User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:13:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty good? Thought they were supposed to be zero for that whole department...can only lieutenants find clues sitting on floors? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You believe the story about the key? It was weird. But the conspiracy theory is weirder. Weird shit happens Nah. I've read every post you have and now you're clearly blinded by bias. Keep posting but there's simply little weight. Yeah, it's way crazier to believe the key happened to be found by Lenk after multiple no-go searches than planted by him. 
ETA- Lenk found the bullet too. Everyone searching and he finds it...after multiple no-go prior searches. What are those odds? Didn't you win powerball twice last week? Odds of Lenk being on a search are pretty good. How many detectives does the SO have? The Lieutenant in charge of Investigations at my department is at every search we went out on. I'd image it was the same for Lenk's department. Pretty good? Thought they were supposed to be zero for that whole department...can only lieutenants find clues sitting on floors? I think the whole key thing is a big red flag. How does a tiny trailer get searched and searched, tossed and tossed again.. and they don't find the key on the floor... in plain view. Then, two investigators, who weren't even supposed to be part of the investigation find the key. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:16:41 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Strongly disagree to its irrelevance. They had wrongly accused and convicted him in the past. They should have stayed away especially given what was on the line. How did the lady who found the car basically go right to where it was? She wasnt tipped in any way? I find that unlikely. Creepy run ins makes him a murderer? Give me 8 days on a property after a crime and I can make it look like aliens from Mars came and killed her. The whole case was a sham and your bias is showing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The issue is they were not supposed to be, due to conflcts of interest, because others didn't think it preposterous for tampering or any other devious scenario... Now the whole dept is in violation, and Sherlock Lenk is the only one finding DNA evidence on floors. In violation of what? There is no "conflict of interest law". The reason they passed off the investigation was so Avery could not use it as a defense in his trial. They ended up participating, so he ended up using it in his defense. That's it. There was other DNA, and other significant evidence, found by other people in the case, but the documentary didn't really focus on that. I didn't say law, but there were specific directives broken by the Manitowoc police. You cannot ignore that. And the DNA not found was more telling than any DNA evidence 'discovered'. I especially like the touch where the lady went right to the spot in the junkyard where the car was. She also just so happened to be given the only camera for anyone involved in the search. Nice. Speaking of, would you have pursued the ex or roommate further? Other than giving Avery's lawyer something resembling a defense, it doesn't matter what "directives" they broke. The court ignored it as well, because it is irrelevant. What are you talking about "went right to the spot"? They made it sound like a number of volunteers were doing a search over some time. I don't remember anything about the finder taking the photos of it in the yard, I'm sure those were from the cops. The doc doesn't talk at all about the ex-boyfriend and roomates alibi, so we don't know how much they were pursued. It sounded like they didn't live near the compound or were at all familiar with the Avery property, so it doesn't seem logical they would be involved anyways. Whoever killed the girl knew the Avery compound and could be there without alarm. They left out the part about the girl having creepy run-ins with Avery in the past and asking to not be sent out there again, and him calling her multiple times that day. That's huge. Strongly disagree to its irrelevance. They had wrongly accused and convicted him in the past. They should have stayed away especially given what was on the line. How did the lady who found the car basically go right to where it was? She wasnt tipped in any way? I find that unlikely. Creepy run ins makes him a murderer? Give me 8 days on a property after a crime and I can make it look like aliens from Mars came and killed her. The whole case was a sham and your bias is showing. LE doesn't convict anybody. I'm not disagreeing with you that they should have stayed away, just that it doesn't play into a jury trial other than to give the defense something to talk about. All I remember about finding the toyota is the volunteers doing a search, and then a citizen (lady) calling into the Sheriff's Office reporting that they found the car. I don't remember any evidence that she was "tipped". Any connection between your victim and suspect is huge in a murder case. The fact that they left that out shows the bias of the filmmakers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:19:14 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At first I was generally interested in your point of view, now I'm just starting to wonder if you even watched the doc, and if you did it's questionable as to how much you payed attention. The lady that "found" the car was specifically told to go to the Avery lot (where she went right to it), she was the only person given a camera, and she was given a direct line to the sheriff. The ex-bf testified that he was never questioned nor asked for an alibi. The stuff that was left out of the doc has been addressed in here multiple times, and none of it is evidence of him murdering her. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Other than giving Avery's lawyer something resembling a defense, it doesn't matter what "directives" they broke. The court ignored it as well, because it is irrelevant. What are you talking about "went right to the spot"? They made it sound like a number of volunteers were doing a search over some time. I don't remember anything about the finder taking the photos of it in the yard, I'm sure those were from the cops. The doc doesn't talk at all about the ex-boyfriend and roomates alibi, so we don't know how much they were pursued. It sounded like they didn't live near the compound or were at all familiar with the Avery property, so it doesn't seem logical they would be involved anyways. Whoever killed the girl knew the Avery compound and could be there without alarm. They left out the part about the girl having creepy run-ins with Avery in the past and asking to not be sent out there again, and him calling her multiple times that day. That's huge. At first I was generally interested in your point of view, now I'm just starting to wonder if you even watched the doc, and if you did it's questionable as to how much you payed attention. The lady that "found" the car was specifically told to go to the Avery lot (where she went right to it), she was the only person given a camera, and she was given a direct line to the sheriff. The ex-bf testified that he was never questioned nor asked for an alibi. The stuff that was left out of the doc has been addressed in here multiple times, and none of it is evidence of him murdering her. There were volunteers related to the victim crawling all over that lot looking for her. I have no idea what you think this camera issue means. It is all potentially evidence of him murdering her. Almost all murder cases are built on circumstantial evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:19:30 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Not to mention his raging I'm a detective boner. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Other than giving Avery's lawyer something resembling a defense, it doesn't matter what "directives" they broke. The court ignored it as well, because it is irrelevant. What are you talking about "went right to the spot"? They made it sound like a number of volunteers were doing a search over some time. I don't remember anything about the finder taking the photos of it in the yard, I'm sure those were from the cops. The doc doesn't talk at all about the ex-boyfriend and roomates alibi, so we don't know how much they were pursued. It sounded like they didn't live near the compound or were at all familiar with the Avery property, so it doesn't seem logical they would be involved anyways. Whoever killed the girl knew the Avery compound and could be there without alarm. They left out the part about the girl having creepy run-ins with Avery in the past and asking to not be sent out there again, and him calling her multiple times that day. That's huge. At first I was generally interested in your point of view, now I'm just starting to wonder if you even watched the doc, and if you did it's questionable as to how much you payed attention. The lady that "found" the car was specifically told to go to the Avery lot (where she went right to it), she was the only person given a camera, and she was given a direct line to the sheriff. The ex-bf testified that he was never questioned nor asked for an alibi. The stuff that was left out of the doc has been addressed in here multiple times, and none of it is evidence of him murdering her. This. Not to mention his raging I'm a detective boner. Jealous? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:23:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the whole key thing is a big red flag. How does a tiny trailer get searched and searched, tossed and tossed again.. and they don't find the key on the floor... in plain view. Then, two investigators, who weren't even supposed to be part of the investigation find the key. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was weird. But the conspiracy theory is weirder. Weird shit happens Nah. I've read every post you have and now you're clearly blinded by bias. Keep posting but there's simply little weight. Yeah, it's way crazier to believe the key happened to be found by Lenk after multiple no-go searches than planted by him.
