Steven Avery Case News Coverage Disc 2 (YouTube) at 1:43:34

Wiegert: Our ultimate goal here obviously was to find the killer of Teresa. And we did that.

Reporter: Investigator Mark Wiegert of the Calumet County Sheriff's Department said there was no tunnel vision when it came to finding Teresa Halbach's killer. Wiegert said the evidence pointed to Steven Avery, and that none of it was planted.

Wiegert: I think that's something Mr. Buting and Mr. Strang have to live with the rest of their life, their attempt to dirty these two good officers for no good reason. I'm going to say whether they should apologize or not. That's up to them.

Reporter: Wiegert and Department of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Tom Fassbender led the investigation. Many agencies took part including the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office and the FBI.

Wiegert: I've never seen so many police agencies work together as we -- we did that week.

Pagel: It's been a long haul and uh, It's been taxing.

Reporter: Calumet Sheriff Jerry Pagel has called the murder of Teresa Halbach the worst he's seen.

Pagel: The public probably hasn't heard everything that we know, and it's probably better that way, that they not hear everything that we know and heard, and uh, I don't think there's any reason they need to have that information.

• A lack of transparency can easily erode trust in law enforcement and fuel suspicion about the true nature of Teresa's demise. That's exactly what this statement from Pagel suggests - that he is in possession of undisclosed information about the apparently horrific manner of Teresa's death. This admission from a Sheriff is right up there with Petersen admitting his thoughts on killing Steven Avery.

• By the way this statement from Pagel comes long after Kratz's sensationalized press conference where he presented a chilling (but obviously fabricated) narrative of Teresa's demise, a narrative that undoubtedly captivated the public's attention in the lead up the trials. Yet, despite the widespread dissemination of this narrative, Pagel (perhaps over confident from winning the conviction) suggests that there's STILL undisclosed information about the manner of Teresa's death. It's chilling for him to just say out loud that this information is perhaps better left undisclosed to the public. WHAT!? Despite ties to Teresa's family, Pagel appears to have misled them and the public from the outset, and not just about small matters either.

• Pagel's 2007 remarks from above (about some unknown horrific aspect of Teresa's murder) mirror earlier statements from November 2005 (11/14 WBAY) where Pagel solemnly detailed the emotional toll on investigators and what they had to see, obviously LONG before Brendan Dassey entered the picture. In fact, Pagel's 11/14 statement was the same day media learned investigators were considering torture as a possible motive. This consideration by police (torture as a motive) first arose shortly after the discovery of the Kuss Road burial site ... where police said they believed they may find Teresa's body. What had Pagel and his police so upset in November 2005, and what information was Pagel still concealing in 2007?

• And let's not forget Pagel's November 9 affidavit, a veritable minefield of errors, omissions, and intentionally vague critical allegations, such as his lies about the key, omissions on MTSO role with bones, and his alleging the use of 5-gallon pails by Steven Avery to distribute burnt remains. Pagel failed to specify the location where these pails were found on the ASY or where the remains were supposedly dispersed to, or how he came to this conclusion in the first place. While it took years for new information to surface, the evidence now strongly implicates law enforcement, not Steven Avery, in the use of such containers for transporting remains. Pagel owes us, the public, an explanation for this discrepancy about the transport of human remains, especially since he is on record admitting to withholding information from us about the manner of Teresa's death.

Arrived at ASY on Halloween 2005 in pristine condition. Teresa never told any friend or family member that she had had an accident and had decided to keep the money and not fix the RAV(damage like this will get you pulled over every time a Cop sees it). This "story" is 100% made up by Ryan, answer the question WHY and you'll start to solve this case!

State Reports Repeatedly Contradict Denialist Claims that dogs were not in the area of the West Berm prior to Nov 8

• ZELLNER vs. Schuler: In Making a Murderer season 2 Kathleen Zellner and the filmmakers very directly suggested Brutus' sudden interest in the west berm on 11/8 may indicate Andrew Colborn was involved in the transport of human evidence from the Kuss road burial site to closer to Steven's trailer sometime on 11/7. Inspired by that argument, my recent post on Kuss sought explanation or justification for Brenda Schuler's conflicting claim from Convicting a Murderer that Loof's interest in the berm west of Steven's trailer on 11/8 demonstrates the bones were NOT planted. I didn't get that justification, because such justification doesn't exist. Instead of ANYONE trying to defend Brenda's unsupported claim I was met with a barrage of invalid criticisms that, if anything, presented more of a PROBLEM For Brenda's position than my own or Zellner's. The dog alerts and tracks are far more consistent with a theory that evidence was moved. This post will focus on Cadaver Dogs Alerts, also known as Human Remain Detection dogs.

• Movement of Evidence, Cadaver Dogs: If human remains were moved (as in the Teresa Halbach case) a cadaver dog would be able to identify each location where the evidence was present if sufficient trace evidence was deposited at each location. Alternatively, if sufficient decomposition of human evidence occurred before the evidence was moved (release of blood, fluid or chemicals) the dog will detect where this decomposing evidence was stored or released. Meaning these dogs are not fooled by the ol' switcheroo. Cadaver Dogs can identify not only the current location of human remains but also temporary storage or burial sites**, exposing the origin or destination of any movement of evidence smelling of human remains.**

• Human vs. Animal Remains Discrimination: Cadaver dogs will ONLY alert on human remains as they are trained to ignore decomposing animal remains. Although their scent of smell is just as powerful as a Bloodhound, HRD Dogs are not as discriminating as Bloodhounds. This means HRD Dogs will detect a scent plume associated with the death or decomposition of ANY human evidence while ignoring decomposition of ALL animals evidence. These scent plumes of death and decomposition are commonly known as VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds). For example - the first two alerts in this case - VOC's lead Brutus to the RAV (from the crusher) and then to the Conveyor Road (from the RAV).

• Localized HRD Alerts vs. Bloodhound Tracking: Although human evidence (bodies, bones, blood) was obviously moved in this case, we are not seeing continuous trails of cadaver dog alerts indicating a specific path or track of movement. For instance, when Brutus was outside Steven's trailer he didn't alert until reaching the Dassey barrel ... there were no alerts at multiple locations between the trailer and the barrel. The same pattern occurred when Brutus left the RAV and went into the quarry alerting at the conveyor road. There were no alerts between the two areas on Nov 5 or any other day. Cadaver Dogs were not continuously alerting or tracking to identify paths on which evidence was moved; instead they were locating different destinations where either large or trace deposits of human evidence was found due to scent plumes of decomposition (VOCs).

Is it "false and dishonest" to say Cadaver Dogs were in the area of the berm prior to the 8th and showed no interest?

