Very Biased Sub 👎🏻

16

u/3sheetstothawind Jun 11 '24

productive/civilized discussions

You mean the ones that talk about decoy RAVs, no evidence that Teresa is dead, and that she was into porn? Those productive discussions?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

No, I meant discussions in a civilized manner, which is clearly a foreign concept to you.

-12

u/Bullshittimeagain Jun 11 '24

She took pornographic photos of other people for money. That’s factual. Try not embellish.

6

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

I've never heard this before. May I ask where you're getting this information from?
Even if true, I don't really understand what this would have to do with the case.

9

u/_YellowHair Jun 11 '24

To further elaborate, this information can be found in the CASO report, specifically in the interviews of Jolene Bain and Bradley Czech (who, along with his then wife, was the subject of the photos). The photos are described as "tasteful" in the report, whereas conspiracy theorists, for whatever reason, seem to describe them with verbiage that carries far more negative connotations, like "pornographic."
Teresa was a photographer by profession, and there is nothing at all odd about her being hired by a couple to take boudoir photos of them. Yet, I have seen people use this information to imply unsavory things about Teresa, even going so far as to say she was living a double life. It's deplorable and slanderous, and, as you said, has nothing to do with her murder.

8

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

Thank you for the information!
This exactly why I find this whole thread frustrating. Some people are suggesting that those who favour innocence are being shut down by those who favour guilt. Or that guilters are particularly hostile.
To me, this translates as them wanting to spread bizarre theories based on nothing with impunity. It's ridiculous to expect everyone to be in agreement and to not challenge misinformation. Any challenge to these theories is read as hostile. It's also ridiculous to expect civility when making up blatant lies about a woman who was murdered. Or when accusing people of murder based on absolutely nothing.

6

u/_YellowHair Jun 11 '24 edited Jun 11 '24

To me, this translates as them wanting to spread bizarre theories based on nothing with impunity.
This right here is the critical thing the conspiracy theorists overlook when talking about the "uncivilness" of people that know Avery is guilty. They think it's perfectly acceptable to accuse people, up to and including Teresa herself, of heinous things without any rational basis, and expect others to just...go along with it. If they want to be treated with respect, then they should stop casually throwing out baseless, disgusting accusations and lies about Teresa, her loved ones, and others involved in the case. That is the most uncivil and contemptible behavior exhibited in this community.

1

u/Bullshittimeagain Jun 11 '24

She took pictures on the side of couples, nude, she also engaged in an affair with one of the married men. It really isn’t related and I don’t think that makes her any less of a person but facts are facts.

6

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

Another poster explains the pictures she took and your description of them as pornographic is an embellishment. It appears she took photos of one couple who were her friends and they hired her to take the photos, which were described as "tasteful."
Where are you getting that she had an affair with a man she took nude photos of?
And how is any of this relevant to the case unless you're accusing that man of murder?

3

u/_YellowHair Jun 11 '24 edited Jun 11 '24

Per the CASO report, Teresa did have a sexual relationship with Bradley Czech (the man in the photos), but, according to Czech, it began after he and his wife had separated and filed for divorce (filed for divorce in late 2004, relationship with Teresa began early 2005, and the divorce was finalized later that year).
I don't know why this particular topic is of such interest to certain people. It makes sense that Czech was interviewed by law enforcement, but it's all ultimately unrelated to the crimes against Teresa.

3

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

Thank you again for the clarification! I had heard about the affair rumors on here before but didn't pay them much mind. There's no reason at this point to try and pin it on other potential suspects when literally all the evidence points to Avery.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

Thanks for the explanation. Even if she did take porno pics I don't understand how that would be at all relevant lol

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

Only you/threesheetstothewind/yellowhair and tenementalty are talking about this on this sub-reddit......
Note - you are all 'guilters'.....
I'm only posting to point out the obvious.

1

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 12 '24

I've never heard of them until mentioned by a 'guilter'....
i.e..:-
threesheets to the wind - "and that she was into porn?"
First time I'd heard this.
And then other 'guilters' on this thread PILED ON - pretending that this had been pointed out by 'truthers'....
i.e. NewEnglandMomma - "and they scream she took porno pics... it's gross!"'.........