ETA- Lenk found the bullet too. Everyone searching and he finds it...after multiple no-go prior searches. What are those odds? Didn't you win powerball twice last week? Odds of Lenk being on a search are pretty good. How many detectives does the SO have? The Lieutenant in charge of Investigations at my department is at every search we went out on. I'd image it was the same for Lenk's department. Pretty good? Thought they were supposed to be zero for that whole department...can only lieutenants find clues sitting on floors? I think the whole key thing is a big red flag. How does a tiny trailer get searched and searched, tossed and tossed again.. and they don't find the key on the floor... in plain view. Then, two investigators, who weren't even supposed to be part of the investigation find the key. It is weird, and it didn't help that Lenk found it, but jumping to "he got the key somehow, then planted it days later in the most suspicious way possible" is not the most logical conclusion. If he somehow got the key and got Avery's DNA onto it (without getting any of his own), why not plant it in the first search? Murder cases almost always have weird unexplained facts. How hard would be be to investigate a burglary if nobody involved told you what happened, and a third party told you about it days after the fact? All sorts of things wouldn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:27:19 AM EDT
[#6]
Creeps me out. The whole, only Steves DNA on this key... WTF? This makes the hood latch, what should be a corner stone piece of evidence... odd. DNA "evidence" is proving to be a bit less certain than once claimed. It is scary to think about how easy it could be to harvest DNA, if in a position of authority over somebody.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:48:51 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryIt is weird, and it didn't help that Lenk found it, but jumping to "he got the key somehow, then planted it days later in the most suspicious way possible" is not the most logical conclusion. If he somehow got the key and got Avery's DNA onto it (without getting any of his own), why not plant it in the first search? Murder cases almost always have weird unexplained facts. How hard would be be to investigate a burglary if nobody involved told you what happened, and a third party told you about it days after the fact? All sorts of things wouldn't make sense. Of course. I'm not saying it was planted, or that Avery didn't kill the girl... I'm just saying it makes you ask questions, and in a murder trial... questions can lead to reasonable doubt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:54:39 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course. I'm not saying it was planted, or that Avery didn't kill the girl... I'm just saying it makes you ask questions, and in a murder trial... questions can lead to reasonable doubt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is weird, and it didn't help that Lenk found it, but jumping to "he got the key somehow, then planted it days later in the most suspicious way possible" is not the most logical conclusion. If he somehow got the key and got Avery's DNA onto it (without getting any of his own), why not plant it in the first search? Murder cases almost always have weird unexplained facts. How hard would be be to investigate a burglary if nobody involved told you what happened, and a third party told you about it days after the fact? All sorts of things wouldn't make sense. Of course. I'm not saying it was planted, or that Avery didn't kill the girl... I'm just saying it makes you ask questions, and in a murder trial... questions can lead to reasonable doubt. All right, fair enough. Clearly the involvement of folks like Lenk and Coburn in the investigation was a weak spot for the prosecution. If they could go back they'd make a better effort to keep them off the scene, but there are benign reasons why things like this happen. You work with what you have once you get to trial time. I didn't see anything that rose to the level of reasonable doubt, and I'm considered pretty liberal about these sorts of things amongst my colleagues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 11:30:20 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LE doesn't convict anybody. I'm not disagreeing with you that they should have stayed away, just that it doesn't play into a jury trial other than to give the defense something to talk about. All I remember about finding the toyota is the volunteers doing a search, and then a citizen (lady) calling into the Sheriff's Office reporting that they found the car. I don't remember any evidence that she was "tipped". Any connection between your victim and suspect is huge in a murder case. The fact that they left that out shows the bias of the filmmakers. 1. It does matter in court when you have a conspiracy/tampering case, and a pretty damn good one 2. Exactly! How about the roommate or giggling, knows-password-to-phone, ex boyfriend then? How about the lying hunters- step dad and older brother in law? They stated under oath they saw Halbach walking to the trailer at 2:30p. The busdriver stated no chance as she saw her at 3:30p 3. Lady that found the car has had multiple looks outside of the documentary. You wouldn't see it |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 11:33:52 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Creeps me out. The whole, only Steves DNA on this key... WTF? This makes the hood latch, what should be a corner stone piece of evidence... odd. DNA "evidence" is proving to be a bit less certain than once claimed. It is scary to think about how easy it could be to harvest DNA, if in a position of authority over somebody. DNA evidence is far less than your friendly CSI shows would like you to believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 11:41:50 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All right, fair enough. Clearly the involvement of folks like Lenk and Coburn in the investigation was a weak spot for the prosecution. If they could go back they'd make a better effort to keep them off the scene, but there are benign reasons why things like this happen. You work with what you have once you get to trial time. I didn't see anything that rose to the level of reasonable doubt, and I'm considered pretty liberal about these sorts of things amongst my colleagues. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is weird, and it didn't help that Lenk found it, but jumping to "he got the key somehow, then planted it days later in the most suspicious way possible" is not the most logical conclusion. If he somehow got the key and got Avery's DNA onto it (without getting any of his own), why not plant it in the first search? Murder cases almost always have weird unexplained facts. How hard would be be to investigate a burglary if nobody involved told you what happened, and a third party told you about it days after the fact? All sorts of things wouldn't make sense. Of course. I'm not saying it was planted, or that Avery didn't kill the girl... I'm just saying it makes you ask questions, and in a murder trial... questions can lead to reasonable doubt. All right, fair enough. Clearly the involvement of folks like Lenk and Coburn in the investigation was a weak spot for the prosecution. If they could go back they'd make a better effort to keep them off the scene, but there are benign reasons why things like this happen. You work with what you have once you get to trial time. I didn't see anything that rose to the level of reasonable doubt, and I'm considered pretty liberal about these sorts of things amongst my colleagues. And that's all it takes. A few people like you with blinders on going against the grain convincing a few others of guilt. Now we have a lifer in prison while the jury and prosecution don't celebrate finding the truth but attaining a conviction. Your statements may be most damning your already befuddling trade. We have clear tampering on a major level from a police force that had high hate and ambition to convict (is any of the major evidence found without Lenk? Hmmmm). You have stated that multiple times these cases arent clean. You haven't mentioned once thinking about the ex, roommate, lying relatives as possible suspects (did you know the step dad had MULTIPLE assault charges against women from his recent past?). Do you bait and coerce retarded kids when you're trying to gain a confession? Do you principally care about truth or conviction? Are you swayed by the DA's drive toward guilty and compromise your trade to go along? I'm fairly rhetorical in the above. Americans in the Vietnam war may still hate Vietnamese. WWII? Probably not German and Japanese fans. Through experience and time we build our bias through experience. You seem to dislike the convicted even when a 1/3 of the defense evidence would lend itself alone to reasonable doubt...then you add in the other 2/3 to shut the case against Avery and find the real killer(s) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 2:33:18 PM EDT
