Shouldn't all suspected human evidence have gotten the same procedural treatment? Why was the burn pit sifted in situ (asap) but the quarry piles stored in buckets until after Brendan was coerced?

What would be the difference between the evidence to cause such a different and drastic collection response?

I’ve been off work with Covid and decided to watch both seasons again over two days. It’s still as gripping and brilliant as it ever was. I’ve found that no true crime docos have captured my attention as much since. Anyone got recommendations? I love shows that have a huge amount of the trial and the mystery/other theories involved.

Ok so where are we at in this situation

Some things I've noticed "truthers" say to and about "guilters" the past 6 months.

1. a truther told a guilter to volunteer their self to be the body in a fire to get a sense of the smell a burning body makes.

2. a truther told a guilter the guilter likes to be raped by Kratz.

3.a truther called a guilter a moron.

4.a truther called a many guilters brain dead clowns.

5.a truther called a guilter a Kratz clone.

6.a foul play staff member flipped off a guilter live on air.

7. a truther told a guilter to provide a source stating Colborn did not rape Teresa.

8. many truthers deny the fact that Marie was raped because Avery wasn't arrested for it.

9. a truther called a guilter a raping c**t.

10. a truther told a guilter to "die bastard"

Does this help their cause of getting Avery and Dassey out of prison?

Kathleen Zellner tweet about not supporting wild theories , some take this as she doesn't support the 2 Rav theory , however she did say that "they" only supported what was in the briefs and pleadings , Did she not request testing on the Rav 4 ? If granted does anyone really think that she wouldn't verify all VIN's ? She will have an expert mechanic from Toyota look at every VIN on the Rav and will not miss this chance , she said only in the briefing and pleadings so read between the lines .

I advocate for both sides of the story. Always. I just happened to get a post from Steven Avery is guilty on my feed, I guess because I used to be in these subs years ago.

I just answered the post with facts and got down voted.

I don’t care about being downvoted, but care that the facts are ignored.

I am so passed if SA is guilty or or not. But tell the truth when you present your side.

Allegedly:

• Law enforcement has nothing to hide.

• Avery is certainly the killer.

• Zellner's testing clears law enforcement

• The state only wants justice to be served

• The state wants to be appear honest and open to the public

• Even if testing did find something, there is no evidence of any kind implicating cops in a frame up or any person in the murder except Avery (and maybe Brendan depending on what day of the week it is.)

• There's no law stopping them from letting Zellner test the evidence, and as we found out earlier they can ignore evidence preservation laws at will anyway (and the courts will make up facts out of thin air to cover them)

On paper, this could be a PR coup. "See, we have nothing to hide! We encourage as much testing of the evidence as possible..." Etc.

So why is the state refusing to budge unless a court forces them?

Probably because they DO have something to hide.

In the intricate web of evidence and testimony woven by the prosecution in Steven Avery's case, one crucial element often overlooked is the curious case of item BZ. This collection of bone fragments and muscle tissue, deemed "unquestionably human" by forensic anthropologist Leslie Eisenberg, surfaced within a tarp filled with ash and debris on November 10th, 2005. This discovery was made by Rodney Pevytoe and Tom Sturdivant at the Calumet County Sheriff’s Department storage area, where evidence from the case was held. The tarp, allegedly originating from the sifting of Avery's burn pit on November 8th, assumes pivotal significance in linking Avery to the remains of Teresa Halbach.

At the heart of the matter lies a tissue sample from one of the bone fragments in item BZ, yielding a partial DNA profile matching Teresa Halbach's pap smear. This single piece of evidence provided the State with a crucial link, connecting the recovered remains to Steven Avery. Had the State not asserted that item BZ originated from the burn pit, the task of convicting Avery would have been considerably more arduous. However, by staking their claim on item BZ's origin, the State inadvertently constrained themselves, leaving no room for retreat.

In the following analysis, we embark on a detailed examination of why the State's assertion regarding item BZ is not merely dubious but downright implausible. While direct photographic evidence of the burn pit's contents is lacking, we delve into the intricacies of the sifting process conducted on November 8th. By dissecting the equipment utilized, the logistics involved, and the personnel present, we endeavor to paint a vivid picture of the circumstances surrounding the burn pit examination.

Subsequently, we scrutinize the dimensions and physical characteristics of the bone and tissue fragments comprising item BZ. Through this lens, we assess the feasibility and likelihood of these items being overlooked during the meticulous sifting process. A critical point of comparison emerges as we juxtapose the contents of item BZ with those of property tag number 8318—the infamous box of bones recovered from the burn pit on November 8th. Discrepancies in the condition and composition of these bone fragments offer valuable insights into the integrity of the State's narrative.