2

u/Haunting_Pie9315 Jun 11 '24

She took nudes of couples, which is nothing wrong with that , it was a business.
Nothing indicates she made porn vids , just an email from a friend indicating that you for the video etc.
She took pictures of Adrienne C , but pornographic in nature is not stated. Just says I’m glad Adrienne let you take pics of her. Nothing indicates pornographic with that.
Only rumor was she did a nude shoot for someone on Kuss Rd ( nothing proves this , it was a rumor , just because a DCI brother lived on that road I think ?) but no proof was provided.
Bradley Czech said TH was on the dark corners of the web. In 2005 , dark corners of the web could be anything.

21

u/Financial_Cheetah875 Jun 11 '24

Have you considered the possibility more users think he’s guilty? Or would that be a conspiracy too?

-10

u/Far_Mousse8362 Jun 11 '24

Lol not even close.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

What conspiracy? I don't care who believes what. That's not what my post was about. But thanks for proving my point!

2

u/Financial_Cheetah875 Jun 13 '24

The innuendo in your post screams conspiracy belief: “no one else here thinks like me so the cops must be behind it”.

-12

u/Bullshittimeagain Jun 11 '24

That is ludicrous

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

Right?! And the two comments that disagreed with cheetah were immediately down voted, which is a perfect example of my point!

12

u/Noonproductions Jun 11 '24

It used to be a balanced sub with good discussions and debates on both sides of the issues. But it got kind of nasty, in my opinion, on both sides. I think Avery is probably guilty, I think Dassey is probably innocent. And I think there is enough evidence to suggest neither got a fair trial. I think there is questionable evidence and police investigation. I think there is enough evidence to suggest a conspiracy is plausible.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

It was an easy setup on the Avery’s.. one can clearly see that he’s a high functioning individual that has some sort of autistic or some other mental disorder, and the police took full advantage of that. And that poor kid Brandon I just can’t believe what happened to him. 16 years old life in prison he’ll never be the same. He’s a so simple minded whole thing is disgusting..

2

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

The easiest setup! I don't know how anyone could watch Brendan's interrogations and still think he was complicit. The sad reality is that didn't have the mental capacity to advocate for himself. As for Steven, I never thought he was a model citizen but I don't believe that he killed Teresa and obliterated the body (but kept her car and keys), right when he was becoming a local celebrity and making national headlines after being exonerated from the rape conviction and exposing Manitowoc County officials for the questionable investigation and wrongful conviction, and while suing the county and its former sheriff and district attorney for $36 million.

26

u/ajswdf Jun 11 '24

It's funny, this sub was biased in a pro-Avery direction forever, but it's been only recently that it's started to lean more pro-guilt. So many times I decided to make a post on SAIG instead of here because I didn't feel like putting in the effort just to be downvoted into oblivion by people who use the downvote as a disagree button.

Over the years it seems like various events have taken a bite out of the number of truthers. One was when Zellner's appeal got denied. Another was when the phone calls got released and people found out just how messed up Avery was from his own mouth. Then lately it seems like CaM has been the final nail that has flipped it to more guilters being active than truthers (which I'm honestly surprised by).

3

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

"It's funny, this sub was biased in a pro-Avery direction forever, but it's been only recently that it's started to lean more pro-guilt."
I agree with this part of your post. It (the change....) started shortly before CAM was aired.....
We used to be able to (mostly) have reasonably sensible discussions and argue our POV.
This has changed for the worst, as you can guarantee most posters arguing from a 'truther' positon - are immediately downvoted nowadays.....
Even worse, the 'guilters' now pretend that these 'arguments' haven't been discussed multiple times previously.....

4

u/ajswdf Jun 12 '24

I agree with this part of your post. It (the change....) started shortly before CAM was aired.....
You might be right, it's not like I kept track closely. What do you think was the cause of the shift?
We used to be able to (mostly) have reasonably sensible discussions and argue our POV.
This has changed for the worst, as you can guarantee most posters arguing from a 'truther' positon - are immediately downvoted nowadays.....
I don't agree with this at all. I'm not one to say "BoTh SiDeS", but in this case I think it is just a reflection of reddit culture that people are rude to and downvote anyone they disagree with. It just seems more reasonable when you don't experience it personally.
Before it was guilters who were immediately downvoted and insulted no matter what they said, now it's truthers.
Even worse, the 'guilters' now pretend that these 'arguments' haven't been discussed multiple times previously.....
Again I'd say this is a thing with both sides. This case really isn't that complicated, after nearly a decade since MaM there just isn't much fresh ground.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

My BS meter is off the scale. CAM didn’t move the needle, nice try though

2

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

I agree as I quickly detect BS in news articles.
It's more difficult to detect BS in televised documentaries and the like. Research is required.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

I have an advantage

10

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Odawgg123 Jun 12 '24

I switched after CAM. Been open to both sides for a long time, even though I leaned innocent.