[#12]
Detective Fivepoint hasn't watched the documentary or was sleeping through parts of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 2:47:25 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And that's all it takes. A few people like you with blinders on going against the grain convincing a few others of guilt. Now we have a lifer in prison while the jury and prosecution don't celebrate finding the truth but attaining a conviction. Your statements may be most damning your already befuddling trade. We have clear tampering on a major level from a police force that had high hate and ambition to convict (is any of the major evidence found without Lenk? Hmmmm). You have stated that multiple times these cases arent clean. You haven't mentioned once thinking about the ex, roommate, lying relatives as possible suspects (did you know the step dad had MULTIPLE assault charges against women from his recent past?). Do you bait and coerce retarded kids when you're trying to gain a confession? Do you principally care about truth or conviction? Are you swayed by the DA's drive toward guilty and compromise your trade to go along? I'm fairly rhetorical in the above. Americans in the Vietnam war may still hate Vietnamese. WWII? Probably not German and Japanese fans. Through experience and time we build our bias through experience. You seem to dislike the convicted even when a 1/3 of the defense evidence would lend itself alone to reasonable doubt...then you add in the other 2/3 to shut the case against Avery and find the real killer(s) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is weird, and it didn't help that Lenk found it, but jumping to "he got the key somehow, then planted it days later in the most suspicious way possible" is not the most logical conclusion. If he somehow got the key and got Avery's DNA onto it (without getting any of his own), why not plant it in the first search? Murder cases almost always have weird unexplained facts. How hard would be be to investigate a burglary if nobody involved told you what happened, and a third party told you about it days after the fact? All sorts of things wouldn't make sense. Of course. I'm not saying it was planted, or that Avery didn't kill the girl... I'm just saying it makes you ask questions, and in a murder trial... questions can lead to reasonable doubt. All right, fair enough. Clearly the involvement of folks like Lenk and Coburn in the investigation was a weak spot for the prosecution. If they could go back they'd make a better effort to keep them off the scene, but there are benign reasons why things like this happen. You work with what you have once you get to trial time. I didn't see anything that rose to the level of reasonable doubt, and I'm considered pretty liberal about these sorts of things amongst my colleagues. And that's all it takes. A few people like you with blinders on going against the grain convincing a few others of guilt. Now we have a lifer in prison while the jury and prosecution don't celebrate finding the truth but attaining a conviction. Your statements may be most damning your already befuddling trade. We have clear tampering on a major level from a police force that had high hate and ambition to convict (is any of the major evidence found without Lenk? Hmmmm). You have stated that multiple times these cases arent clean. You haven't mentioned once thinking about the ex, roommate, lying relatives as possible suspects (did you know the step dad had MULTIPLE assault charges against women from his recent past?). Do you bait and coerce retarded kids when you're trying to gain a confession? Do you principally care about truth or conviction? Are you swayed by the DA's drive toward guilty and compromise your trade to go along? I'm fairly rhetorical in the above. Americans in the Vietnam war may still hate Vietnamese. WWII? Probably not German and Japanese fans. Through experience and time we build our bias through experience. You seem to dislike the convicted even when a 1/3 of the defense evidence would lend itself alone to reasonable doubt...then you add in the other 2/3 to shut the case against Avery and find the real killer(s) lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 2:53:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Detective Fivepoint hasn't watched the documentary or was sleeping through parts of it. I had a decent wine buzz through some of it but I payed pretty good attention. Alot of people here are latching onto facts that don't really matter in a court of law, or that are easily twisted into a conspiracy when looked at in a vacuum. Avery did it, the cops made it hard on themselves and didn't follow best practices in every situation, but that happens whenever small department's investigations get thrown into the spotlight like this. He's still guilty, and reasonable doubt does not mean 'no doubt'. You can have doubts and questions and still correctly find him guilty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:27:50 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had a decent wine buzz through some of it but I payed pretty good attention. Alot of people here are latching onto facts that don't really matter in a court of law, or that are easily twisted into a conspiracy when looked at in a vacuum. Avery did it, the cops made it hard on themselves and didn't follow best practices in every situation, but that happens whenever small department's investigations get thrown into the spotlight like this. He's still guilty, and reasonable doubt does not mean 'no doubt'. You can have doubts and questions and still correctly find him guilty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Detective Fivepoint hasn't watched the documentary or was sleeping through parts of it. I had a decent wine buzz through some of it but I payed pretty good attention. Alot of people here are latching onto facts that don't really matter in a court of law, or that are easily twisted into a conspiracy when looked at in a vacuum. Avery did it, the cops made it hard on themselves and didn't follow best practices in every situation, but that happens whenever small department's investigations get thrown into the spotlight like this. He's still guilty, and reasonable doubt does not mean 'no doubt'. You can have doubts and questions and still correctly find him guilty. Dupe |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:29:05 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
'Didn't follow best practices in every situation' Lol You've gone from entertaining to completely discreditable in one page. Congrats. What a joke... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Detective Fivepoint hasn't watched the documentary or was sleeping through parts of it. I had a decent wine buzz through some of it but I payed pretty good attention. Alot of people here are latching onto facts that don't really matter in a court of law, or that are easily twisted into a conspiracy when looked at in a vacuum. Avery did it, the cops made it hard on themselves and didn't follow best practices in every situation, but that happens whenever small department's investigations get thrown into the spotlight like this. He's still guilty, and reasonable doubt does not mean 'no doubt'. You can have doubts and questions and still correctly find him guilty. 'Didn't follow best practices in every situation' Lol You've gone from entertaining to completely discreditable in one page. Congrats. What a joke... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 3:52:01 PM EDT
[#17]
I really don't get the 3 different burn areas.
