendan's pants is not the kind that could be used to remove DNA. The kind that could would have shown up all over the garage.

I'm 99% sure Theresa was killed somewhere other than the salvage yard and burned at the quarry. Most of her remains were moved to the bonfire and barrel.

 

[parrot]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much. I think the bleach on Brendan's pants and his statement (to his mother, not leading detectives) that it came from helping Steven clean his garage was huge. It would be possible to clean it to a level where something might be missed by the Keystone cops on this case. Or maybe he killed her somewhere else and brought her back. Early on Brendan says Steven told him he tied her up and stabbed her in her car. I think that could possibly be true. I do think he probably burned her there in the burn pit.

I think he probably killed her because of the circumstances of how she was brought there and the amount of evidence that surrounds Steven Avery is pretty substantial. I'm an Occam's Razor guy and generally not a big fan of conspiracy and/or frame-up theories and that's especially true in this case where things would have had to have been done just so. It would be incredibly fortuitous, or prescient, for someone to kill someone and burn the body and frame Steven Avery on the very night he decides to have a bonfire.

Not that I believe everything the police and prosecution say. The two completely different versions presented in the two trials troubles me deeply. I find the discovery of the key really strange as well, but not strange enough that I feel compelled to think it must have been planted.

Strang clarified in an interview that the type of bleach found on Brendan's pants is not the kind that could be used to remove DNA. The kind that could would have shown up all over the garage.

I'm 99% sure Theresa was killed somewhere other than the salvage yard and burned at the quarry. Most of her remains were moved to the bonfire and barrel.

My understanding is Brendan also said they used gasoline and paint thinner in addition to the bleach.

 

[SIDA!]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much.

Before yesterday, I was under the impression that the prosecution alleged that there had only been one shot fired into Teresa and that the other 10 or so shell casings were just sort of laying around because it wasn't that unusual for them to be firing a gun or whatever on the property.

Yesterday I believe, Kratz gave an interview where he said that Avery shot Teresa 10-12 times which shocked me.

While I question the ability for Avery to clean up all the blood from a head wound I suppose it is possible.

But is it possible to clean up blood spatter from a dozen or so shots to a body? And does it make sense that none of the other bullets (at least some of which would have had to have been lodged in her body) were never found in the fire pit?

Does learning that Kratz suggested she was shot a dozen times change your opinion at all on the blood spatter clean up?

 

[parrot]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much.

Before yesterday, I was under the impression that the prosecution alleged that there had only been one shot fired into Teresa and that the other 10 or so shell casings were just sort of laying around because it wasn't that unusual for them to be firing a gun or whatever on the property.

Yesterday I believe, Kratz gave an interview where he said that Avery shot Teresa 10-12 times which shocked me.

While I question the ability for Avery to clean up all the blood from a head wound I suppose it is possible.

But is it possible to clean up blood spatter from a dozen or so shots to a body? And does it make sense that none of the other bullets (at least some of which would have had to have been lodged in her body) were never found in the fire pit?

Does learning that Kratz suggested she was shot a dozen times change your opinion at all on the blood spatter clean up?

Kratz also suggested her throat was slit in the house when it suited his purposes, and I think we all consider that blatant bull####. I don't think Kratz has much of a clue what really happened.

 

[SIDA!]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much. I think the bleach on Brendan's pants and his statement (to his mother, not leading detectives) that it came from helping Steven clean his garage was huge. It would be possible to clean it to a level where something might be missed by the Keystone cops on this case. Or maybe he killed her somewhere else and brought her back. Early on Brendan says Steven told him he tied her up and stabbed her in her car. I think that could possibly be true. I do think he probably burned her there in the burn pit.

I think he probably killed her because of the circumstances of how she was brought there and the amount of evidence that surrounds Steven Avery is pretty substantial. I'm an Occam's Razor guy and generally not a big fan of conspiracy and/or frame-up theories and that's especially true in this case where things would have had to have been done just so. It would be incredibly fortuitous, or prescient, for someone to kill someone and burn the body and frame Steven Avery on the very night he decides to have a bonfire.

Not that I believe everything the police and prosecution say. The two completely different versions presented in the two trials troubles me deeply. I find the discovery of the key really strange as well, but not strange enough that I feel compelled to think it must have been planted.