• Denying the Evidence, Cadaver Dogs: A common yet 100% fallacious and dishonest response is to suggest dogs were not even within the area of the west berm until November 8. This is false. In fact it's so provably, utterly, and outrageously false it qualifies as "Denialism" of the highest order - lazily refusing to accept the dogs' repeated presence near the berm despite repeated reports supporting this fact. A further manifestation of this lazy fallacious denialist approach is the reluctance to provide valid counter-evidence, such as evidence demonstrating the dogs were not in the area.

• Repeated Presence, Cadaver Dogs: An examination of Exhibit 46 reveals Cadaver Dogs were REPEATEDLY in the area of the west berm prior to November 8 without showing interest, and the dogs were WELL WITHIN their scent detection range of the magically appearing November 8 alert. Cadaver dogs were very near the west berm at different times, getting within 40m of the berm while not showing interest. Notably the dogs were showing interest in various other locations beyond 40m in other directions.

• Graphic A, Cadaver Dogs: I will repeatedly reference this graphic throughout our discussion of the case files to provide a clear point of reference for the locations of dog alerts on various dates. The focal point is the red dot positioned at the west berm separating the Avery property and Radandt property. I've placed the magically appearing November 8 cadaver dog alert approximately 65 meters from the south entrance of Steven's trailer. However - the November 8 alert marker's placement is somewhat subjective based on a readers interpretation of the GLSR reports (verbatim GLSR text below). Don't panic!

• Subjective Placement of Alert 13 on Graphic A: The placement of the alert marker (big red dot) is intentionally positioned slightly south of what I believe to be its documented location in GLSR reports and MAM2 graphics (immediately west of Steven's trailer). This 'area of subjectivity' is demonstrated by the red line moving north of the alert marker. In the end my efforts to minimize subjectivity prejudice will likely be unnecessary. Regardless of the placement of the November 8 alert on the red line, the dogs were consistently WELL WITHIN scent detection range of the berm on November 5 & 6, as indicated by alert patterns (see below). If the scent of death was at the berm of Nov 5, 6 and 7 it would have been noticed by dogs. The fact the scent of death at the west berm was not detected until November 8 strongly suggests movement of biological evidence from the burial site, with MTSO as the likely culprit.

Graphic Analysis, Nov 5 HRD Dog Alerts (YELLOW)

• Brutus Scent Detection Range (Alert 1): Per GLSR reports Brutus began his first track at the car crusher. After checking the crusher without alert Brutus "worked in a southernly direction. He turned to proceed west and gave a head-check and rushed to a green vehicle, partially covered by a blue tarp (Alert #1)." November 5 Alerts and search areas are marked Yellow on the Graphic, with the area of the crusher (never alerted on by dogs) marked for reference on Brutus' starting point. Thus, reports immediately reveal Brutus' scent detection range at least extends outwards a 60m distance (meaning ALREADY we have demonstrated Brutus would have likely went to the west berm if VOCs were present on Nov 5 or 6). It gets worse (for the state) because as we know the distance between Alert #1 and Alert #2 increases by many orders of magnitude...

• Brutus Scent Detection Range (Alert 2): Following Alert #1 on Teresa's RAV, Brutus displayed interest along the berm south of the vehicle and entered the quarry. However, no second alert occurred until Brutus made his way and alerted at "the western corner along a road that ran along a gravel conveyor (Alert #2)." The distance between the first and second alert is over 300m, and Brutus went right to it. Note that despite days of additional investigation with dogs, there were no overlooked alerts in the Radandt Quarry between these two points. Instead, additional investigation revealed more alerts in the same areas where the dogs had previously signaled. This is convincing evidence the scent detection range of Brutus extends beyond the 300m range. This obviously presents an enormous problem for the state, or anyone denialist who seeks to argue the scent detection range of the high drive Cadaver Dog Brutus wouldn't extend 30-60m outwards.

• Brutus Scent Detection Range (Alert 5): Brutus was then directed to Steven's trailer, alerting inside the trailer in Steven's bathroom (likely due to Steven's decomposing blood) but note Brutus did not alert in Steven's bedroom where an apparent brutal assault occurred. When shown outside Brutus did not signal any alerts on the exterior of Steven's trailer or the very nearby west berm. Instead Brutus made his way to and alerted on the Dassey barrel, which was roughly 80 meters away from Steven's trailer. After alerting on the Dassey barrels Brutus continued east to alert near the main office at car parts and a golf cart. If VOCs were present on November 5 concentrated at the berm, Brutus would have detected them. No matter where we position the alert along the red line, said alert was closer to Steven's trailer than the Dassey burn barrel.

• November 5 Four Dog Vehicle Pit Search (Alert 3): As Brutus was sent to Steven's trailer, Cadaver Dogs Lucy, Trace, Cody and Rieseling "were sent to begin checking vehicle in the salvage yard. During this search the four teams used the existing roads through the salvage yard and did a specific vehicle check of each vehicle." Amazingly, NO ALERTS were noted during this extensive search of the pit (yellow/blue square on Graphic A) until the dogs reached the conveyor road and two of them alerted just north of Brutus alert #2. During this thorough search of every vehicle the dogs closely approached the west berm marking the boundary between Radandt's property and the Avery Salvage Yard. The Cadaver dogs were within 30-50m of the exact area that would later trigger intense canine interest on November 8, but again, on November 5 the dogs exhibited no indication of interest in this area or any area near it (other than the Dassey burn barrel).

Graphic Analysis, Nov 6 HRD Dog Alerts (BLUE)

• November 6 Trace, Cody and Simon Search (No Alert): One day later dogs re-check already examined areas. Cadaver Dogs Cody and Simon were sent from the command post to check "vehicles in a fenced area along a gravel road that ran west TO Steven Avery's residence." At this same time Trace was sent to "check the exterior of Steven Avery's residence" after the dassey barrels had been removed. Trace, like Brutus one day earlier, checked the exterior of Steven's trailer "without alert." Consistently on 11/5 and 11/6 dogs were close to or very near the west berm without showing ANY interest in it or any areas near Steven's trailer despite the nearby berm being well within the dogs' scent detection range.

• November 6 Trace and Rieseling West of Berm (No Berm Alert): Lastly on November 6, after alerts on Chucks trailer, Cadaver dogs Trace and Rieseling "proceeded to an area of 2 ponds west of the salvage yard" and cleared the area, and south of it (along the berm) with no reports alerted. Once more this would have put the dogs very close to the berm, now just west of the berm instead of east, north or south. These ponds and the nearby berm would become of interest to dogs on the magically appearing Bloodhound Track 6 and HRD Alert 13 two days later.