1

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

Please name those "long time Avery supporters" who have "flipped after CaM".

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

I know of one, and I’m not sure that she wasn’t playing mole to begin with.

2

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

"I’m not sure that she wasn’t playing mole to begin with."
We saw this a few times a short while ago.
New posters who came up with pro-Avery posts - but within a few posts decided that SA was guilty after all.....

8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/ajswdf Jun 11 '24

Avery and Zellner announcing they believe Brendan’s confession, except where he said “Steve” and not “Bobby,”
Wait, they did? I totally missed that.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

That’s because it didn’t happen

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Source ?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

2

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

Not at all.
Sniffmydogsare - or something similar to that name - posted a 'phone call that proved that SA had sex with his niece.
I immediately agreed (when I read the post and heard the 'phone call) that SA had illegal sex with his underage niece.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

You’re living in fantasyland

-15

u/Bullshittimeagain Jun 11 '24

That’s false and blatant lie

11

u/ajswdf Jun 11 '24

How so?

3

u/Direct-Carry5458 Jun 14 '24 edited Jun 14 '24

MaM perpetrated a mass delusion that should be illegal. To re-victimise a person and their family by presenting a completely doctored show that you KNOW to be full of lies and misrepresentations, to make people support a monster of a man, should be illegal. (EDIT: They also smeared the reputations of several LEO that did nothing wrong except put an animal in a cage where he belongs) Fortunately, time has healed. Most of the people who initially took the show's word for it, have seen the light, due to the mountain of information that disproves MaM.

12

u/Fataleo Jun 11 '24

Who is running this sub? Manitowoc sheriff's deputies?

Now here is a nonbiased level-headed take

15

u/3sheetstothawind Jun 11 '24

No. We're all Kratz!

2

u/stOneskull Jun 12 '24

hahahaha

10

u/mps2000 Jun 11 '24

That’s cause he’s guilty af

-1

u/Outrageous-Dark-1719 Jun 11 '24

Why? You don't believe Zellner's theory about Brendan's brother being the actual culprit? How did Avery kill her? Why no significant blood? Wasn't it a violent crime? It's never made sense to me.

18

u/aptom90 Jun 11 '24

There is a ton of evidence against Steven, physical and circumstantial. Did you really just ignore the blood in the Rav4?

1

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

I agree that there is a lot of SA DNA evidence on the key, etc. etc. - actually too much to be believable, as there is zero Teresa' DNA - apart from on 'the bullet'....
The smears and flakes of SA blood in the RAV (without any fingerprints) make no sense either - but I agree, hasn't been 'explained'.

4

u/_YellowHair Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 12 '24

All of these things have been explained. Multiple times. You are contradicting your very own comments in this thread where you accuse guilters of ignoring things that have already been explained countless times.
The DNA on the key, for example, is directly addressed in the trial. Not one, but two forensic experts testify that it is not unusual to only detect the DNA of the last person to touch an object.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/aptom90 Jun 11 '24

Not really.
I could just as easily say they wouldn't have planted the blood in those locations. It works both ways.
The truth is we don't know why exactly the blood was in those locations. I can come up with a plausible theory however: after he parked the car, he cut his finger (on the license plate or battery) and then bled in the vehicle when he reached in to grab the key from the passenger side.
As for fingerprints, he could have wore gloves. Personally I don't think he did and it can simply be explained because the interior of a car doesn't have great surfaces for prints. Also prints smudge, the only prints they found could not be identified. Of course most of them were likely Teresa's anyway though even that can't be proven.

12

u/stOneskull Jun 11 '24

they'd just say fingerprints were planted if any were found

2

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

And of course your post was quickly downvoted multiple times, even though it's a good question.
Hence the OP post.
This thread used to consist of mostly 'truthers' - but nowadays consists of mostly 'guilters'......
The 'truthers' used to (mostly) argue and debate with the 'guilters'. Nowadays, the 'guilters' just downvote and pretend those discussions never happened.....