I'm 99% sure Theresa was killed somewhere other than the salvage yard and burned at the quarry. Most of her remains were moved to the bonfire and barrel.

Assume that she was burned at the quarry...is it possible that her remains could have been moved to the fire pit outside of Avery's trailer before the bonfire? I don't think that is even remotely possible.

So...assuming your theory is correct...you are suggesting that her remains were added to the bonfire pit sometime after that evening's Halloween bonfire, correct? Be it say late that night or the next day or even later...right?

 

[SIDA!]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much.

Before yesterday, I was under the impression that the prosecution alleged that there had only been one shot fired into Teresa and that the other 10 or so shell casings were just sort of laying around because it wasn't that unusual for them to be firing a gun or whatever on the property.

Yesterday I believe, Kratz gave an interview where he said that Avery shot Teresa 10-12 times which shocked me.

While I question the ability for Avery to clean up all the blood from a head wound I suppose it is possible.

But is it possible to clean up blood spatter from a dozen or so shots to a body? And does it make sense that none of the other bullets (at least some of which would have had to have been lodged in her body) were never found in the fire pit?

Does learning that Kratz suggested she was shot a dozen times change your opinion at all on the blood spatter clean up?

Kratz also suggested her throat was slit in the house when it suited his purposes, and I think we all consider that blatant bull####. I don't think Kratz has much of a clue what really happened.

I totally agree. But, then that gets back to a post I believe I made yesterday where the entire theory on how she was killed came from interviews of Dassey.

So, now we are left with a DA who is full of #### and a Dassey character who has basically given a half dozen plus explanations as to what happened that day.

The only reason for you to believe that she was shot in the garage is because Kratz said so...which was based off of...Dassey's confession(s) four months later and a "magic bullet" that was found four months after intense searches of the trailer and garage that were consented to by Avery.

 

[SacramentoBob]

i would plant evidence to frame a cop.

 

[Apple Juice]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much. I think the bleach on Brendan's pants and his statement (to his mother, not leading detectives) that it came from helping Steven clean his garage was huge. It would be possible to clean it to a level where something might be missed by the Keystone cops on this case. Or maybe he killed her somewhere else and brought her back. Early on Brendan says Steven told him he tied her up and stabbed her in her car. I think that could possibly be true. I do think he probably burned her there in the burn pit.

I think he probably killed her because of the circumstances of how she was brought there and the amount of evidence that surrounds Steven Avery is pretty substantial. I'm an Occam's Razor guy and generally not a big fan of conspiracy and/or frame-up theories and that's especially true in this case where things would have had to have been done just so. It would be incredibly fortuitous, or prescient, for someone to kill someone and burn the body and frame Steven Avery on the very night he decides to have a bonfire.

Not that I believe everything the police and prosecution say. The two completely different versions presented in the two trials troubles me deeply. I find the discovery of the key really strange as well, but not strange enough that I feel compelled to think it must have been planted.

I'm 99% sure Theresa was killed somewhere other than the salvage yard and burned at the quarry. Most of her remains were moved to the bonfire and barrel.

Assume that she was burned at the quarry...is it possible that her remains could have been moved to the fire pit outside of Avery's trailer before the bonfire? I don't think that is even remotely possible.

So...assuming your theory is correct...you are suggesting that her remains were added to the bonfire pit sometime after that evening's Halloween bonfire, correct? Be it say late that night or the next day or even later...right?

I don't recall where I saw it, but I read that the bonfire lacked the intensity to burn a human body, and the stench would have been overwhelming. Since bones were found at the quarry, where the fire could be hot enough and the smell wouldn't matter, to me it seems logical that's where she was burned.

The bones could have been moved at any point during the three days she was missing. My theory is that someone framed Steven before the cops started framing him more, most likely Tadych.

 

[Hooper31]

i would plant evidence to frame a cop.

Atta kid.

 

[parrot]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much.

Before yesterday, I was under the impression that the prosecution alleged that there had only been one shot fired into Teresa and that the other 10 or so shell casings were just sort of laying around because it wasn't that unusual for them to be firing a gun or whatever on the property.

Yesterday I believe, Kratz gave an interview where he said that Avery shot Teresa 10-12 times which shocked me.

While I question the ability for Avery to clean up all the blood from a head wound I suppose it is possible.