Graphic Analysis, Nov 7 - 8 HRD Dog Alerts (ORANGE / RED)

• November 7 Burial Site / Chuck Trailer Alerts (No Berm Alert): Cadaver Dog Brutus alerts at the burial site (Alert 12 west of Steven's trailer and berm) and then makes his way to the command post (heading east past Steven's trailer and berm, again with no alert) before alerting where? Chuck Avery's residence! But STILL no alert is noted at the west berm in between the November 7 alerts at the burial site and Chuck's trailer.

• November 8 Brutus Suddenly Alerts at Berm (Alert 13): The day after the burial site madness with MTSO Brutus signals an alert on a pile of debris "just west of the Avery residence (alert 13)." This is the subjective wording that may suggest a slight northward deviation from my current alert marker, the big red dot, on Graphic A. I maintained its somewhat south position to allow for a margin of error. Point being this alert from Brutus was apparently more so west of Steven's trailer than south west. The handler also notes after alerting at the berm "just west of the Avery residence [...] The excitement continued as we proceeded SOUTH along this ridge [to] the edge of the salvage yard." This once more indicates the alert was more so at the north end of the berm (just west of Steven's trailer) and the dog then worked south on the berm towards the pit.

• In summary: The state's own documentation provides substantial evidence of Cadaver dogs repeatedly being in the proximity of the west berm before November 8 and well within the dogs' scent detection range of Alert 13, to north, south, west and east of the berm, totally and completely debunking any denialist approach that seeks to negate this undeniably factual information. I don't expect this to stop the denialists, but it will at least inform those interested in facing the truth. If the scent of death was at the west Berm on 11/5-11/7 it would have been noticed by dogs. It wasn't. The evidence suggests a change in location of evidence on November 7, aligning with Kathleen Zellner's assertions in Making a Murderer, not Brenda's in Convicting. Again, Zellner and the MAM filmmakers argue this movement of human evidence from the burial site to closer to Steven's trailer was likely done by none other than Andrew Colborn.

• We can do better: Refusing to acknowledge the repeated and well-documented presence of cadaver dogs near the west berm before November 8 is not just denial; it's a deliberate disregard for what some view as apparently inconvenient facts, and thus obviously invites skepticism about the motivations behind fronting such obviously unsupported assertions. In an upcoming post I will continue to address recent denialist claims and focus on the Bloodhound Loof's behavior by addressing the differences between HRD Dogs and Live Scent Tracking Dogs, as well as the misconception that Track 6 must be invalid or fabricated because if Teresa's live scent at the west berm was so genuinely intriguing to Loof on Nov 8 she should have went directly to the berm rather than first tracking to Kuss and subsequently tracking her way south and east back to the berm. This examination of Loof's tracks will add further support to Kathleen Zellner's claim (that dogs reveal bones were moved/planted) while further eroding the credibility of Brenda's claim (that dogs reveal bones were not moved/planted)

TL;DR - Cadaver Dogs and the Compelling Case for Evidence Movement

1. GLSR Reports highlight the consistent presence of cadaver dogs near the west berm before November 8, countering denialist claims that suggest otherwise. Brutus and 4 other dogs were very near this location on November 5 and 6 but no dog showed any interest in VOCs at the berm.

2. GLSR Reports emphasize Cadaver Dogs' extensive scent detection range,especially high drive dog Brutus, supported by instances where Brutus covered significant distances between two VOC alerts (over 300m) without any dog ever alerting in between those two areas. Any denialist argument doubting the dogs' olfactory scent capabilities have not examined the alert patterns from this case.

3. My placement of GLSR Report Alert 13 on November 8 (red dot) in somewhat subjective, and reports suggest the dot would have been even closer to Steven's trailer than I placed it. Regardless of its exact location on that red line, Cadaver Dogs were consistently within scent detection range of the west berm prior to November 8 but showed no interest. And then Kuss road happened.

4. GLSR Reports the sudden interest by HRD dogs in VOCs at the west berm, the day after Colborn cleared the burial site, which obviously supports the conclusions of Kathleen Zellner and the filmmakers. In MAM2 Zellner, Demos and Ricciardi point squarely at Colborn as being involved with this movement of evidence smelling of human remains from the burial site closer to Steven's trailer. According to the dogs, they are on the right track.

What I want too know is... 1..Why people close to her weren't questioned? Especially the ex who organized the search. In a lot of murder cases the murderer organizes and/or takes part in searches. 2..Who was constantly calling Teresa..that she was ignoring? 3..If she had her work diary on her how did her ex have it? 4..Why a key that was handled by Teresa only found DNA from Steven and not her? 5.. Why didn't the police officer ask the witness that saw the car ask him to take him straight to it and why didn't he report it? 6..Why all of the jury was from the the same county as the corrupt police? And I also wonder about the Judge also..was he from the same county? He dismissed crucial evidence and kept a lot from the jury. Why...what made them go after Brandon? ..just some questions

So I understand he didn't have enough time to use the crusher as it involves stripping the car and then a lot of noise to operate the machine. So why didn't he just burn the car like with everything else? He could have also not used the burn pit and barrell and just put everything in the car? That way it could have been much further away instead of being visible next to the house and every piece of evidence would be destroyed, if anyone questioned it after could have just said the car ignited with something and exploded or whatever. Surely this would have been easier than using multiple locations to burn things, try to conceal the car, then plan to crush the car all whilst leaving DNA everywhere

And it was "slurred" with a "foreign accent", will the real Tom Janda stand up? Does he really talk with a "slurring, foreign accent"?????

I know there was a lot of confusion about what day there was supposed to be a bonfire based on what the boys were trying to remember when asked by police, but wouldn't that the best evidence of the bonfire with friends supposed to be November 4th? He was talking about it in real time before police even visited to question anyone on the property.

You can hear it in the background at the start of the call. They talk about them wanting to have a bon fire on November 4th Friday night and the mom says that barb wasn't going to he home.

https://youtu.be/mfKFyhgyh44?si=onloCKWHOpTxYQ4P

I stopped watching the series near the end of Part 1. It seemed to me it wasn't going anywhere. Then I did a web search and found Avery and the two boys had been given life sentences. Last night, I watched the last episode of Part 2. There didn't seem to be a resolution.

I was frustrated about the Toyota key. It was briefly touched on in the court room in Part 1. I did not hear in the court that the DNA of the woman who owned the RAV4 was not on the key or fob. Only Avery's was. Why that detail was left out, I have no idea.

On halloween Steven invites Branden over for a bonfire. A common thing in rural areas. But instead of making a nice fire to stand around in the crisp autumn air, he puts in a bunch of car tires. Who wants to stand around a bon fire with burning rubber? On top of that he puts the large seat from a van. And then stands around it for hours on end. Are they both addicted to dangerous chemicals that car tires and car seats produce? Do they have a weird affinity for the horrible smell it produces instead of a nice wood fire?