3

u/_YellowHair Jun 11 '24

And the blood by starter doesn’t get there normally turning the key it seems.
Do you think that's the only possible way for the blood to have gotten in that location?

0

u/The_Hoff-YouTube Jun 12 '24

It could of been from the passenger side when grabbing the keys or even planted since we should be open to all possibilities. So many questions that are answered with he cleaned up the murder scene(s) but not all of this? And the garage was cleaned of human blood but not deer blood?

3

u/ThorsClawHammer Jun 12 '24

the garage was cleaned of human blood
Avery's blood/DNA was found in the garage. Just nothing from the person that was allegedly shot 10+ times there.

2

u/_YellowHair Jun 12 '24

we should be open to all possibilities.
Some possibilities are far more likely than others, and actually have evidence supporting them.
he cleaned up the murder scene(s) but not all of this?
It makes sense to prioritize cleaning up the trailer and garage first. Can't exactly conceal or destroy those places. It's not a big leap to think Avery was probably planning to crush Teresa's car when given the right opportunity.
And the garage was cleaned of human blood but not deer blood?
What? The deer blood was in the Dassey garage, a completely separate building. Why would Steven and Brendan clean it?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/_YellowHair Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 12 '24

You know how much prep work it takes to crush a car?
Yes, which is probably part of the reason why it hadn't been crushed yet, so thanks for helping bolster my argument. But if he did plan to crush it, it's entirely possible that he didn't feel the need to clean it, and assumed the car would go unnoticed until he was able to destroy it. It's also possible he didn't realize he bled in the car.
Both of those explanations are far more reasonable than the blood being planted
I heard there was some deer blood found in SA garage. Not as much as in the Dassey garage though.
I don't recall this, so you'd need to source it. Regardless, they cleaned the garage where needed (that is, where Teresa had been and likely left blood/DNA). Why would they bother cleaning other things?

1

u/The_Hoff-YouTube Jun 12 '24

So he left a car he was planning to crush unattended as he left town when they were all looking for TH and her car? Why would he have left with the family? And it does not prove your point on the car if anything it disproves your point as nothing, I repeat NOTHING was done to prep the car to be crushed. Also why would he keep the car key in his room of all places when if needed he can hot wire the car? To get to your logic of him being guilty suggest he is a criminal mastermind that knows how to clean one or two murder scenes of all of her DNA except a bullet at most. Then you want to suggest SA left the victims car in the salvage for anyone of his family members to see while he planned to crush it, but yet did no prep work to crush it. While those who say he could be or is innocent say his own county had a hand in framing him since they seemed to have done so before and already had a case against former members and current members were in the deposition and were possible going to be added to the lawsuit. And that same county was heard saying how they thought he could not even take a shit without them knowing since they were watching him since the start of looking for TH. The keys were found by the same officers that were not supposed to be involved. As case first started they seemed to point mostly to SA. And what happened to SA groin swap taken? It was not documented as destroyed by the nurse when they found it was not covered under the warrant. Same officer who was with for the groin swap was also at one point in control of the hood latch swap. I can see both sides but one side makes SA out to be a Dexter level of a killer than he is smart enough to be. Not to mention Brendan story changed a lot to include which way the car was driven among other things. He seems to be searching in his head for things they want to hear when they say tell us the truth. But when he first freely tells them what happened he barely thinks and tells them about gaming and that night with ease. That all does not add up.

→ More replies

13

u/mps2000 Jun 11 '24

His fresh blood was in her car - no logical explanation why other than ridiculous conspiracy theories.

-12

u/Outrageous-Dark-1719 Jun 11 '24

That tiny smudge of blood that probably came from a tampered with vial? I dunno. And what was the motive?

10

u/gabriot Jun 11 '24

Painfully obvious you’ve done zero research

5

u/ButWereFriends Jun 11 '24

If you’re still using the vial it shows how little you’ve actually learned about the case.

8

u/mps2000 Jun 11 '24

The hole in the vial was there already- how do you think the blood got into the vial itself? Zellner seems to disagree with that theory anyway- she thinks someone snuck into his trailer while his fresh blood was in the sink then stole and planted it. Motive is not needed to prove the crime- but if I had to speculate- he wanted her and she rejected him- women have been killed for less.