Can anybody come up with a plausible explanation for that? Especially with the final one being in his yard. That and the key are the things that seem out of place most. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 4:09:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had a decent wine buzz through some of it but I payed pretty good attention. Alot of people here are latching onto facts that don't really matter in a court of law, or that are easily twisted into a conspiracy when looked at in a vacuum. Avery did it, the cops made it hard on themselves and didn't follow best practices in every situation, but that happens whenever small department's investigations get thrown into the spotlight like this. He's still guilty, and reasonable doubt does not mean 'no doubt'. You can have doubts and questions and still correctly find him guilty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Detective Fivepoint hasn't watched the documentary or was sleeping through parts of it. I had a decent wine buzz through some of it but I payed pretty good attention. Alot of people here are latching onto facts that don't really matter in a court of law, or that are easily twisted into a conspiracy when looked at in a vacuum. Avery did it, the cops made it hard on themselves and didn't follow best practices in every situation, but that happens whenever small department's investigations get thrown into the spotlight like this. He's still guilty, and reasonable doubt does not mean 'no doubt'. You can have doubts and questions and still correctly find him guilty. Say he truly did do it, it is still an extreme miscarriage of justice to convict someone with so much evidence to the contrary. Personally it just seems stupid to have played out the way they claimed it. He could have crushed that car and buried it in the ground yet somehow it was parked along the first row of cars on the ridge? Her blood was all over the inside of the car yet once she was killed she never was put into it? His blood was in the car in one tiny location, and a vial of his blood had been broken into in evidence? Her body could have been dumped into the smelter on site, but it was apparently burned in a barrel behind his house? It just makes no sense, how would the key end up in his house if he drove the car to a dump site? Why bring that key back? How did he get finger blood in the car but no fingerprints? Wouldn't it makes more sense that a guy whose job it is to dismantle and destroy cars would have gotten rid of it within a few days of murdering her? Wouldn't it make sense that a guy who has a smelter would just dump her body into it and let it run instead of trying to burn her in a fire pit? Maybe he did it, I don't know. What I do know is there is enough doubt that I wouldn't be able to convict. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 5:05:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Say he truly did do it, it is still an extreme miscarriage of justice to convict someone with so much evidence to the contrary. Personally it just seems stupid to have played out the way they claimed it. He could have crushed that car and buried it in the ground yet somehow it was parked along the first row of cars on the ridge? Her blood was all over the inside of the car yet once she was killed she never was put into it? His blood was in the car in one tiny location, and a vial of his blood had been broken into in evidence? Her body could have been dumped into the smelter on site, but it was apparently burned in a barrel behind his house? It just makes no sense, how would the key end up in his house if he drove the car to a dump site? Why bring that key back? How did he get finger blood in the car but no fingerprints? Wouldn't it makes more sense that a guy whose job it is to dismantle and destroy cars would have gotten rid of it within a few days of murdering her? Wouldn't it make sense that a guy who has a smelter would just dump her body into it and let it run instead of trying to burn her in a fire pit? Maybe he did it, I don't know. What I do know is there is enough doubt that I wouldn't be able to convict. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Detective Fivepoint hasn't watched the documentary or was sleeping through parts of it. I had a decent wine buzz through some of it but I payed pretty good attention. Alot of people here are latching onto facts that don't really matter in a court of law, or that are easily twisted into a conspiracy when looked at in a vacuum. Avery did it, the cops made it hard on themselves and didn't follow best practices in every situation, but that happens whenever small department's investigations get thrown into the spotlight like this. He's still guilty, and reasonable doubt does not mean 'no doubt'. You can have doubts and questions and still correctly find him guilty. Say he truly did do it, it is still an extreme miscarriage of justice to convict someone with so much evidence to the contrary. Personally it just seems stupid to have played out the way they claimed it. He could have crushed that car and buried it in the ground yet somehow it was parked along the first row of cars on the ridge? Her blood was all over the inside of the car yet once she was killed she never was put into it? His blood was in the car in one tiny location, and a vial of his blood had been broken into in evidence? Her body could have been dumped into the smelter on site, but it was apparently burned in a barrel behind his house? It just makes no sense, how would the key end up in his house if he drove the car to a dump site? Why bring that key back? How did he get finger blood in the car but no fingerprints? Wouldn't it makes more sense that a guy whose job it is to dismantle and destroy cars would have gotten rid of it within a few days of murdering her? Wouldn't it make sense that a guy who has a smelter would just dump her body into it and let it run instead of trying to burn her in a fire pit? Maybe he did it, I don't know. What I do know is there is enough doubt that I wouldn't be able to convict. Hang tight...Fivepoint will be in with all his lucid glory to explain everything |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 5:09:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Say he truly did do it, it is still an extreme miscarriage of justice to convict someone with so much evidence to the contrary. Personally it just seems stupid to have played out the way they claimed it. He could have crushed that car and buried it in the ground yet somehow it was parked along the first row of cars on the ridge? Her blood was all over the inside of the car yet once she was killed she never was put into it? His blood was in the car in one tiny location, and a vial of his blood had been broken into in evidence? Her body could have been dumped into the smelter on site, but it was apparently burned in a barrel behind his house? It just makes no sense, how would the key end up in his house if he drove the car to a dump site? Why bring that key back? How did he get finger blood in the car but no fingerprints? Wouldn't it makes more sense that a guy whose job it is to dismantle and destroy cars would have gotten rid of it within a few days of murdering her? Wouldn't it make sense that a guy who has a smelter would just dump her body into it and let it run instead of trying to burn her in a fire pit? Maybe he did it, I don't know. What I do know is there is enough doubt that I wouldn't be able to convict. After watching most of the doc, still need to finish episode ten. I do not see why everyone was making such a big deal out of the fact that he had a smelter and car crusher. He obviously wasn't a supervillian as far as intelligence. Isn't a far stretch to say they guy was too stupid to cover every single aspect of a crime he might have committed even with tools your average killer doesn't have access to, I mean his whole family seemed like retards. The no finger prints in the car thing actually makes a lot of sense. People seem to have this thought pattern that they should be everywhere. I had my apartment broken into in college and a detective came out and explained how little help finger prints are in the big picture. A lot more surfaces than you realize aren't going to pick up usable prints. I had a desk that had my computer screen on it, next to the desk was the tower, next to that was a speaker that was next to my tv stand that had my Playstation. He humored me and dusted my desk, the speakers (would would have been needed to be moved to take my tower and PS2), and the tv stand. There wasn't a single print on any of it, from anyone, and I had used the desk every single day, but it had a fine grain painted surface that didn't pick up prints. Same with the wood grain on my speakers, nothing. You think vinyl and cloth interior is going to hold many useful prints? It does not surprise me that blood might be the only thing that transferred from Avery if he had gotten in the car. Sorry I haven't flipped through every page here. The defense didn't point the finger at anyone else that could have committed the crime, they just stated an unknown person must have done it and known the police would tunnel vision at Avery right? Did they try and implicate the teens older brother and (I think step his step father)? They didn't really show what capacity the defense might have used their whereabouts to instill doubt. Did the defense ever try to establish where Officer Lenk would have gotten the keys he supposedly planted in the first place? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 5:25:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After watching most of the doc, still need to finish episode ten. I do not see why everyone was making such a big deal out of the fact that he had a smelter and car crusher. He obviously wasn't a supervillian as far as intelligence. Isn't a far stretch to say they guy was too stupid to cover every single aspect of a crime he might have committed even with tools your average killer doesn't have access to, I mean his whole family seemed like retards. The no finger prints in the car thing actually makes a lot of sense. People seem to have this thought pattern that they should be everywhere. I had my apartment broken into in college and a detective came out and explained how little help finger prints are in the big picture. A lot more surfaces than you realize aren't going to pick up usable prints. I had a desk that had my computer screen on it, next to the desk was the tower, next to that was a speaker that was next to my tv stand that had my Playstation. He humored me and dusted my desk, the speakers (would would have been needed to be moved to take my tower and PS2), and the tv stand. There wasn't a single print on any of it, from anyone, and I had used the desk every single day, but it had a fine grain painted surface that didn't pick up prints. Same with the wood grain on my speakers, nothing. You think vinyl and cloth interior is going to hold many useful prints? It does not surprise me that blood might be the only thing that transferred from Avery if he had gotten in the car. Sorry I haven't flipped through every page here. The defense didn't point the finger at anyone else that could have committed the crime, they just stated an unknown person must have done it and known the police would tunnel vision at Avery right? Did they try and implicate the teens older brother and (I think step his step father)? They didn't really show what capacity the defense might have used their whereabouts to instill doubt. Did the defense ever try to establish where Officer Lenk would have gotten the keys he supposedly planted in the first place? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Say he truly did do it, it is still an extreme miscarriage of justice to convict someone with so much evidence to the contrary. Personally it just seems stupid to have played out the way they claimed it. He could have crushed that car and buried it in the ground yet somehow it was parked along the first row of cars on the ridge? Her blood was all over the inside of the car yet once she was killed she never was put into it? His blood was in the car in one tiny location, and a vial of his blood had been broken into in evidence? Her body could have been dumped into the smelter on site, but it was apparently burned in a barrel behind his house? It just makes no sense, how would the key end up in his house if he drove the car to a dump site? Why bring that key back? How did he get finger blood in the car but no fingerprints? Wouldn't it makes more sense that a guy whose job it is to dismantle and destroy cars would have gotten rid of it within a few days of murdering her? Wouldn't it make sense that a guy who has a smelter would just dump her body into it and let it run instead of trying to burn her in a fire pit? Maybe he did it, I don't know. What I do know is there is enough doubt that I wouldn't be able to convict. After watching most of the doc, still need to finish episode ten. I do not see why everyone was making such a big deal out of the fact that he had a smelter and car crusher. He obviously wasn't a supervillian as far as intelligence. Isn't a far stretch to say they guy was too stupid to cover every single aspect of a crime he might have committed even with tools your average killer doesn't have access to, I mean his whole family seemed like retards. The no finger prints in the car thing actually makes a lot of sense. People seem to have this thought pattern that they should be everywhere. I had my apartment broken into in college and a detective came out and explained how little help finger prints are in the big picture. A lot more surfaces than you realize aren't going to pick up usable prints. I had a desk that had my computer screen on it, next to the desk was the tower, next to that was a speaker that was next to my tv stand that had my Playstation. He humored me and dusted my desk, the speakers (would would have been needed to be moved to take my tower and PS2), and the tv stand. There wasn't a single print on any of it, from anyone, and I had used the desk every single day, but it had a fine grain painted surface that didn't pick up prints. Same with the wood grain on my speakers, nothing. You think vinyl and cloth interior is going to hold many useful prints? It does not surprise me that blood might be the only thing that transferred from Avery if he had gotten in the car. Sorry I haven't flipped through every page here. The defense didn't point the finger at anyone else that could have committed the crime, they just stated an unknown person must have done it and known the police would tunnel vision at Avery right? Did they try and implicate the teens older brother and (I think step his step father)? They didn't really show what capacity the defense might have used their whereabouts to instill doubt. Did the defense ever try to establish where Officer Lenk would have gotten the keys he supposedly planted in the first place? sribble1, you could learn a lot from this guy's critical thinking skills |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 5:29:57 PM EDT
[#22]
I'm not done with it yet either but if you're going to claim that blood from his finger was on the car, then why no fingerprint on the metal door handle, blood on the car key, anywhere else? I understand that fingerprints are very limited on many surfaces, but if he didn't have gloves on and was able to bleed from his finger onto the car there should be some form of print somewhere on the metal glass etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 5:35:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