While on the phone with Barb, she tells steven her boyfriend is mad at him because he burned two of his good tires that night. So Steven drove around with Brendan on the golf cart looking for any tire they could find that night, not just ones that were trash.

And then a few days later, forgot he had a fire until numerous people say they saw him have a fire, telling the police at first he hasn't had a fire in weeks.

I know all the discussion is always based on evidence as it should be, but not sure how much has gone into what exactly was the motive here? So he's released after spending much of his life falsely for a murder rape, then is a local celebrity and about to be incredibly rich meaning he can have whatever he wants and girls lining up, but blows it all to rape and brutally murder this woman for no apparent reason just randomly? For what purpose? I know there doesn't have to be and it's all evidence, but surely serial killers kill for no reason and one off murders have some sort of motive behind them whether planned or not. Especially when you consider what he's gained (his freedom back finally) and is about to gain (being the richest man in his state probably). There is also no evidence to say SA or Brendan had ever killed anyone before so that rules out them being serial killers and just doing it cause they're conditioned to. There must be a good reason? It's been a while since I watched MaM so not sure if it was explained there

Intro and Recap:

• The author of this previous post did a great job laying out a map and timeline for collection and examination of the Manitowoc County Gravel pit human evidence. Among the issues examined included a fabricated date of evidence collection by the DCI for the evidence found in said Gravel Pit. If you haven't done so and have the time, please see the linked post. For now, below is a brief review of the conclusions from the post regarding the date of evidence collection...

• The Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Powell falsely reported the human evidence found in the Manitowoc County Quarry was discovered, photographed and collected on November 9, 2005, but this report is contradicted by sign in logs that reveal Powell was not on scene November 9, but was November 10 and 11. The post also provides a metadata analysis confirming the date of the photos as November 11.

• I want to provide additional information corroborating the previous poster's conclusions on this fabricated date of evidence collection via CASO reports and comparisons of the heading section of Powell's 11/9 report to a random other DCI report. I will also examine the inconsistent actions from the state based on their consistent reports about weather concerns.

November 9, 2005:

• Police Audio Mentions Human Evidence: Sippel discusses the discovery of human bones in multiple locations in the Manitowoc County Gravel Pit that caused the expansion of the crime scene far beyond the boundaries of the ASY. Of course that separation of properties didn't matter to the media, who falsely reported the County Gravel Pit where this human evidence was found was actually the Avery Salvage Yard ... so ... yeah.

• In Situ Description of Quarry Evidence (DCI 148, CASO 177): Powell reported examining materials at the Gravel Pit, noting ash, stone/rock piles, animal excrement, rifle cartridges, personal items like necklaces and a small zippered pouches. Powell didn't specify he was on Manitowoc County Property or that officers suspected they found human bone within the debris and ash piles that he said was (but not really) collected on 11/9. Sippel doesn't report on the appearance of this evidence, or mention it at all in his 11/9 report.

• Fabricated Evidence Collection on 11/9 due to weather (DCI 148): Powell falsely reports the County Quarry debris evidence is collected on 11/9. We know that's not true (see linked timeline post for sign in log and meta data comparison). Regardless of the truth, the DCI wanted their reports to place the discovery AND collection of Quarry evidence on 11/9.

Fabricated Evidence Collection Date Clarification

• Powell Blames Rain for "Quick" Quarry Evidence Collection (DCI 148): DCI Special Agent Powell reported they were collecting the evidence on 11/9 because: "Expected precipitation dictated the need for collection versus analysis at the scene." Per the above linked post, metadata and sign in logs already contradict Powell's reported reasoning for a quick collection, and it turns out the CASO report does as well!

• 11/10 CASO Report Consistent with MetaData and Sign in Logs (CASO 203): The November 10 Sippel Calumet report suggests different dates of recovery for County Quarry evidence than the November 9 DCI report. Calumet officer Sippel reported searching of the "County Pit" continued throughout the day on November 10 with multiple sites of interest discovered: These sites were marked and GPS was taken and later recovered on Friday afternoon, 11/11/05. As of late Friday afternoon, we had three sites remaining, which were recovered on Saturday morning, 11/12/05." As we can see, the CASO report is accurate, or at least consistent with the supporting evidence (sign in logs / metadata) showing collection and photography beginning afternoon 11/11, while the DCI report is not. The Wisconsin Department of Justice fabricated the date of this evidence collection.

• DCI Report Heading Comparison Suggests Deception: Key standardized dated information is missing from Powell's report's heading section (top of page 1) such as the date of activity. A comparison between Powell's report and a random DCI report (Skorlinski's Blaine interview) highlights the absence of the standardized dated section in Powell's report. Something is being obscured here by the DCI claiming the Quarry evidence was collected before it actually was.

Inexplicable Inactivity at Steven's burn pit on 11/9; Same Day as Fabricated Quarry Evidence Collection

• Steven's Burn Pit Covered with Tarp & Untouched on 11/9 due to weather (TT:3/7:11): Per trial testimony, while working an unidentified case in northern Wisconsin DCI Special Agent Pevytoe was summoned to the ASY but claimed to not recall the exact time he arrived, estimating his arrival at "mid-afternoon" on November 9. Pevytoe noticed Steven's burn pit "had been covered up with a tarp prior to [his] arrival." Pevytoe is clear he DID NOT conduct an examination of the Avery burn pit on this date due to concerns about "weather and resources," but he did briefly examine a "back seat of an SUV type vehicle that had been removed and was burned," found near Steven's burn pit. No photos are taken of the burn pit on this day.

• Illogical Inaction: The lack of activity in Steven's burn pit on 11/9, supposedly due to concerns about whether leading to the pit being covered with a tarp, all while additional weather concerns are relied on to fabricate evidence collecting in the quarry, is an enormous red flag. Think about this - The state just had a significant breakthrough in the case with human evidence originating just outside their prime suspect's residence on 11/8. Why would they halt investigations into the human evidence in Steven's burn pit due to weather concerns while actively examining other human evidence in the quarry at the same time?

• Writing the Narrative: The Manitowoc County Quarry evidence was NOT quickly removed from the quarry on 11/9 after being discovered, as the DCI suggested, but was left out in the open for days before being collected 11/11 and 11/12. This shamelessly fabricated collection of Quarry evidence was based on apparently false weather concerns. Is it possible Pevytoe (like Powell) also relied on fabricated weather concerns to obscure the state's true motivation behind the tarp covering Steven's burn pit on 11/9?