But is it possible to clean up blood spatter from a dozen or so shots to a body? And does it make sense that none of the other bullets (at least some of which would have had to have been lodged in her body) were never found in the fire pit?

Does learning that Kratz suggested she was shot a dozen times change your opinion at all on the blood spatter clean up?

Kratz also suggested her throat was slit in the house when it suited his purposes, and I think we all consider that blatant bull####. I don't think Kratz has much of a clue what really happened.

I totally agree. But, then that gets back to a post I believe I made yesterday where the entire theory on how she was killed came from interviews of Dassey.

So, now we are left with a DA who is full of #### and a Dassey character who has basically given a half dozen plus explanations as to what happened that day.

The only reason for you to believe that she was shot in the garage is because Kratz said so...which was based off of...Dassey's confession(s) four months later and a "magic bullet" that was found four months after intense searches of the trailer and garage that were consented to by Avery.

I believe something happened in the garage because Brendan told his mother he helped Steven clean the garage, and yes, because that's where the bullet was found. Maybe the bullet was planted but I don't see any reason to think that's more plausible than that it was fired in there and just missed until that point. It's been pointed out over and over how much of a goat-ropin' the forensic work and scene controls on this case were, so I don't find it at all beyond comprehension that the bullet was missed until they really got down to brass tacks in the garage. Along with Occam's Razor, I also subscribe to Hanlon's Razor which says "Never attribute to malice that which is sufficiently explained by stupidity." I believe that may be the case here.

 

[SIDA!]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much. I think the bleach on Brendan's pants and his statement (to his mother, not leading detectives) that it came from helping Steven clean his garage was huge. It would be possible to clean it to a level where something might be missed by the Keystone cops on this case. Or maybe he killed her somewhere else and brought her back. Early on Brendan says Steven told him he tied her up and stabbed her in her car. I think that could possibly be true. I do think he probably burned her there in the burn pit.

I think he probably killed her because of the circumstances of how she was brought there and the amount of evidence that surrounds Steven Avery is pretty substantial. I'm an Occam's Razor guy and generally not a big fan of conspiracy and/or frame-up theories and that's especially true in this case where things would have had to have been done just so. It would be incredibly fortuitous, or prescient, for someone to kill someone and burn the body and frame Steven Avery on the very night he decides to have a bonfire.

Not that I believe everything the police and prosecution say. The two completely different versions presented in the two trials troubles me deeply. I find the discovery of the key really strange as well, but not strange enough that I feel compelled to think it must have been planted.

I'm 99% sure Theresa was killed somewhere other than the salvage yard and burned at the quarry. Most of her remains were moved to the bonfire and barrel.

Assume that she was burned at the quarry...is it possible that her remains could have been moved to the fire pit outside of Avery's trailer before the bonfire? I don't think that is even remotely possible.

So...assuming your theory is correct...you are suggesting that her remains were added to the bonfire pit sometime after that evening's Halloween bonfire, correct? Be it say late that night or the next day or even later...right?

I don't recall where I saw it, but I read that the bonfire lacked the intensity to burn a human body, and the stench would have been overwhelming.

My thoughts, too. I tried looking up what it takes to burn remains and only found crematory specs. It would take a solid two hours or so at a very high temperature to get the body cremated. Granted...the "ashes" after cremation aren't literally ashes...but they would be far more disintegrated than what was in the fire pit.

You would have to imagine that the remains in the fire pit would not have been able to reach the same level of heat intensity and consistency throughout the entire dismembered body. Also...that bonfire would have had to have been huge (which is questionable) and lasted for a long, long time. I mean...a bonfire of that heat intensity and duration you figure would have had to have lasted at least 3+ hours, no?

I didn't even bring up the stench which puzzled me as well.

 

[SIDA!]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much.

Before yesterday, I was under the impression that the prosecution alleged that there had only been one shot fired into Teresa and that the other 10 or so shell casings were just sort of laying around because it wasn't that unusual for them to be firing a gun or whatever on the property.

Yesterday I believe, Kratz gave an interview where he said that Avery shot Teresa 10-12 times which shocked me.

While I question the ability for Avery to clean up all the blood from a head wound I suppose it is possible.

But is it possible to clean up blood spatter from a dozen or so shots to a body? And does it make sense that none of the other bullets (at least some of which would have had to have been lodged in her body) were never found in the fire pit?