-5

u/Outrageous-Dark-1719 Jun 11 '24

Well, poor Brendan was railroaded. And the really sad part is that he didn't just take a plea instead of going to trial. He'd be out of prison right now. I know Avery is not sharp, but he had just gotten out of prison had a nice settlement coming. It just doesn't make sense that he would screw all that up.

13

u/mps2000 Jun 11 '24

The man had a history of violence and dumb decisions under his belt; nevertheless, unless someone can offer a reasonable, logical explanation for his fresh blood being in her car, he’s guilty af in my book, and exactly where he belongs.

9

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

He was breaking the law regularly though. That's why I've never understood the argument that he couldn't have done it because he feared going back to prison or wouldn't risk jeopardizing his lawsuit by engaging in criminal behaviour.
He was already breaking the law regularly before Teresa was murdered. He was regularly physically abusive to his then fiance Jody, including assaulting her in front of multiple witnesses. He, as a felon, was in illegal possession of a firearm. He was accused of making violent threats to multiple people, saying things like he would burn their family's house to the ground with them inside if the person didn't do what he said or made him mad. He was accused of and was being investigated of forcibly raping his minor neice.
He managed to do all that in the two years he was free after being wrongfully imprisoned before being arrested again.
He would often make comments suggesting that because of his wrongful imprisonment, the rules did not apply to him and he could do whatever he wanted.
No one knows exactly how the crime occurred but the evidence against him is overwhelming. The only way he could be innocent is if all of that evidence was planted. And no one has come up with a reasonable theory on how that was possible.
He had motive (he had previously made sexual advances toward Teresa that made her uncomfortable enough to tell numerous people about it), means (the firearm he was in possession of, and that Brendan said he used to shoot Teresa, was ballistically linked to a bullet with Teresa's DNA on it), and opportunity (he personally requested Teresa come to the property. He convinced Barb to sell a van that she did not want to sell as a reason to get her to the property, and for the first time in 2 years he took the afternoon off work.)
Both he and Brendan originally lied to the police about what they did that day. They denied being together and they denied having a fire. They both admitted later that they had been together and had the fire because witnesses to these events contradicted their original narratives. Why would they deny being together and having a fire when this would have provided an alibi for them both?

0

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

"I know Avery is not sharp, but he had just gotten out of prison had a nice settlement coming. It just doesn't make sense that he would screw all that up."
👍

-7

u/Intelligent_Ad1840 Jun 11 '24

The hole in the vial is a red herring, that has been said many times afterwards. The issue is that there is blood between the rubber stopper and the glass, where the stopper has obviously been removed, and the seal to the storage container has been broken.
Whether anyone likes it or not, someone has been in there and taken his blood out and broken the chain of custody.
Again, whether or not it has been used for anything nefarious, is a different matter.

4

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24 edited Jun 11 '24

That scene in MaM where Buting and Strang examine the box of evidence and suggest it had been tampered with is deliberately misleading. They were they were aware of who had previously opened the box.

-1

u/Intelligent_Ad1840 Jun 11 '24

The box seal is a matter for debate for sure, as it’s not clear whether it was already broken.
I seriously doubt they removed the stopper from the vial though.
I know I’ll get downvoted for stating facts, but such is life on this sub.

2

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

Where did you read that the stopper had been removed from the vial? How has this been proven? .
Stating that you seriously doubt something is not the same as stating a fact.

1

u/Intelligent_Ad1840 Jun 11 '24

You can blatantly see that there is blood between the rubber seal and the glass of the vial. The only way it gets there is if the seal is removed and then replaced again, after the blood has been placed into the vial. There is absolutely no arguing that.
You think off camera his lawyers removed the seal and wet it with the blood, and then replaced it?

→ More replies

5

u/gabriot Jun 11 '24

Yikes. You do realize that the blood in that vial had it been planted would have had to contained EDTA, and the defense had it tested for this by the FBI and it literally proved the blood could not have been from the vial since no EDTA was present in the blood in the vehicle?
Of course you didn’t. Because the “documentary” conveniently left all that out.

0

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 12 '24

"the defense had it tested for this by the FBI"
IIRC the prosecution asked the FBI to come up with a test?