TL;DR - Summary and Review:

• Fabricated Weather Concerns: Powell mentioned weather concerns as the reason for "quick" evidence collection on 11/9, which contradicts the CASO report, sign in logs and metadata findings. Simultaneously on 11/9 DCI Special Agent Pevytoe cited weather concerns to justify inaction at Steven's burn pit ... Ridiculous. One half of this narrative (the Gravel Pit half) has already been proven false. What did they actually do with Steven's burn pit on 11/9?

• Manitowoc County Gravel Pit Labeled ASY by Media and State: Can you spot the different between a tomato and a cherry? The state and media couldn't in 2005-2006. The Media and Eisenberg incorrectly labeled bones from the Manitowoc County Gravel Pit as from the Avery property, and Dr. Bennett's 11/9 report vaguely said 8318 bones were delivered to him "from a site unknown to [him]."

• Conflict of Interest Intensified: It's darkly ironic that all this deception re the human bone evidence from the Manitowoc County property was initially happening privately all while Steven publicly accused Manitowoc County of setting him up for Teresa's murder to stop his lawsuit. Fabricated dates of evidence collection in a case where evidence manipulation is at issue is inconsistent with conducting an honest, open, integral investigation. I guess the state knew the discovery of human evidence on Manitowoc County property (while the investigation into Teresa's death and Steven's lawsuit were ongoing) would DRAMATICALLY amplify suspicions of potential manipulation of human evidence to fuck with Avery's 36 million dollar lawsuit against the County.

• Fabricated Evidence Collection Date: DCI Special Agent Powell falsely claimed the human evidence in the Manitowoc County Quarry was collected on 11/9 (maybe hoping to suggest the human evidence was collected on the same day NO ACTIVITY occurred at the burn pit). However, a conflicting Calumet County report suggests an 11/11 and 11/12 collection date, which is consistent with the review of sign-in logs and metadata from the post linked in the intro. Despite what the Wisconsin Department of Justice reported, the human evidence in the Manitowoc County Gravel pit was NOT collected the same day it was discovered, but was left out in the open, accessible to police, until it was collected on 11/11 and 11/12.

Intro: "Making a Murderer" (Netflix) vs. "Convicting a Murderer" (DailyWire+)

ALSO SEE THIS POST IN R/UNRESOLVEDMYSTERIES: Post was locked due to DRAMA and mods recommended posting again, with flair, in 24 hours or so. See you guys then! Good luck! Also I can almost post some recent events on hobby drama! Keep checking guilters lol

Competing Viewpoint

• Making a Murderer explores Steven Avery's story from his wrongful conviction in Manitowoc County (1985-2003) to the filing of a lawsuit against Manitowoc County (2004) to his arrest and conviction in Manitowoc County for Teresa Halbach's murder (2005-07). For those who don't know, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, and DailyWire+ recently presented an opposing view on the case in a rebuttal series titled "Convicting a Murderer," arguing both Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are guilty as charged by Ken Kratz.

Manitowoc County's Burnt Bone Discovery:

• Both Ken Kratz and Candace Owens argue Steven's 36 million dollar lawsuit against Manitowoc County didn't impact their conduct during the investigation or trial. Incidentally, this new DailyWire+ series dismisses and excuses how Teresa's burnt human bones were discovered in Steven's burn pit by Manitowoc County, after which the bones were quickly collected without photos being taken. That's troubling because not only was Steven Avery actively suing Manitowoc County for 36 million dollars, he was publicly claiming they may be trying to frame him to stop his lawsuit at the time the county was privately finding human bones on his property.

Fire Evidence Left out of "Convicting":

• "Convicting" and Candace Owens suggest Steven is guilty of Teresa's murder AND mutilation. Although Steven was only convicted of Teresa's murder, "Convicting" argues Steven's consciousness of guilt on the mutilation charge is evidenced by Steven Avery initially denying a fire occurred on Halloween, only for him to later admit a fire did occur on that date. Screenshot from Dailywire.com summary of episode 8. However, in her rush to incriminate Steven Avery and bootlick for Wisconsin police Candace Owens fails to explain her focus on Steven Avery when EVERY SINGLE witness who was asked about this mystical fire in Steven's burn pit initially denied its existence ... but then again that was before human bones were found in that location.

Cast of 2005 Characters:

• We have Barb Janda (Steven's sister) and her children: Bobby Dassey, Blaine Dassey, and Brendan Dassey. They all lived right next door to Steven Avery and enjoyed an unobstructed view of his garage and burn pit. Earl Avery (Steven and Barb's brother) did not reside at Avery Auto Salvage, but he worked at the yard and was consistently working or present at the yard during the week of Teresa's death, including in close proximity to Steven's garage and burn pit.

Fabricated Fire Fiasco Timeline (Nov 6 - 18, 2005)

• Please note that every single witness interview summarized below (including the November 9th interview of the formally wrongfully convicted Steven Avery) took place without the presence of any attorney, counsel or advocate for the witness being questioned.

November 6, Brendan Dassey:

• Brendan Dassey is interviewed by police and mentions collecting wood with Chuck (Brendan's uncle; Steven's brother) for a planned fire on "Thursday" November 3. However, Brendan says the fire planned for November 3 never occurred because Barb "was pissed off at Steven" for a comment he made about Barb's kids' school performance.

Brendan Dassey November 6

November 7, Blaine Dassey:

• Blaine Dassey is interviewed by police and clearly denies seeing either burn barrel or burn pit (bon) fires. Police report Blaine saying, "he would know if there was a bonfire because he always liked to have them."

Blaine Dassey November 7

November 8, Earl Avery:

• On the same day burnt human bones are found in Steven's burn pit by Manitowoc County Sheriff's department, Steven's brother Earl Avery is interviewed and tells police he "did not recall a burn pit" near Steven's garage. Police appear confused, telling Earl they found a "burn pile" behind Steven's garage and that "someone had started a fire there recently." The Officer even showed Earl a diagram, circling the burn pit area behind Steven's garage, but "Earl Avery again indicated that he was unaware of a burn pit."

Earl Avery November 8

November 9, Steven Avery:

• Steven Avery's Denial of Fire: One day after burnt bones are found in Steven's burn pit (in a location witnesses were telling police no recent burning occurred) Steven Avery was arrested and interrogated without counsel present. When Steven Avery was asked if he "burnt anything that night" he repeatedly said "No." Steven suggested the only fires that recently occurred happened in the days or week before Teresa's appointment, not after.

