- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Making a murder conspiracy folks....read and watch this
Posted on 1/28/16 at 8:56 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Posted on 1/28/16 at 8:56 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Whoever deleted her voicemail messages killed her.
Meh. Maybe.
quote:
Had to be the ex boyfriend or the roommate because they were the only ones who had the password.
Or whoever got her actual phone? I have to enter my password, but some phones you can store it. Certainly in 2005 I didn't have to enter my password to get my voicemail messages from my own phone.
SO, there's that. It could be anyone, because whoever killed her got custody of her phone.
2
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:00 am to Ace Midnight
If you go back and watch it they talk about how her vm was password protected, and the boyfriend and the roommate "guessed" the password. They almost for sure deleted two voicemails. That is pretty damning evidence to me. Innocent people don't delete dead people's messages.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:00 am to Ace Midnight
Did they ever find her phone? I don't remember them talking about that in the documentary.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:05 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
If you go back and watch it they talk about how her vm was password protected, and the boyfriend and the roommate "guessed" the password.
When calling in from another phone - sure. And, maybe it was the case with her phone - I'm not 100% sure in this case.
But, you understand it is completely reasonable when looking for someone to check their voicemail. Sure those guys should have been looked at. And maybe they were. We didn't see that from the documentary, but the documentary folks did not want us to see inculpatory evidence pointing to Avery or Brendan OR exculpatory evidence pointing away from others.
A person can believe that Avery did it and that the cops/prosecutors behaved deplorably. Just to keep perspective in the thread - it is still more likely than not that Avery did it - just maybe not beyond a reasonable doubt.
This post was edited on 1/28/16 at 9:06 am
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:07 am to UpToPar
quote:
Did they ever find her phone? I don't remember them talking about that in the documentary.
I think they found burnt parts of it. I'm not 100% sure. I don't have a summary of the evidence available.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:16 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
it is still more likely than not that Avery did it
I don't even know if I would say that. Where is the blood if he killed her? To me the conveniently placed dna evidence they do have minus any evidence of blood anywhere makes it more likely than not he was framed.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:20 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Where is the blood if he killed her?
This is the biggest problem for me. If they killed her, they didn't do it like Dassey said they did. There's no way they slit her throat on the bed in the trailer and there was no blood found.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:22 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
To me the fact that the vial of his blood had been tampered with is dispositive of the whole thing. Steve Avery is innocent. Adnan Syed on the other hand is guilty as sin.
I don't think you have to conclude he's innocent.
The vial and the key are conclusive enough for me that the dumbass SO sought to bolster the case by tampering with and planting evidence. I believe that 100%, they're corrupt as hell.
I still think he did it.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:30 am to Ace Midnight
Ace I have followed your comments from the TV Board thread. You have very reasonable explanations and have in some ways swayed my opinion slightly.
Now I ask you- Can you make a case for SA innocence?
You seem like a lawman of some kind, I could be wrong.
TIA
Now I ask you- Can you make a case for SA innocence?
You seem like a lawman of some kind, I could be wrong.
TIA
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:32 am to JohnZeroQ
Also, let us not forget that a protest is going on today at the Mantiowac County couthouse or somewhere in the area.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:36 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Where is the blood if he killed her?
Somebody killed her. Where is the blood?
quote:
To me the conveniently placed dna evidence they do have minus any evidence of blood anywhere makes it more likely than not he was framed
It is possible to believe that the evidence was tampered with and still believe that Avery did it.
Unless you believe the cops planned this way in advance - to kill her and frame him for it? If so, I can disengage because you cannot be reasoned with.
But, this serial killer thing is just somebody selling a book - isn't it transparent?
IF Avery didn't kill Halbach, either his brothers, Tadych, Bobby, or some combination did and framed (helped the cops frame, indirectly) Steven.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:42 am to JohnZeroQ
quote:
Can you make a case for SA innocence?
I'm a lawyer - I couldn't have done a much better job than his attorneys. I would say that the state's theory of the case has been dismantled and their sincere belief that Avery did it is not substitute for proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is clear the key was planted well after the fact.
The questions about the blood evidence alone (Avery's in the Rav4, none of her blood to be found anywhere) - those are the foundations of the defense I would mount for him.
I would explain away his inconsistent statements using his suspicion of and bad history with the cops. I would have attacked Brendan's statements pretty much like Avery's trial attorneys did.
The problem is - he self-alibis AND all he can do is shoot holes in the state's case. There isn't a ton of exculpatory evidence.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:46 am to Ace Midnight
I think the police planted the blood and the key to tie the case together. Without that evidence I can't see how they get a conviction. What I don't get is how the MSD found the evidence when they weren't even suppose to be involved in the search for evidence.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:55 am to Ace Midnight
Would you agree that something very suspect is going on with the WDOJ?
Stands to reason? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely
Thanks for the response
Stands to reason? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely
Thanks for the response
Posted on 1/28/16 at 10:07 am to JohnZeroQ
quote:
Would you agree that something very suspect is going on with the WDOJ?
If you've been around cops and prosecutors - there is nothing suspect about them getting it into their heads that Suspect A did it and make the case.
In this case, Avery is a bad egg from a bad nest. Not saying it is right, but it is understandable. And it isn't all that uncommon. The vast, vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved by plea bargain. But, they're not afraid to "make" a case work if they're convinced of someone's guilt. Heck, they framed up Avery for a rape he certainly didn't commit.
(But he did a bunch of sketchy stuff. He is no saint. I understand everyone getting all riled up by the documentary. What I don't see is rational analysis by a majority of the "Free Avery" folks.)
Posted on 1/28/16 at 10:25 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
(But he did a bunch of sketchy stuff. He is no saint. I understand everyone getting all riled up by the documentary. What I don't see is rational analysis by a majority of the "Free Avery" folks.)
The problem is people commingle the issue of there being reasonable doubt with whether or not he actually did it. I 100% think that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Avery killed her, as do a lot of people. But people don't stop there. They then think they have to exonerate him, when that's not the case. Someone can come to the conclusion that reasonable doubt exists but still believe that he killed her.
The question then becomes whether you would be okay letting a guilty man walk to preserve the judicial system. Most are not morally okay with this, so when they see the presence of reasonable doubt, in their mind they want to rationalize that he didn't do it.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 10:38 am to UpToPar
Just an FYI, her phone and palm pilot were both found in SA burn barrel.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 10:57 am to thetempleowl
I dont remember that in the doc.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 11:08 am to JohnZeroQ
That may have been one of the many things left out of the documentary
Posted on 1/28/16 at 11:14 am to JohnZeroQ
quote:
I dont remember that in the doc.
I do, now that someone mentions it - it was a short distance from the bonfire, but the defense cited it as one of the 3 (or more) burn locations.
Sometimes called Janda burn barrel because it was behind the Janda house. Probably why the cops got convinced Brendan was involved - wasn't he the only one home before about 5:00 p.m.?
This post was edited on 1/28/16 at 11:22 am
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News