sribble1, you could learn a lot from this guy's critical thinking skills Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Say he truly did do it, it is still an extreme miscarriage of justice to convict someone with so much evidence to the contrary. Personally it just seems stupid to have played out the way they claimed it. He could have crushed that car and buried it in the ground yet somehow it was parked along the first row of cars on the ridge? Her blood was all over the inside of the car yet once she was killed she never was put into it? His blood was in the car in one tiny location, and a vial of his blood had been broken into in evidence? Her body could have been dumped into the smelter on site, but it was apparently burned in a barrel behind his house? It just makes no sense, how would the key end up in his house if he drove the car to a dump site? Why bring that key back? How did he get finger blood in the car but no fingerprints? Wouldn't it makes more sense that a guy whose job it is to dismantle and destroy cars would have gotten rid of it within a few days of murdering her? Wouldn't it make sense that a guy who has a smelter would just dump her body into it and let it run instead of trying to burn her in a fire pit? Maybe he did it, I don't know. What I do know is there is enough doubt that I wouldn't be able to convict. After watching most of the doc, still need to finish episode ten. I do not see why everyone was making such a big deal out of the fact that he had a smelter and car crusher. He obviously wasn't a supervillian as far as intelligence. Isn't a far stretch to say they guy was too stupid to cover every single aspect of a crime he might have committed even with tools your average killer doesn't have access to, I mean his whole family seemed like retards. The no finger prints in the car thing actually makes a lot of sense. People seem to have this thought pattern that they should be everywhere. I had my apartment broken into in college and a detective came out and explained how little help finger prints are in the big picture. A lot more surfaces than you realize aren't going to pick up usable prints. I had a desk that had my computer screen on it, next to the desk was the tower, next to that was a speaker that was next to my tv stand that had my Playstation. He humored me and dusted my desk, the speakers (would would have been needed to be moved to take my tower and PS2), and the tv stand. There wasn't a single print on any of it, from anyone, and I had used the desk every single day, but it had a fine grain painted surface that didn't pick up prints. Same with the wood grain on my speakers, nothing. You think vinyl and cloth interior is going to hold many useful prints? It does not surprise me that blood might be the only thing that transferred from Avery if he had gotten in the car. Sorry I haven't flipped through every page here. The defense didn't point the finger at anyone else that could have committed the crime, they just stated an unknown person must have done it and known the police would tunnel vision at Avery right? Did they try and implicate the teens older brother and (I think step his step father)? They didn't really show what capacity the defense might have used their whereabouts to instill doubt. Did the defense ever try to establish where Officer Lenk would have gotten the keys he supposedly planted in the first place? sribble1, you could learn a lot from this guy's critical thinking skills Spot on. Speculative thoughts against 1/40th of the evidence and you laud him. Whom does that speak more towards, investigator? The defense only must prove doubt on a supposed innocent man. Your bias runs deep, inspector. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 6:21:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is it with you guys from Wisconsin defending the guilty verdict? Are you trying to save face for your state or what, because it seems like everyone with WI in their profile is convinced that Avery is guilty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the heads up, I'll have to watch this. I remember hearing about it on the local news, and all I remembered is that a guy who was falsely convicted was let out of jail only to commit a brutal murder. So this should be interesting. It's quite interesting and well done, especially since it was a local fiasco. The truth is that it is very one sided and skews the truth. It is not a documentary, it is propaganda. View it as such... This man was wrongly accused and jailed for the rape, but he did commit murder and has been correctly imprisoned for that crime. What is it with you guys from Wisconsin defending the guilty verdict? Are you trying to save face for your state or what, because it seems like everyone with WI in their profile is convinced that Avery is guilty. I'd like to go through the forensic jacket before giving an opinion. CSI is a complex field, and most of what I'm reading here in the thread is pretty simplistic and sometimes silly. I'd like to see how evidence was collected, stored, tracked, and tested. I'd also like to see HOW they worked and documented their scene. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 6:27:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I tried to watch the show and just could not get into it. Boring as hell. Fucked up story yes, but extremely boring to watch. Fucked up...yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 6:29:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After watching most of the doc, still need to finish episode ten. I do not see why everyone was making such a big deal out of the fact that he had a smelter and car crusher. He obviously wasn't a supervillian as far as intelligence. Isn't a far stretch to say they guy was too stupid to cover every single aspect of a crime he might have committed even with tools your average killer doesn't have access to, I mean his whole family seemed like retards. The no finger prints in the car thing actually makes a lot of sense. People seem to have this thought pattern that they should be everywhere. I had my apartment broken into in college and a detective came out and explained how little help finger prints are in the big picture. A lot more surfaces than you realize aren't going to pick up usable prints. I had a desk that had my computer screen on it, next to the desk was the tower, next to that was a speaker that was next to my tv stand that had my Playstation. He humored me and dusted my desk, the speakers (would would have been needed to be moved to take my tower and PS2), and the tv stand. There wasn't a single print on any of it, from anyone, and I had used the desk every single day, but it had a fine grain painted surface that didn't pick up prints. Same with the wood grain on my speakers, nothing. You think vinyl and cloth interior is going to hold many useful prints? It does not surprise me that blood might be the only thing that transferred from Avery if he had gotten in the car. Sorry I haven't flipped through every page here. The defense didn't point the finger at anyone else that could have committed the crime, they just stated an unknown person must have done it and known the police would tunnel vision at Avery right? Did they try and implicate the teens older brother and (I think step his step father)? They didn't really show what capacity the defense might have used their whereabouts to instill doubt. Did the defense ever try to establish where Officer Lenk would have gotten the keys he supposedly planted in the first place? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Say he truly did do it, it is still an extreme miscarriage of justice to convict someone with so much evidence to the contrary. Personally it just seems stupid to have played out the way they claimed it. He could have crushed that car and buried it in the ground yet somehow it was parked along the first row of cars on the ridge? Her blood was all over the inside of the car yet once she was killed she never was put into it? His blood was in the car in one tiny location, and a vial of his blood had been broken into in evidence? Her body could have been dumped into the smelter on site, but it was apparently burned in a barrel behind his house? It just makes no sense, how would the key end up in his house if he drove the car to a dump site? Why bring that key back? How did he get finger blood in the car but no fingerprints? Wouldn't it makes more sense that a guy whose job it is to dismantle and destroy cars would have gotten rid of it within a few days of murdering her? Wouldn't it make sense that a guy who has a smelter would just dump her body into it and let it run instead of trying to burn her in a fire pit? Maybe he did it, I don't know. What I do know is there is enough doubt that I wouldn't be able to convict. After watching most of the doc, still need to finish episode ten. I do not see why everyone was making such a big deal out of the fact that he had a smelter and car crusher. He obviously wasn't a supervillian as far as intelligence. Isn't a far stretch to say they guy was too stupid to cover every single aspect of a crime he might have committed even with tools your average killer doesn't have access to, I mean his whole family seemed like retards. The no finger prints in the car thing actually makes a lot of sense. People seem to have this thought pattern that they should be everywhere. I had my