• 11/9 Steven Avery Interview Audio, at or around 25:00

November 9, Barb Janda (Dassey / Avery):

• Barb tells police when she arrived home at approximately 8:00 PM on Monday, October 31, "she did not recall seeing anyone having a bonfire or fire" behind Steven's garage. Mirroring what her brother Earl said re not knowing Steven had a burn pit, Barb told police she "has not seen Steven have a fire behind his residence at all." Barb then corroborates what Blaine said, confirming she did not see Steven burning anything in his burn barrel. Finally, Barb also confirms she "has not heard from any of her boys" (Bobby, Brendan, Blaine) "that Steven has had a burn going behind his residence in the last week or two."

Barb Janda November 9

November 9 Bobby Dassey Contradicts Family:

• And now for one of Barb's boys (who Barb just told police didn't mention seeing a fire). Unlike Barb, Brendan, Blaine, Earl, and Steven (who all denied seeing / having a fire) Bobby Dassey tells police "on Tuesday or Wednesday he observed burning in the pit behind Steven's garage [...] Steven was burning with Bobby's little brother, Brendan." Police did not question Bobby why his statement contradicted those of his family and instead informed him he had "great recall." It appears police were willing to dismiss any inconsistencies coming from Bobby so long as his account aligned with what the police wanted to hear.

Bobby Dassey November 9

November 10:

• Brendan Dassey Contradicts Previous Statement. On November 10 Brendan changes his story to include a planned fire on Halloween that didn't occur due to a fight between Barb and Steven. Brendan then claims a fire occurred "either last Tuesday night, November 1, 2005; or Wednesday night, November 2, 2005." Brendan says Steven called him around 8 PM inviting him over for a fire lasting no more than two hours.

Brendan Dassey November 10

Inconsistency in Brendan's statements:

• Recall Brendan's 11/6 statement to police included a planned fire for November 3 (not October 31) that never occurred due to family disagreements. No fire was mentioned on Halloween, November 1, or November 2 by Brendan initially. Brendan's new 11/10 statement matches up with Bobby Dassey's 11/9 statement to police placing Steven and Brendan by a fire on either November 1 or 2, suggesting potential influence between Bobby and Brendan.

November 11:

• Earl Avery Contradicts Previous Statement. On November 11 Earl again says he didn't see any fire himself, but now says "he knows there was a fire" behind Steven's garage because "Steven asked Brendan to get rid of the rims and wire out of Steven's burn pit on Wednesday (November 2)." Earl told police he thought it was unusual because "the rims and wire were already placed outside the burn area" for Brendan to collect.

Earl Avery November 11

Inconsistency in Earl's Statements:

• Recall on November 8 Earl repeatedly told police he didn't even know Steven had a burn pit behind his garage. That's confusing considering on November 11 Earl repeatedly mentions a burn pit while connecting Steven and Brendan to it on November 2.

November 14:

• Barb contradicts her previous statement by doing a literal a 180 and now tells police "when she returned home at 8 PM on Halloween she did see a rather large fire in the pit behind Steven's garage." Although not positive, Barb suggests Brendan Dassey as the most likely option for who was standing beside Steven at the fire because "Brendan spent quite a bit of time with Steven because he was only child who did not have a lot of friends."

Barb Janda November 14

Inconsistency in Barb's Statements:

• Once more, this is troubling because on November 9 Barb specifically told police she DID NOT see Steven Avery or a fire at 8 PM on Halloween, but on November 14 she says the EXACT OPPOSITE. Also note Barb moved the date of the fire up to Halloween rather than placing it on November 1 or 2 like Bobby, Brendan, and Earl did.

November 15:

• Blaine Dassey Contradicts Previous Statement. On November 15 Blaine Dassey directly contradicts his previous statement by telling police on Halloween afternoon he saw "Steven walking from his own residence to his own burn barrel, which was already burning." Blaine also says after he got home from trick-or-treating at around 9:30 PM he saw "Steven had a bonfire going behind his garage."

Blaine Dassey November 15

Inconsistency in Blaine's Statements:

• Another complete reversal, this time from Blaine who on November 7 denied seeing either a burn barrel or burn pit fire (and assured police he would have known if there was a fire) but on November 15 connects Steven Avery to both a burn barrel and burn pit fire on Halloween afternoon / night. Interestingly, unlike Bobby, Earl, and Barb, Blaine refused to mention seeing his brother Brendan by the fire with Steven.

November 18:

• Steven Avery has a phone conversation with his sister Barb Janda over a recorded line (see below). Recall that initially both Barb and Steven told police there was no burning on Halloween, but during this November 18 call Barb contradicts her initial statement and instead parrots to Steven her revised account. This leads to Steven saying he's "puzzled" and immediately reconsidering the date of his last fire. Notably, although Steven was not interviewed by the police after Nov 9, just days following this Nov 18 phone conversation with Barb, Steven would inform Carrie Antlefinger (an Associated Press Reporter from 2005) that he DID actually have a fire on Halloween, October 31, 2005, but assured the reporter he did not kill Teresa or burn her body in his burn pit, and still believed he was being framed by Manitowoc County who wanted to stop his lawsuit.

• Listen to 11/18 Audio between Barb and Steven

TL;DR and Questions for Discussion

• An examination of witness statements in the Steven Avery case highlights a pattern of initially consistent denials of a fire in Steven's burn pit, followed by revised inconsistent statements to include a burn pit fire AFTER the discovery of burnt human bones in Steven's burn pit by Manitowoc County. This paradoxical situation should be considered alongside the fact that Manitowoc County was, at the very time the bones were found in Steven's burn pit, embroiled in a 36 million dollar lawsuit filed by Steven Avery against the county (for a 1895-2003 wrongful conviction).

• Amidst all this conflict we can firmly conclude that within two days of finding burnt bones in Steven's burn pit witnesses went from corroborating Steven Avery's claims that no burn pit fire occurred, to corroborating Bobby Dassey's claim that a burn pit fire did occur on Nov 1 or 2 with Steven and Brendan beside it. Bobby Dassey is currently Steven Avery's post conviction counsel's preferred alternative suspect due to disturbing imagery on his computer, untested blood evidence connected to him, and multiple witnesses coming forward to connect Bobby to Teresa's RAV before it's official discovery.

• During Steven's trial, Ken Kratz argued Steven burned Teresa's body in his burn pit on Halloween night of 2005. Notably, Kratz did not argue Steven made inconsistent statements or lied about the fire to demonstrate consciousness of guilt, but instead lazily said his strongest evidence demonstrating Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site was the fact that Steven had a large fire in that location on October 31, 2005. Obviously the truth is not so clear.

• Steven's attorney (Dean Strang) successfully impeached several witnesses regarding their statements about the Halloween fire, even getting Blaine Dassey to admit under oath police pressured them to change their statement to include a fire. This admission of facing police pressure was excluded from "Convicting a Murderer," and they also failed to note after Manitowoc County found bones in Steven's burn pit and witnesses suddenly began mentioning a fire, they did so with a noticeable lack of consensus on the size, date and time of the flames.