Does learning that Kratz suggested she was shot a dozen times change your opinion at all on the blood spatter clean up?

Kratz also suggested her throat was slit in the house when it suited his purposes, and I think we all consider that blatant bull####. I don't think Kratz has much of a clue what really happened.

I totally agree. But, then that gets back to a post I believe I made yesterday where the entire theory on how she was killed came from interviews of Dassey.

So, now we are left with a DA who is full of #### and a Dassey character who has basically given a half dozen plus explanations as to what happened that day.

The only reason for you to believe that she was shot in the garage is because Kratz said so...which was based off of...Dassey's confession(s) four months later and a "magic bullet" that was found four months after intense searches of the trailer and garage that were consented to by Avery.

I believe something happened in the garage because Brendan told his mother he helped Steven clean the garage, and yes, because that's where the bullet was found. Maybe the bullet was planted but I don't see any reason to think that's more plausible than that it was fired in there and just missed until that point. It's been pointed out over and over how much of a goat-ropin' the forensic work and scene controls on this case were, so I don't find it at all beyond comprehension that the bullet was missed until they really got down to brass tacks in the garage. Along with Occam's Razor, I also subscribe to Hanlon's Razor which says "Never attribute to malice that which is sufficiently explained by stupidity." I believe that may be the case here.

Okay...sticking with that...do you believe the body had to be dismembered in order to burn in the pit in such a way as to only have the remains that we saw left?

And if so, where would the blood be for that? Because I don't think you are cleaning that up with bleach on the garage floor. That goes beyond spatter. Not to mention tools/machinery/hacking equipment to do all that.

 

[parrot]

Parrot, sorry if I missed it...but what is your theory on how this all went down?

I don't really have a full theory, I'm just taking things over the hurdles as they come.

Off the cuff; I believe it's possible he killed her in the garage and way too much is being assumed about how much spatter and gore there would be from a .22. I'm saying not that much.

Before yesterday, I was under the impression that the prosecution alleged that there had only been one shot fired into Teresa and that the other 10 or so shell casings were just sort of laying around because it wasn't that unusual for them to be firing a gun or whatever on the property.

Yesterday I believe, Kratz gave an interview where he said that Avery shot Teresa 10-12 times which shocked me.

While I question the ability for Avery to clean up all the blood from a head wound I suppose it is possible.

But is it possible to clean up blood spatter from a dozen or so shots to a body? And does it make sense that none of the other bullets (at least some of which would have had to have been lodged in her body) were never found in the fire pit?

Does learning that Kratz suggested she was shot a dozen times change your opinion at all on the blood spatter clean up?

Kratz also suggested her throat was slit in the house when it suited his purposes, and I think we all consider that blatant bull####. I don't think Kratz has much of a clue what really happened.

I totally agree. But, then that gets back to a post I believe I made yesterday where the entire theory on how she was killed came from interviews of Dassey.

So, now we are left with a DA who is full of #### and a Dassey character who has basically given a half dozen plus explanations as to what happened that day.

The only reason for you to believe that she was shot in the garage is because Kratz said so...which was based off of...Dassey's confession(s) four months later and a "magic bullet" that was found four months after intense searches of the trailer and garage that were consented to by Avery.

I believe something happened in the garage because Brendan told his mother he helped Steven clean the garage, and yes, because that's where the bullet was found. Maybe the bullet was planted but I don't see any reason to think that's more plausible than that it was fired in there and just missed until that point. It's been pointed out over and over how much of a goat-ropin' the forensic work and scene controls on this case were, so I don't find it at all beyond comprehension that the bullet was missed until they really got down to brass tacks in the garage. Along with Occam's Razor, I also subscribe to Hanlon's Razor which says "Never attribute to malice that which is sufficiently explained by stupidity." I believe that may be the case here.

Okay...sticking with that...do you believe the body had to be dismembered in order to burn in the pit in such a way as to only have the remains that we saw left?

And if so, where would the blood be for that? Because I don't think you are cleaning that up with bleach on the garage floor. That goes beyond spatter. Not to mention tools/machinery/hacking equipment to do all that.

Not necessarily. I'm no expert on cremation, but you can make a pretty hot fire with tires and gasoline/diesel.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Maybe he used thermite.