Furthermore, we confront the absence of cadaver dog alerts at Steven's burn pit—a glaring inconsistency considering the trained ability of these canines to detect human remains. We ponder the improbability of a relatively unburnt piece of muscle tissue evading detection in an area ripe for cadaver dog interest.

By the conclusion of the analysis, supported by comprehensive information and visual aids, the implausibility of item BZ's connection to the burn pit becomes irrefutable. The evidence points unequivocally to an alternative origin for item BZ, rendering the State's assertion untenable. Through a synthesis of logical deduction and empirical examination, we invite readers to embrace a perspective grounded in common sense—a perspective that unequivocally rejects the notion that item BZ emerged from Steven Avery's burn pit on November 8th, 2005.

On November 8, 2005, a team including John Ertl, Charles Cates, Guang Zhang from the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory, Jason Jost from Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, and Tom Sturdivant from DCI meticulously sifted through Steven Avery's burn pit. Let’s first give you a description and a visual of the equipment they were using to sift the burn pit that day. Ertl describes the equipment as follows:

"It's three aluminum poles that hook together to form a tripod, stands about 6 feet tall. There are chains coming down from the center top of the tripod to which we attach an aluminum frame, so it kind of can swing within the tripod. And on that aluminum frame, we can put different size mesh. You put the materials on top of the mesh and you can use a trowel, or a broom, or just shaking, whatever works best for the material. And then the particles or bits that won't fall through the screen, we put a tarp under there and saved those for later analysis, if needed."

Here’s a visual of what the sifting equipment they were using would have looked like:

Let’s hear how Ertl describes the process that took place that day:

Q: All right. And who participated in the processing of this burn pit?
A: The three of us assisted, and, uh, the person in charge with that area was Tom Sturdivant, Special Agent, with the Division of Criminal Investigations.

Q: All right. And, urn, tell us how you proceeded to process that pit?
A: There were also additional officers present who assisted in the sifting process. I was the one who shoveled the materials from the ground up to the sifting platform, and then there were probably four, five, or six of us standing around the sifter at any time collecting things and placing them in boxes. We sifted through all the ash and material that was in that area.

Q: Now, if you would, describe for us exactly how the shovel was used to remove debris and other materials from this pit and brought to the sifter. Tell us about how that was conducted?
A: Okay. We set the sifter up, and just past the end of that frame from that car seat. The shovel we used was one that we carried with us for this purpose. The sifter we usually use is for exhuming gravesites. So we'll shovel out the material and sift through it looking for bones or bullets or whatever from a gravesite. In this case we had very hard ground and then on top of that was maybe around six inches of ashen material. It's a flat blade shovel, sort of like a garden spade, and that was used sort of like a dustpan to scoop up the ash, and then I stood up, turned around, and took a step, and set it on the screen. And then the people around the screen would pick through it. The smaller material would fall through the screen onto a tarp, and the larger materials they would collect and put in a box.

Q: What efforts did you undertake to ensure that you wouldn't damage or create any harm to any of the debris that was being recovered from the pit?
A: Well, it was done carefully. I guess that's what I can say. We didn't look real hard at the materials we were collecting. My advice to the people around the sifter was, if you're not sure, just put it in the box. Someone else will figure out later what it is. So we didn't spend time picking at the things that we were collecting. The shovel - We had a hard surface. It's just pick up the ash with it. I mean, it wasn't like we had to dig and put your foot on it and push down and dig or anything. It wasn't necessary. So it was a pretty gentle process.

Q: Tell us about the sifting part of the process?
A: It’s sort of like hardware cloth, and we carry it – three different grades of it. I think there’s a half-inch mesh, a quarter-inch mesh, and an eighth-inch mesh, and we put this material through the quarter-inch mesh. So one scoopful at a time is placed onto the mesh, and the mesh is probably, three-foot by three-and-a-half-foot rectangular area, and then the five people would, with their gloved hands, I believe some of them had a mason's trowel, it's about this big, triangular metal-shaped object with a handle, to move the ash on the screen, spread it out, and then you can sort of tap the screen and it sort of jiggles the material, and the finer particles fall through.

Q: All right. Did you, or any of your team who participated in this process, recognize any of the debris as human remains?
A: We recognized it as remains for sure. There were things that looked like teeth. Things that looked like bone. Nothing bigger than the palm of my hand. But whether it was human remains or not, we weren't sure.

Q: Most of the items were very small?
A: Yes, they were.

Q: All right, Approximately how long did this process last?
A: Well, they had asked for the sifter at about 3pm and we worked until it got dark. It was just after 5pm. So about two hours.

Q: And what did you do at the scene as you wrapped up this, um, processing for that evening?
A: Well, once we had sifted all the materials, then we had what was collected in boxes. We packaged that up. That was eventually turned over to Calumet County. The material that was fallen through the screen onto the tarp was also saved, and Tom Sturdivant took care of that. And we just cleaned up the sifter and put it away, and then we proceeded to our next task.

