[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Is your head voice for me sexy and manly, Ammi? A lustrous Scottish treat for the mind-ears? You know it...

..(that was probably one of those things that I shouldn't have said out loud....)..I think you probably range somewhere between Sean Connery and weee Jimmy Krankie....(more Mr Connery though, definitely..)...

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't think avery is a likable character but then, that's sort of the point... He wouldn't be in this situation if he was. It's easy to pin something bad on someone unlikeable.

I can't force myself to care about the fate of Avery himself. However, I am interested in the way the justice system works in America and the way it's all been handled is fascinating. At times the prosecution straight up lies to the jury and it goes mostly unchecked.

Example: stating that they have "scientifically proven" that the blood wasn't planted, when an expert has already explained that this is impossible to prove. The test they used can be used to prove that it WAS planted, by presence of a certain chemical substance. The absence of that substance does NOT mean that it wasn't planted. It's a straight up lie, a misrepresentation of the evidence. How are things like that being allowed?

..I think it's like that 'pack' thing in a way, obviously a much complicated version but a basic principle..?..of how people will stand up and defend a 'popular and likeable' but not so much with an 'unlikeable'..but then interesting though that the jury were (7 was it..?..) not guilty at the beginning, 2 undecided and just 3 guilty, so very much in his favour and then obviously a guilty was reached...(do we wonder if there was influence on the jury as well/I don't know..)...I think at the end of the trial, I started to think that the police genuinely did think he was guilty, which was their motivation ..they just couldn't leave him out there, a free man...but then, this little 'hick-billy' person that he was had taken the trust, confidence and faith of the citizens of the town away from the police department with the first conviction and wrongful imprisonment, so was it just a pride thing and something they became obsessed with...either way, it's still hard to get my head around the fact that they didn't even attempt to explore any other possibility in their total focus and that no one else was ever a suspect....

[user104658]

Another thing that really bugs me: when the judge is summing up at the sentencing hearing... He talks about Avery's "past crimes", and the fact that his crimes have been of "increasing severity" and that's why he's so dangerous.

He is quite clearly not talking about the cat incident. He is talking about the attempted rape. A crime that, legally, and conclusively, was not committed by Avery. Very, very odd. Is the judge suggesting that he WAS involved? Has he simply forgotten that that conviction was overturned? That someone else is in prison for it?

[Niamh.]

So I just read that Steven Averys ex wife and mother of his children went on to marry Peter Dassey, Brendans dad......wtaf, this just gets weirder and weirder

Mathiesen went on to marry Peter Dassey. Now, if that name sounds familiar to you, it should. Peter Dassey is the father of Brendan Dassey, Steven Avery's nephew who was charged as a co-conspirator in the murder of Teresa Halbach after a confession, which he recanted later.


https://www.romper.com/p/what-happen...-murderer-3018

[Niamh.]

The more I read about Steve Avery, the more I dislike him actually

[Z]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I started reading the Brendan Interviews and I can't help imitating his voice in my head as i read them

Made me think of this...

Weird that his ex-wife married Brendan's dad... very strange family. My mum and her sister used to be married to a pair of brothers, meaning my older brother and my cousin are like... super related. Hahaha. Reminds me of that, all this inter-family stuff that's going on here. I don't really like Steve Avery very much but as Toy Soldier says, that's the point.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Z

Made me think of this...

Weird that his ex-wife married Brendan's dad... very strange family. My mum and her sister used to be married to a pair of brothers, meaning my older brother and my cousin are like... super related. Hahaha. Reminds me of that, all this inter-family stuff that's going on here. I don't really like Steve Avery very much but as Toy Soldier says, that's the point.

Poor Brendan

[Z]

He is the human personification of Chris Griffin, even their voices are similar:

Youtube video

[Niamh.]

Oh I have to wait till lunchtime to listen to that

Another thing that's been playing on my mind alot about this case is that vial of blood. Is there any possible logical explanation for the fact that it had that needle hole in it? Is there any reason for that? But if that blood was planted, why would the person who took it stick a needle through it? Why not just open it and then seal it back up?

[Z]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Oh I have to wait till lunchtime to listen to that

Another thing that's been playing on my mind alot about this case is that vial of blood. Is there any possible logical explanation for the fact that it had that needle hole in it? Is there any reason for that? But if that blood was planted, why would the person who took it stick a needle through it? Why not just open it and then seal it back up?

Good point, they'd surely have known putting a needle through it would be incriminating if anyone found it... when I was watching the program I just assumed it was so they could get the blood straight into a syringe and then use that to squirt it over the car in the manner that we're shown with only a couple of areas of blood, looked consistent with somebody squirting it at points in the car rather than how it would have happened coming directly from a human body...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Z

Good point, they'd surely have known putting a needle through it would be incriminating if anyone found it... when I was watching the program I just assumed it was so they could get the blood straight into a syringe and then use that to squirt it over the car in the manner that we're shown with only a couple of areas of blood, looked consistent with somebody squirting it at points in the car rather than how it would have happened coming directly from a human body...

Yeah but they could have put it in a syringe by opening the top as well and that wouldn't have looked half as suspicious or maybe they it was faster and easier and they just never thought anyone would go check that vial?

[Josy]

A nurse testified that that was how the blood got in there and that she was actually the one that dealt with that exact sample. Shes dead now though.