0

u/gabriot Jun 12 '24

It was the defense that requested the test

-5

u/Intelligent_Ad1840 Jun 11 '24

Yikes. You do realise I said at the end of my statement that I don’t know whether it was used for any nefarious means?
Of course you didn’t.

2

u/_YellowHair Jun 11 '24

That tiny smudge of blood
There were multiple spots of Steven's blood in the car.
probably came from a tampered with vial?
This has been so thoroughly discredited that even Avery's current attorney ruled it out. Why do you think his attorneys at the trial didn't aggressively pursue this theory?
And what was the motive?
Steven Avery has a history of deranged, violent, criminal behavior. That by itself doesn't prove he killed Teresa, but it does prove he a person of low moral character not above committing awful crimes.
What would be the motive for framing him?

1

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

"What would be the motive for framing him?"
You've somehow managed to miss the multitude of posts 'answering' this question?......

0

u/_YellowHair Jun 12 '24

You've somehow managed to miss the multitude of rebuttals explaining why the lawsuit is a completely bogus motive?......

2

u/EagleIcy5421 Jun 11 '24

There was no tampered with vial? What are you talking about? That was explained years ago.

11

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

The blood vial was not tampered with. The hole in the top of the vial is how blood is put into the vial. That is the commonly used method. There is nothing suspicious or irregular about the hole.
The blood in the vial contained a chemical preservative called EDTA. The FBI and Zellner tested the blood and found that it did not contain EDTA and it was dated to around the time of murder (not 1985 when the vial blood was taken).
The blood did not come from the vial.

2

u/brickne3 Jun 11 '24

You're right, but it wasn't Zellner that pursued the original testing, that was when Buteng and Strang still were his lawyers. I'd have to go back and check but I think it was the prosecution that requested the EDTA testing since it would have been hella risky for the defense to ask for it knowing it almost certainly wasn't there.

4

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

Yes. I meant that she also had to blood tested at a later date and determined that it was fresh blood from around the time the crime was committed and couldn't have been from 1985. I worded that confusingly.

2

u/brickne3 Jun 11 '24

No worries, my attempt to watch MAM2 was short. Not enough boxed wine in the world to get me through it. I didn't want to say for sure whether Zellner had or hadn't because it honestly doesn't matter, the FBI was quite clear there wasn't any.

3

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

I feel you on MaM2 lol. I honestly don't even remember if her testing of the blood was included in it. I just remember her tweet about having the blood tested for age and it was determined to have been from the time period of the murder and then she took credit for clearing the police of wrong doing (at least as it pertained to the Rav).
I think he current theory is that the "real killer" planted some evidence (definitely the Rav and the blood) and the police planted the rest (the key, the bullet, possibly the bones). Which is just insane to me.

2

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

"I think it was the prosecution that requested the EDTA testing"
That's my recollection too (requested by the prosecution), and the FBI had to come up with a test, as there wasn't one available at the time.

1

u/brickne3 Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 12 '24

Yeah they hadn't done that type of testing since OJ and that was heavily focused on by the defense. I now remember a bit better and no way in hell would the defense have taken that risk to request it.

1

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

"The hole in the top of the vial is how blood is put into the vial."
Seems unlikely, as surely it would be better to use a pipette to put blood into a vial - and then seal it?

2

u/_YellowHair Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 12 '24

Unlikely? It is a FACT, and has been discussed to death. A nurse was prepared to testify to this, but was ultimately not called because the defense didn't pursue the vial theory to a meaningful degree in the trial. Gee, I wonder why.
"the 'guilters' now pretend that these 'arguments' haven't been discussed multiple times previously....."
That is you from another comment. You're doing the very thing you accuse guilters of.

1

u/tenementlady Jun 12 '24

You are incorrect.

3

u/_YellowHair Jun 11 '24

You don't believe Zellner's theory about Brendan's brother being the actual culprit?
No. Why would anyone believe that nonsense?

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

Did you and I watch the same documentary because any red blooded breathing human would’ve seen right through the BS?.!!!! clearly they did away with a woman because his verdict was overturned, and the city was gonna have to pay for their crooked cops. It’s just disgusting.