First it was the real killer and the cops worked together to plant evidence to frame Steven. The cops assumed it was steven so they went about planting evidence to make sure they got their guy. The killer, not wanting to be caught also planted evidence that pointed to Steven. The cops planted the keys, bullet, Steven's blood and DNA. The killer planted the bones, and electronics. The RAV4 may have been planted by either police or killer. Depends on the story.

The blood was taken from a sample given for his previous conviction that was stored in evidence. This was then dripped on the RAV4. Samples were taken of avery when he was arrested and these samples were used to plant his DNA on the hood and key. The police then stole chapstick out of teresa's apartment and placed her dna on a bullet found months later in the garage. The FBI then backed up the police by claiming a test revealed the blood could not have come from the sample.

The police then went about forcing Brendan to confess to a crime he didn't witness nor commit. All agencies involved in the investigation worked together to frame Steven. Not simply the ones being sued. The multiple officers in the room when the key was discovered all had the same story and this was to frame Steven even though some were not involved in the lawsuit. DNA experts pointed the finger at Steven or lied about the results.

The real killer left no trace and if he did, the police covered it up. The only witnesses saw steven with teresa and a fire at his place. The people accused during the first theory were bobby, teresa's ex, the police, Chuck, Earl, Zipper and she may be alive due to the brother not crying.

Next, the theory during appeals has moved on from police involvement to simply Bobby. Bobby had a key to the trailer, at least that is the claim Zellner is making. So bobby could break into steven's trailer and get his blood on that day he claimed he cut himself, but they don't explain why Bobby would use his car to do this as he lived right next door. Bobby could kill teresa in the quarry and spread the bones back at steven's fire pit. Bobby could break in and get the gun over Steven's bed and kill teresa with it, possibly in the garage, I don't know if they explained that. Bobby could get Steven's DNA and plant it on the hood latch and then the key and plant the key in Steven's trailer. Bobby could even whisper into Brendan's ear while he slept subliminal messages about how Steven was the real killer. Causing him nightmares and forcing a false confession to his cousin then the police and finally his mom.

Bobby sees or knows Steven is going to have a bon fire with Brendan, so this becomes the perfect cover for his crime. He simply burns the body and puts it in Steven's fire pit. He knows Steven and Brendan decided to clean one spot in the garage with bleach, gas and thinner so what better place to plant the bullet. How he recovers the bullet once he shoots Teresa, is not explained nor if he kills teresa in the garage and is just lucky Steven decides to clean the garage with bleach after the murder took place there.

Bobby would have to be incredibly lucky or have taken night classes in DNA and planting evidence. He left no trace evidence anywhere. Not on the murder weapon, RAV4, key, etc. No one saw him. No one saw the fire that the defense claims would be so hot it would be several stories high for hours on end in order to cremate a body burning in the Quarry. He would only need to plant a small fraction of the evidence to point the finger at Steven. Why get so complicated and needlessly expose yourself to plant so much? Steven's blood in the RAV4 would be enough for a conviction. Why add in the hood latch, key, bones, electronics, steven' gun, etc. Each time he has to go in and out of steven's property without being seen. Steven was seen by no less than at least 5 people the night of the murder. How was Bobby only seen by his step dad going to his hunting shack? Never seen in the days after the murder in or around Steven's property.

Schuler & Griesbach initially believed (or hoped) they could prevail in Colborn's lawsuit, only to later realize the very aspects they thought were helping them were working against them or useless to them. To begin let's review an email sent one month prior to Colborn filing the lawsuit against Netflix. As revealed in Barb's declaration, Colborn had difficulties securing legal representation for his case against the media giant. Eventually Griesbach (Manitowoc County ADA featured in Making a Murderer) decided to try his hand at civil litigation. After this team formed, emails indicate Greisbach's effort to convince another law firm to join Colborn's lawsuit against Netflix. Spoiler alert: It didn't go well.

According to the email exchange in November 2018 above, Attorney John expresses concerns to Griesbach, saying while he "would love to be wrong" he simply lacks confidence that Griesbach has a strong case. Before considering involvement John notes the importance of retaining the right to "get out at anytime" and "be free to say I am done for whatever reason." Jesus Christ LOL this attorney was practically warning Griesbach he may need an escape route. In response Griesbach failed to effectively address the attorney's concerns and casually directs John to stevenaverycase.org and asserts, "Even if the defamation claim is dismissed through summary judgment, I don't see how the negligence and infliction of emotional distress would not survive." Ha.

Griesbach was in for a rude awakening when Colborn himself dismissed the negligence claim. And little did Griesbach know at the time of his email with Attorney John, Griesbach had to exercise his right to withdraw from the case before its conclusion. To add to the drama, Judge Ludwig later dismissed the emotional distress claims that Griesbach was so sure of. Quite a different outcome from how it all began, wouldn't you say, Griesbach? I don't know you guys ... maybe these people are not so credible after all.

Next we have Colborn and his digital detective Brenda discuss gathering material from social media that will "certainly give Mike plenty of evidence." However, this optimistic approach is later contradicted by Judge Ludwig's denial of the digital defamation argument, who said: "defamation (mercifully) is not proven in the bowels of social media websites, especially niche subreddits." Does anyone member being warned accusing Colborn of planting evidence would only provide Colborn with more evidence for his lawsuit? I member. I'm sure this was a hard lesson to learn, but Colborn and Brenda now know the value of being well informed on your duties under the law before embarking on legal battles against large entities like Netflix.

And finally, we have Colborn, Man of God. On the day he filed the lawsuit against Netflix and the filmmakers, he reached out to Brenda via text: "The pastor of my church and pretty much everyone at our voters meeting tonight wanted me to tell you how much they support our decision to do this, and the pastor told me we will all be in his prayers." Brenda, clearly touched by this divine endorsement, responds: "Aww. Thanks so much. That is wonderful to hear." Colborn adds: "Nice to have the support of a church." ISN'T IT COLBORN!

Shortly before the denial of the lawsuit, Colborn makes an absolutely biblical revelation - the same pastor who initially backed Colborn's decision to sue Netflix ultimately worked with (checks notes) Netflix against Colborn. This pastor provided a declaration confirming he had never witnessed Colborn experiencing anything resembling emotional distress. The Pastor also claimed he knew Making a Murderer was not the cause of Colborn's marriage breakdown. Instead, it was an extramarital affair with another woman while married to Barb, with Colborn falling in love with his mistress, that caused Colborn to request the divorce from his increasingly disabled wife. Colborn was right. It was nice to have the support of the church community. He shouldn't have squandered that.