There was a show on ID about this last night and Stevens old lawyer Jerome Buting was talking about that sample saying the hole on the top wasn't what bothered him but there's blood spilled all round the edge of the actual stopper and that's what was making him suspicious.

[Josy]

Also creepy Kratz was talking through the show last night too and something he said caught my attention, something along the lines of..we had all this evidence but there was one thing we needed and that was an eye witness.

Well then along comes Brendan eh

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Josy

Also creepy Kratz was talking through the show last night too and something he said caught my attention, something along the lines of..we had all this evidence but there was one thing we needed and that was an eye witness.

Well then along comes Brendan eh

Of all the stuff I'm reading everything that comes from Kratz I almost always just disregard, the creepy slimeball

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Josy

A nurse testified that that was how the blood got in there and that she was actually the one that dealt with that exact sample. Shes dead now though.

There was a show on ID about this last night and Stevens old lawyer Jerome Buting was talking about that sample saying the hole on the top wasn't what bothered him but there's blood spilled all round the edge of the actual stopper and that's what was making him suspicious.

They put the blood into the vial originally through that hole?

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

They put the blood into the vial originally through that hole?

Yeah that's what she said

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Josy

Yeah that's what she said

hhhmmm seems like a weird way to do it but then maybe that's standard? I don't know

[Niamh.]

Josy what do you think about the fact that Michael Griesbach is so sure that Steve Avery did it. He was one of the ones firmly on his side about the Rape conviction

[Josy]

Not sure really but with him being a DA in Manitowoc I don't really feel like I can judge his opinion on it

He's wrote a book about it all too.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Josy

Not sure really but with him being a DA in Manitowoc I don't really feel like I can judge his opinion on it

He's wrote a book about it all too.

Yeah i know he's a DA with Manitowoc but he was still on Steves side during that rape case, even in the Documentary plus he's part of the Innocence Project too and by the sounds of it he think Brendan Dasseys rights were violated during his case but he's pretty sure that Steve Avery is rightly convicted

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah i know he's a DA with Manitowoc but he was still on Steves side during that rape case, even in the Documentary plus he's part of the Innocence Project too and by the sounds of it he think Brendan Dasseys rights were violated during his case but he's pretty sure that Steve Avery is rightly convicted

Hmm well then I don't really think much of his opinion on it tbh because it's clear for anyone to see that there was a lot of dodgy goings on with the evidence leading up to and during the trial, if he thinks Brendan rights were violated then why not mention the evidence against Steven being questionable too?

He may be right about him being guilty.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Josy

Hmm well then I don't really think much of his opinion on it tbh because it's clear for anyone to see that there was a lot of dodgy goings on with the evidence leading up to and during the trial, if he thinks Brendan rights were violated then why not mention the evidence against Steven being questionable too?

He may be right about him being guilty.

Well, from what I've read about his comments on it, the only way he thinks some wrong was done in his trial was the fact that Ken Kratz said far too much to the press about Brendan Dasseys statements when Brendan Dasseys version of events was not supposed to be a factor that they were supposed to consider as evidence in Steve Averys case, other than that he thought there was enough evidence to convict Steven.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, from what I've read about his comments on it, the only way he thinks some wrong was done in his trial was the fact that Ken Kratz said far too much to the press about Brendan Dasseys statements when Brendan Dasseys version of events was not supposed to be a factor that they were supposed to consider as evidence in Steve Averys case, other than that he thought there was enough evidence to convict Steven.

I don't get that though, if you take away the key, the bullets etc, pretty much any questionable pieces of evidence that Lenk 'found' then what's left that can prove he murdered her without reasonable doubt?

You go back to the main point of having no blood or any dna at all of Theresa's in either of the places she was supposed to have been injured and then murdered.

A DA not seeing any wrong with the evidence during that court case is actually worrying.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Josy

I don't get that though, if you take away the key, the bullets etc, pretty much any questionable pieces of evidence that Lenk 'found' then what's left that can prove he murdered her without reasonable doubt?

You go back to the main point of having no blood or any dna at all of Theresa's in either of the places she was supposed to have been injured and then murdered.

A DA not seeing any wrong with the evidence during that court case is actually worrying.

Well, the fact that Brendans statement was not part of Steves trial and that Steve was found innocent of the second charge means that they didn't really suggest where he killed her or if he raped her or not just that he was the one who killed her.

I also read somewhere (again I'm not knowing if what I read is true or not) that the reason they're so sure that the pit outside Steves was where the body was burned was because they found wire from the tyres burned there mixed in with her bones. Also, that the bone found in the Quarry was never actually proven conclusively to be Teresas or even 100% certain to be human bone?

Oh also, I read that they did prove that the bullet they found was fired from Steves gun

[Josy]

During one of the trials Kratz mentions she was murdered in the garage, I cant remember if it was Steven or Brendan's trial though but I don't believe for a minute that she was shot in that garage, which is what the bullet evidence is stating I guess? there's no way on earth they could have cleaned that garage and spatter from every item in there without leaving some of it behind, plus the garage floor was dug up too just in case any blood had went through the cracks in the concrete and there wasn't any at all, that plus the fact that it was Lenk that found the bullets after Brendan's statement just further makes it all seem very unlikely IMO.

This is a pic of the wires they say were intertwined with the bones



How can that screwdriver still be there and not melted if that fire was warm enough to burn a human body and completely burn tyres?

That's a genuine question btw