apartment broken into in college and a detective came out and explained how little help finger prints are in the big picture. A lot more surfaces than you realize aren't going to pick up usable prints. I had a desk that had my computer screen on it, next to the desk was the tower, next to that was a speaker that was next to my tv stand that had my Playstation. He humored me and dusted my desk, the speakers (would would have been needed to be moved to take my tower and PS2), and the tv stand. There wasn't a single print on any of it, from anyone, and I had used the desk every single day, but it had a fine grain painted surface that didn't pick up prints. Same with the wood grain on my speakers, nothing. You think vinyl and cloth interior is going to hold many useful prints? It does not surprise me that blood might be the only thing that transferred from Avery if he had gotten in the car. Sorry I haven't flipped through every page here. The defense didn't point the finger at anyone else that could have committed the crime, they just stated an unknown person must have done it and known the police would tunnel vision at Avery right? Did they try and implicate the teens older brother and (I think step his step father)? They didn't really show what capacity the defense might have used their whereabouts to instill doubt. Did the defense ever try to establish where Officer Lenk would have gotten the keys he supposedly planted in the first place? It was stated that due to Third party liability law, the defense was not allowed to implicate anyone else besides Brendon Dassey. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 7:24:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jealous? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Other than giving Avery's lawyer something resembling a defense, it doesn't matter what "directives" they broke. The court ignored it as well, because it is irrelevant. What are you talking about "went right to the spot"? They made it sound like a number of volunteers were doing a search over some time. I don't remember anything about the finder taking the photos of it in the yard, I'm sure those were from the cops. The doc doesn't talk at all about the ex-boyfriend and roomates alibi, so we don't know how much they were pursued. It sounded like they didn't live near the compound or were at all familiar with the Avery property, so it doesn't seem logical they would be involved anyways. Whoever killed the girl knew the Avery compound and could be there without alarm. They left out the part about the girl having creepy run-ins with Avery in the past and asking to not be sent out there again, and him calling her multiple times that day. That's huge. At first I was generally interested in your point of view, now I'm just starting to wonder if you even watched the doc, and if you did it's questionable as to how much you payed attention. The lady that "found" the car was specifically told to go to the Avery lot (where she went right to it), she was the only person given a camera, and she was given a direct line to the sheriff. The ex-bf testified that he was never questioned nor asked for an alibi. The stuff that was left out of the doc has been addressed in here multiple times, and none of it is evidence of him murdering her. This. Not to mention his raging I'm a detective boner. Jealous? Yeah. Totes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2016 6:50:38 PM EDT
[#28]
In lighter news, former WWE/WCW wrestler Sean Waltman (X-Pac) tweeted that he would go visit Brandon Dassey in prison
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheRealXPac/status/687785258297720833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2016 7:24:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In lighter news, former WWE/WCW wrestler Sean Waltman (X-Pac) tweeted that he would go visit Brandon Dassey in prison https://mobile.twitter.com/TheRealXPac/status/687785258297720833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Dassey should be visiting him out of prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2016 7:34:23 PM EDT
[#30]
Anyone else find it off that her brother seems to be a complete media whore and had his fingers into way too much for the average citizen/victim family?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2016 7:42:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone else find it off that her brother seems to be a complete media whore and had his fingers into way too much for the average citizen/victim family? Yes, absolutely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2016 7:46:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boring...no Fucked up...yes Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I tried to watch the show and just could not get into it. Boring as hell. Fucked up story yes, but extremely boring to watch. Fucked up...yes I watched the first episode and thought it reminded me of Detective TV...never went back but have been reading the online stories... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2016 9:33:24 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, absolutely. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone else find it off that her brother seems to be a complete media whore and had his fingers into way too much for the average citizen/victim family? Yes, absolutely. Shady, even slips at one point alluding to closure and an end...but with her alive of course... Shady kid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2016 9:11:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Well, here's potentially more against the guilty verdict. Sorry Wisconsiners...you got this one wrong.
The keys were very likely planted |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 12:12:45 AM EDT
[#35]
I was creeped out in the footage of the search when the one woman says to take all of his shoes for other possible burglaries in the area.
Wow. Talk about a hard-on for that guy. If these two hippy-dippy liberal film makers can make the entire state of WI look retarded from top to bottom, left to right - they need to become lawyers and can represent me anytime! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 1:43:40 AM EDT
[#36]
I think Avery did it, but I'm not sure about Dassey. What I do know is that the prosecutions theory of what happened is completely fucked. Not only was it different for each trial (which I think is bullshit), but it didn't make any sense in Avery's trial and Dassey's confessions were inconsistent and suspect. There is far to much physical evidence missing for either theory to make sense not to mention evidence being where it shouldn't. I'm honestly surprised and frankly a bit alarmed that they were convicted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 2:42:14 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, here's potentially more against the guilty verdict. Sorry Wisconsiners...you got this one wrong. The keys were very likely planted Yep. That just adds to it. Like I said, I'm not defending Avery as a person, he very well could have killed the girl. However, there are some serious questions as to how that key got there, the state of the key, and who found the key. I think there was some serious tampering in this case to get the conviction whether he is guilty or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 4:03:44 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, here's potentially more against the guilty verdict. Sorry Wisconsiners...you got this one wrong. The keys were very likely planted lol... 'internet sleuths from the like of reddit proving his innocence??? wow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 8:43:57 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol... 'internet sleuths from the like of reddit proving his innocence??? wow. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, here's potentially more against the guilty verdict. Sorry Wisconsiners...you got this one wrong. The keys were very likely planted lol... 'internet sleuths from the like of reddit proving his innocence??? wow. You clearly haven't put a lot of time into this thread or the case. Your opinion isn't weighty. Turn left. Your dog needs your love. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 11:30:33 PM EDT
[#40]
I'm only on episode 5 or 6. I know they are going to get to a verdict eventually...