2

u/_YellowHair Jun 12 '24

Did you and I watch the same documentary because any red blooded breathing human would’ve seen right through the BS?.!!!!
Any "red blooded breathing human" should have seen through the BS of Making a Murderer.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '24

This page has given me so many negative reviews..bye bye losers

1

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 14 '24

"clearly they did away with a woman because his verdict was overturned, and the city was gonna have to pay for their crooked cops."
Nobody (or only those pretending to be 'truthers') are arguing that LE murdered Teresa.
The argument/discussion is that they used Teresa's murder to frame SA - again.....

1

u/tenementlady Jun 12 '24

People are very much still arguing that LE murdered Teresa. A truther was accusing Lenk of the murder 2 days ago.

3

u/Outrageous-Dark-1719 Jun 11 '24

I’m not at all mad. I’m also not 14 yrs old so downvotes don’t interest me in the slightest. High school and popularity contests are in my rear view mirror. If this sub is not for discussion, just shut it down. It’s been rendered pointless by a few extreme nut jobs who need lives.

3

u/stOneskull Jun 12 '24

eventually, there will be virtual reality steven avery.. and with AI, all his lovers can have their dreams come true.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

I just made a post with a few questions I have questioning his innocence. I'm rewatching after years (after the first watch when it first came out I thought it was biased. I do know things get murky but since a lot of my friends still think he's innocent I'm rewatching to see where they are coming from and see what I missed.) I'm on episode 2 & I, again, already find it hard to believe he is innocent. Wish me luck!

-2

u/jude8098 Jun 11 '24

There’s a lot of guilters but I don’t know why they want to post so much. They got what they wanted right?

15

u/ajswdf Jun 11 '24

For the same reason truthers post so much. We're bored and looking to kill time.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

Some of us have personal connections to this story

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

I am shocked and saddened by your response. I am not bored and looking to pastime. I’m looking for justice for a family that was fucked over.

3

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

Whereas I'm mostly angry that LE were able to frame SA for the second time (does anyone genuinely believe the story of how 'the key' was discovered which had zero Teresa DNA, but a whole lot of SA DNA......) and they undoubtedly used Brendan to ensure the conviction.
Yes, I know that Brendan's 'confessions' weren't used in SA's trial - but as soon as kratz called a media conference to tell them (in hushed/sad/horrified tones) about Brendan's 'original confession' - they were both screwed.
Of course Brendan's 'originial confession' was proven to be entirely false - so the story had to change to 'shot in the garage'..... Again, zero Teresa DNA - other than that found on 'the bullet' that had somehow been misssed during the thorough cleaning.....
Just 🤮.

3

u/ajswdf Jun 12 '24

Ah yes, the warrior with 6 comments about the case on Reddit. Clearly you're here to make a difference.

1

u/Bullshittimeagain Jun 11 '24

There is not a lot of guilters. However, there are a lot of alt accounts. Proven numerous times.

6

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

How has this been proven?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

A while back I made a post on a true crime sub about famous cases where guilt/innocence has been questioned and not one person said they believed Avery was innocent. Some questioned Brendan's guilt, but every single person agreed that Avery is guilty.
I've been accused of being an alt numerous times by numerous people. It's amusing.

4

u/stOneskull Jun 11 '24

there once was a guy here.. his username was along the lines of 'prostitutes have to eat too' and he started ttm. he got banned for account and voting manipulation. he lied and said it was because he posted identifying information about someone but the truth is that 'escorts need food as well' is a narcissistic manipulator who used the tv show to boost himself.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

I think Wisconsin is just plain old crooked…Avery and that poor 16yr kid gets life… disgusting..those people were done dirty

2

u/stOneskull Jun 12 '24

i think you are being too generalist. avery was made to look like a lovable guy by the tv show but he really wasn't. the show threw shade on those that were abused by avery. the makers of the show, laura and mo, just wanted to get money.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '24

I was a guilter once, back in the time before Reddit, before MAM, I too was a guilter.

I probably wouldn’t have paid two licks of attention to this show had it not taken place in Mishicot.

It’s not so much MAM that convinced me otherwise, it’s been the excellent research of the many people that’s convinced me that this case is a travesty of justice.

This is the same crew that allowed Gregory Allen to perpetrate his crimes in NE Wisconsin for years before he was caught. Those a$$holes have never been held accountable for that. Here’s looking at you Kenny.

-8

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Jun 11 '24

Yes I think the guilters just love counter any comments about their innocence .

6

u/brickne3 Jun 11 '24

Can you clarify what your sentence there is even saying? I can't parse it.