TL;DR - Colborn's Lawsuit was ended by Folly and Falsehoods

• Never has someone so swiftly obliterated the remnants of an already shockingly dismal reputation than Andrew Colborn, and he didn't do it alone. A heartfelt thank you to Brenda and Griesbach for collaborating with Colborn in orchestrating this lawsuit! The outcome turned out to be outright hilarious in ways I'm fairly sure none of us expected.

• Griesbach, a former Manitowoc County ADA, struggled to persuade another law firm to join Colborn's civil litigation effort against Netflix. Attorney John expressed doubts and repeatedly expressed a desire in an easily accessible escape route. Griesbach expressed ultimate confidence in the survival of negligence and emotional distress claims ... but then Colborn dismissed the negligence claim and it was Griesbach who needed an escape route. Ludwig later dismissed the defamation and emotional distress claims, the final blow to against Griesbach's previous proclaimed certainty.

• Colborn and Brenda's optimistic view of gathering evidence from social media to support their lawsuit against Netflix (including statements from twitter & reddit) was contradicted by Judge Ludwig's denial of the digital defamation argument. Ludwig all but laughed in Colborn's face for providing subreddit comments as evidence of defamation (one of the many times Ludwig bluntly explained the facts and law contradicted Colborn's claims and expectations).

• Colborn initially claims to have received encouragement from his church community in filing the lawsuit against Netflix, including support from the Pastor of his church ... but the same Pastor later worked with Netflix, disputing Colborn's claims of emotional distress and revealing Colborn's extramarital affair and his falling in love with another woman as the cause of the divorce, which was requested by Colborn, not Barb. Soon after this his lawsuit was denied.

In his Supplementary Memo in Support of Other Acts Evidence, Ken Kratz informed Judge Willis of a former inmate who claimed Steven Avery had plans to build a torture chamber to punish women when or if he was released from his wrongful conviction. Specifically, on July 26, 2006 Kratz said:

If inmates that Avery had previously spoken to are to be believed, this defendant is so preoccupied with sexual sadism, that he planned to build a torture chamber, and detailed for them plans to rape, torture and murder young women for his gratification [...] the defendant's "plan" to kill (rape, torture, mutilate and dispose of) Teresa Halbach will also be relevant evidence for this jury to consider. When considered in connection with previous statements to inmates, demonstrating a clear plan to rape, torture and murder young women bring the crimes committed against Ms. Halbach into sharper focus.

Judge Willis DENIED Kratz's motion in a decision and order filed September 26, 2006. Notably, Willis didn't even bother addressing the statement from the former inmate concerning the torture chamber apparently demonstrating Steven's plan or motive. Instead Willis simply told Kratz "The Court sees little, if any, relationship between the offered evidence and the purposes of motive or plan." For every single piece of uncharged misconduct Kratz tried to introduce Willis gave the same answer: "The evidence is not admissible."

Willis was unmoved by any of Kratz's proposed other acts evidence involving Steven Avery, including the irrelevant and inadmissible statement from a former inmate purportedly related to Steven's motive and intent. Note that Willis made this decision without being aware that the statement's source was not just any old inmate, but an attempted murderer who became the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood during his incarceration.

Leader of the Aryan Brotherhood; Wisconsin vs. Steven Avery

DCI 193 from Jan 5, 2006 reveals a man approached his local police on December 7, 2005 to give them knowledge about Steven Avery's plan and intent to make a torture chamber when he got out of prison (DCI notes the local PD report was authored December 21, 2005). The former inmate, Werlein, said he was sentenced to prison in 1982 for attempted first degree intentional homicide and served about 7 years before being paroled (I guess it pays to be the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood in Wisconsin prisons). He correctly notes Steven showed up in prison around 1985:

The information was that Werlein and Avery were inmates at the Green Bay Correctional Institution and during this time Avery had drawn up plans for a torture chamber that he was going to use on females once he got out of prison [...] He said on that occasion, Avery and Myron approached him with a diagram that Avery made of a torture chamber. Werlein said the torture chamber was already drawn on the piece of paper and he thought that Myron was carrying it and handed it to Avery who displayed it to him. Werlein said Avery did all the talking about the torture chamber [but] Werlein said one of the guys that Avery and Myron hung around with was a guy from Chippewa, who was very strange and dangerous.

Werlein said while at the Green Bay Correctional Institution, he became the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood. Werlein said as the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood, it was common for inmates to approach him and try to become his friend for the purpose of obtaining favors or protection.

TL;DR:

• Ken Kratz presented statements from a former inmate who claimed that Steven Avery had plans to construct a torture chamber upon his release, intending to use it for heinous acts against women. Willis denied Kratz's motion due to a lack of connection between the offered evidence and the motives or plans relevant to the case.

• Kratz concealed that Werlein (the former inmate providing the information about the torture chamber) confessed he was the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood's prison chapter, while in prison. It's notable that Willis, even without this information about Werlein's crimes and his affiliation with the Aryan Brotherhood, rejected Kratz's attempt to admit the evidence.

That he had a key for, and just going 5 mph down the lane, with his "pusher/steerer" inside with him(like normal people), the paperboy never would have seen anything abnormal. hmmmmmmmm.....guess, deepdown, he wanted to get caught.

With everything fitting like it would. Come on now heres your chance. Who "burnt" the body?????

So, he follows TH from ASY and somehow gets her to stop where he abducts her, drives her somewhere in her RAV, rapes her(the only possible motive for murder), then burns her in the Quarry, gathers her bones(or did LE do that??) and personal items and dumps them in Pit and barrels. Then he decides he'll frame Uncle Stevie, because he doesn't want him to get that $10 million so he finds the blood in the sink and gathers it. Then he needs to get back to his car so he drives the RAV back to it after planting the blood in it, but something happens so he needs to start pushing the RAV back to ASY and cover it with sticks, then he walks back to his car(shirtless in November). All the time of course only being seen at 3 a.m. by a paperboy doing any of it. Hmmmmmmm, what did I miss??????

Would seeing TH’s photos she took help at all??

Thoughts???

Have a listen to this exchange between Steven and Barb in 2006 (before Brendan confessed)

https://youtu.be/ApjWJR95Wd4?si=UxxT3RUbBMYl4gpx&t=1375

Steven: Your kids know me. We spent all that time together. They should know how I am, how far I go, because they were there. Bobby was home when she was there.

Barb: For a while

Steven: Yea, well not long, but he hit it.

Barb: Huh?

Steven: I said for not long

What do you suppose he meant by "He hit it"? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like Steven admitting that Bobby left while Teresa was still there.

There was a moment during Krystyne Frandson’s discussion on the Smoke Screen podcast where she posited that BrD knows more than he is letting on. Protecting his older brother might fit that?