I think he's guilty of the crime, but the evidence tampering and his nephews forced testimony, I would find him not guilty. Place the keys and the blood? Okay. But how did they get the burned human remains there on the right day for a bonfire? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2016 1:13:17 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm only on episode 5 or 6. I know they are going to get to a verdict eventually... I think he's guilty of the crime, but the evidence tampering and his nephews forced testimony, I would find him not guilty. Place the keys and the blood? Okay. But how did they get the burned human remains there on the right day for a bonfire? He had bonfires often |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2016 1:29:49 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was stated that due to Third party liability law, the defense was not allowed to implicate anyone else besides Brendon Dassey. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Say he truly did do it, it is still an extreme miscarriage of justice to convict someone with so much evidence to the contrary. Personally it just seems stupid to have played out the way they claimed it. He could have crushed that car and buried it in the ground yet somehow it was parked along the first row of cars on the ridge? Her blood was all over the inside of the car yet once she was killed she never was put into it? His blood was in the car in one tiny location, and a vial of his blood had been broken into in evidence? Her body could have been dumped into the smelter on site, but it was apparently burned in a barrel behind his house? It just makes no sense, how would the key end up in his house if he drove the car to a dump site? Why bring that key back? How did he get finger blood in the car but no fingerprints? Wouldn't it makes more sense that a guy whose job it is to dismantle and destroy cars would have gotten rid of it within a few days of murdering her? Wouldn't it make sense that a guy who has a smelter would just dump her body into it and let it run instead of trying to burn her in a fire pit? Maybe he did it, I don't know. What I do know is there is enough doubt that I wouldn't be able to convict. After watching most of the doc, still need to finish episode ten. I do not see why everyone was making such a big deal out of the fact that he had a smelter and car crusher. He obviously wasn't a supervillian as far as intelligence. Isn't a far stretch to say they guy was too stupid to cover every single aspect of a crime he might have committed even with tools your average killer doesn't have access to, I mean his whole family seemed like retards. The no finger prints in the car thing actually makes a lot of sense. People seem to have this thought pattern that they should be everywhere. I had my apartment broken into in college and a detective came out and explained how little help finger prints are in the big picture. A lot more surfaces than you realize aren't going to pick up usable prints. I had a desk that had my computer screen on it, next to the desk was the tower, next to that was a speaker that was next to my tv stand that had my Playstation. He humored me and dusted my desk, the speakers (would would have been needed to be moved to take my tower and PS2), and the tv stand. There wasn't a single print on any of it, from anyone, and I had used the desk every single day, but it had a fine grain painted surface that didn't pick up prints. Same with the wood grain on my speakers, nothing. You think vinyl and cloth interior is going to hold many useful prints? It does not surprise me that blood might be the only thing that transferred from Avery if he had gotten in the car. Sorry I haven't flipped through every page here. The defense didn't point the finger at anyone else that could have committed the crime, they just stated an unknown person must have done it and known the police would tunnel vision at Avery right? Did they try and implicate the teens older brother and (I think step his step father)? They didn't really show what capacity the defense might have used their whereabouts to instill doubt. Did the defense ever try to establish where Officer Lenk would have gotten the keys he supposedly planted in the first place? It was stated that due to Third party liability law, the defense was not allowed to implicate anyone else besides Brendon Dassey. This. Judge gave instructions to council that the Court could not and would not accept any presentation on the part of the defense of another party being accused of the murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2016 1:33:20 AM EDT
[#43]
Creepy murder story.
Years ago I used to work in Calumet county. As kids we used to go to Beernsten's candy shop in Manitowoc for ice cream sundaes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2016 1:43:27 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You would think a 6 year old car key would show some wear <a href="http://s99.photobucket.com/user/rgb03/media/image.jpg1_zps24lsf6gc.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l302/rgb03/image.jpg1_zps24lsf6gc.jpg</a>t It was scrubbed. The blood on the seat and dash look like they were placed with a swab too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2016 3:29:18 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was scrubbed. The blood on the seat and dash look like they were placed with a swab too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You would think a 6 year old car key would show some wear <a href="http://s99.photobucket.com/user/rgb03/media/image.jpg1_zps24lsf6gc.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l302/rgb03/image.jpg1_zps24lsf6gc.jpg</a>t It was scrubbed. The blood on the seat and dash look like they were placed with a swab too. I wonder if those blood samples could be tested for the presence of cotton fiber or if someone planted it while wearing latex gloves... just a thought. ETA: I don't know anything about science or forensics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2016 4:56:00 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You clearly haven't put a lot of time into this thread or the case. Your opinion isn't weighty. Turn left. Your dog needs your love. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, here's potentially more against the guilty verdict. Sorry Wisconsiners...you got this one wrong. The keys were very likely planted lol... 'internet sleuths from the like of reddit proving his innocence??? wow. You clearly haven't put a lot of time into this thread or the case. Your opinion isn't weighty. Turn left. Your dog needs your love. Just because I don't agree with you, people on the Internet, SJWs, film makers with an agenda, or Avery doesn't mean I havent put time into the thread or show. I've watched the entire series, I've been in this thread since page three or four. Now we can agree to disagree, and that's fine, but I hold to my opinions that Avery is a psycho murderer and we don't have a clear picture of what happened. Was the investigation into his murder perfect? No, but I'm not sure how many murder investigations go as planned. The extent of my knowledge with murder investigations coincide with the first 48 tv show. You can choose to believe what many skeptics choose to believe, and I just gave my dog his good night kisses. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2016 10:05:05 AM EDT
[#47]
Most of the people in this thread arent saying he is innocent most are just pointing out that they think he was framed. Most of the evidence in this case could have easily have been plant and there is as much evidence saying it was as there is saying it wasn't. How could a judge allow evidence into the trial when it was found by people who had means motive and yes opportunity to plant that evidence? Maybe one of our lawyers can answer that.
We have to remember there are suppose to be protections in place to prevent the cops from doing just that, they are there for our protection. Maybe he is guilty maybe not but that doesn't matter, what's to say the next guy they frame isn't completely innocent or what if it is you. Better for ten guilty men go free than one innocent be imprisoned. Or something like that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2016 10:12:53 AM EDT
[#48]
I mentioned earlier that I would be at deer camp with a judge and a ADA, father and son. The judge actually had seen it and while he thought it was biased towards defense he said none of the evidence collected by the Manitoc SO would have made it into his courtroom. The ADA hadn't seen it but had heard about it, he said it has caused a big discussion in his office, he said he would have tried to get that evidence in but would be surprised if a Texas judge allowed all of it. He said probably the blood but not key or bullet. Now we were all drunk so who knows.
Both are hard ass conservatives if that matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2016 1:03:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Only the police knew that Halbach had been shot in the head, if Dassey corroborated that evidence, they would know he was at the scene of the crime. The detectives finally asked him outright who shot her in the head and Dassey said his uncle had done it.
The question should have been along the lines of, "who crushed her skull with the hammer that we found with her blood on it?" That's the type of misinformation an investigator without an agenda & actually having a conscience would have utilized when he phrased the question. But they didn't want him to answer THAT question with, "my uncle." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2016 1:57:17 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only the police knew that Halbach had been shot in the head, if Dassey corroborated that evidence, they would know he was at the scene of the crime. The detectives finally asked him outright who shot her in the head and Dassey said his uncle had done it. The question should have been along the lines of, "who crushed her skull with the hammer that we found with her blood on it?" That's the type of misinformation an investigator without an agenda & actually having a conscience would have utilized when he phrased the question. But they didn't want him to answer THAT question with, "my uncle." He asked him about 5 or 6 times "what happened to her head", he clearly didn't know and started guessing. At one point he said Avery cut off her hair. Even someone as mentally challenged as Dassey is going to give them the answer they want after being asked multiple times and running out of answers. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