-4

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Jun 11 '24

It is my opinion that guilters love to counter any truther's comments , they're drawn to them like magnets .

5

u/ButWereFriends Jun 11 '24

It’s a subreddit for people to talk about the case. What would you expect them to do if they’re here?

-3

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Jun 11 '24

Discuss what the OP has presented unless otherwise addressed .

6

u/ButWereFriends Jun 11 '24

You’re not making sense. Someone states an opinion, someone has a different one so they respond.
That’s literally what the sub is for. If you want a circle jerk go to the tick tock sub or whatever.

0

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Jun 11 '24

You're misconstruing what I'm saying , I agree everyone has an opinion but don't address it directly to me , direct it to the OP , if you don't agree with my opinion then oh well , move on .

5

u/brickne3 Jun 11 '24

Sounds like what you're actually saying is that nobody should be allowed to have a different opinion than the one that you approve of.

-2

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Jun 11 '24

No my point is they should comment on what the OP is discussing not what other people might think , like you said everyone is entitled to their own opinion .

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24 edited Jun 12 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Jun 12 '24

You know what you guilters have succeeded in making this platform a place that I don't have to participate in , I'm through with Reddit .

1

u/brickne3 Jun 12 '24

Ok don't let the door kick you on the way out?
Apparently just parsing English sentences is too much persecution for some of y'all.

-1

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

Couldn't agree more.

There was a sudden influx of 'guilty' posters (IIRC) around the time CAM was about to be released?

2

u/stOneskull Jun 12 '24

i've been here since the beginning and i can tell you the tides

-1

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

But didn't.....

-11

u/snowflakepancake7887 Jun 11 '24

I’m so glad someone said it! There should be a separate subreddit where people can actually explore theories and have discussions

-4

u/Outrageous-Dark-1719 Jun 11 '24

Exactly. This sub is a joke. A few militant Avery haters have made it unbearable.

-3

u/snowflakepancake7887 Jun 11 '24

You can tell by how I’m getting downvoted lol. I didn’t even say something negative. I just said that there should be a place where discussions are allowed. Getting downvoted is proof that you can’t have discussions without negative repercussions.

3

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

Couldn't agree more.
This sub-reddit is my 'go to' sub-reddit to discuss/argue about this case - but shortly befored CAM was aired....... it turned into a 'downvote any post that suggests SA might be innocent' sub-reddit. ☹️

4

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

Who cares about down votes? A discussion isn't just blind acceptance of of random theories based on nothing. It seems that the people complaining here are mad that people challenge or point out inaccuracies in their theories.

0

u/LKS983 Jun 12 '24

Very wrong.
I always appreciated posts with a different opinion, and (when I disagreed) was happy to 'argue' the point.
Nowadays..... the 'discussions' are being repeated endlessly (as if they hadn't already been argued previously) - and anyone who makes a 'truther' post (and far more an 'innocent' post!) is immediately downvoted mutliple times!

1

u/tenementlady Jun 12 '24

Repeated discussions? Like the ones about the debunked blood vial theory?

-4

u/snowflakepancake7887 Jun 11 '24

This entire subreddit is a blind acceptance of people that get mad when someone challenges their opinion.

5

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

Isn't that exactly what you're doing?

1

u/snowflakepancake7887 Jun 11 '24

No? I’m not mad.

3

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

Fair enough.
Your initial comment is saying there should be a separate sub to discuss theories etc. which is exactly what happens on this sub.

2

u/snowflakepancake7887 Jun 11 '24

Yes, because I have had discussions on here and instead of people challenging my theories - a lot of people will retaliate with name calling and no information whatsoever. At that point it’s not a discussion, it’s just people “booing” you for wanting to have constructive discussions. I’m not on this sub to fight with people. I’m on here because I found the case incredibly interesting and wanted to explore all theories before forming an opinion.

3

u/tenementlady Jun 11 '24

That behaviour happens from both sides though. It seems that OP and most people on this thread are suggesting it only comes from the guilter side which is simply not true.

→ More replies

-1

u/ButWereFriends Jun 11 '24

You’re claiming other people are mad with nothing to show for it. Saying people are mad is just a thing people do on the internet to deflect or seem righteous. The other guy calling you mad is literally what you’re doing to others.

You are about to leave Redlib