Q: How was the, um, material preserved that had fallen through the screen?
A: It was fallen through onto a tarp, and it’s my understanding that Tom Sturdivant was going to keep that. How he did that, I don’t know.

Q: All right. In other words, you left that scene before the complete wrap-up as it were, had undertaken?
A: Yes.

Now let’s keep in mind that this wasn’t a massive operation that had to take place on the 8th. The burn pit was a relatively small rectangular area with a couple inches of loose ash sitting on top of hard-packed soil – meaning, there really wasn’t a large scale of ash and debris they had to go through – which is why Ertl said they sifted through ALL of the ash and material that was in that area. Take a look for yourself – the first picture is taken on 11/6, two days before any sifting is done. The second picture is taken a few days after the 8th showing the missing loose ash and debris from the burn pit. Again, there wasn’t a ton to go through.

Ertl tells us at trial that they didn’t even dig down into the hard-packed soil on the 8th, Ertl simply used his shovel like a dust pan to collect the loose ash and debris in the burn pit, place each shovel full on the sifting screens, the other people were all standing around the sifting screen shaking it, spreading out the ash with their hands, and even using some tools to get the finer material. They used a quarter-inch mesh sifting platform designed to catch larger pieces while letting smaller debris fall through onto a tarp. Given this setup, we can say with certainty that there's no conceivable way that several of the bones and tissue fragments in item BZ could have gone unnoticed.

Ertl's team spent about two hours carefully sifting through the burn pit, with 4-6 people examining each batch. The largest bone fragment in item BZ was 59.2 mm (about 2.3 inches), and the largest piece of muscle tissue was 61.3 mm by 30 mm (about 2.4 inches by 1.2 inches). These are significant pieces that would've stood out during the sifting process. Ertl's team was instructed to collect anything potentially significant, and Ertl himself testified that if there was any doubt about whether something was important, they should put it in the evidence box. So how on earth could these large, distinctive fragments have slipped through the sifting process without being noticed??

The notion that these large fragments could have passed through a quarter-inch mesh is not only absurd—it’s physically impossible. Additionally, both Jason Jost and Tom Sturdivant, who were involved in the initial search, claimed they could see bones in the burn pit from 8 feet away. If they could spot bones from that distance, there's no way they would miss the larger, more noticeable fragments in item BZ as they were sorting through the ash/debris with their hands. It simply doesn't make sense.

Let's talk about burn characteristics. The bones in box 8318—the initial collection from the burn pit—show signs of intense heat exposure, or calcination. Calcined bones are typically dry, rigid, and often white or black from the burning process. Have a look yourself.

In stark contrast, the bone fragments in item BZ are far less burned, with some of the tissue retaining a squishy consistency. Here’s an unedited picture again of all of item BZ.

If item BZ came from the same burn pit as the items you see in 8318, you'd expect there to be SOMETHING in that box of bones that looks like one of the unburned items in BZ – right? The fact that we are to believe that somehow every single fragment that is in item BZ (that looks nothing like any of the bones in 8318) were all coincidentally �?missed’ on 11/8 is ridiculous. Clearly, item BZ was never mixed in with Steven's burn pit and the loose ash that was sifted from there on 11/8.

Finally, Cadaver dogs are specifically trained to detect human remains, even in trace amounts. If item BZ's muscle tissue had been in the burn pit, these dogs would have certainly been drawn to this area very early on in the investigation. Yet, during the entire time HRD dogs were present on the Avery Salvage yard (11/5 - 11/10), there were no alerts from cadaver dogs at Steven's burn pit. Think about that for a moment. These dogs are highly skilled, and if human tissue was in the burn pit, they would have found it. The lack of alerts strongly suggests that item BZ wasn't in the burn pit.

The state's excuse that Bear, Steven's German shepherd chained near the burn pit, prevented officers or cadaver dogs from accessing the burn pit is extremely weak. Professional handlers are trained to manage dog behavior. If a cadaver dog had detected the smell of human remains in Steven's burn pit, removing Bear would have been a simple task and would have been done immediately.

Here's the bottom line: item BZ could not have come from Steven Avery's burn pit. As we question its origins and implications, we're left to ponder: where did BZ truly come from?

How come even the prosecutor wasn't happy about the key?

I have had numerous people claim that the key found in Avery's trailer either defies physics or was magic. When asked to explain, they run away or claim they already explained and refuse to explain what they mean it was either magic or defies physics.

Can anyone explain why the key defies physics without simply giving your feelings? Is there an expert that claims it could not have been found there? Please bring receipts if you are going to make this claim.

Lately a group of the murderer supporters have been claiming that the state has been "fighting" Zellner's efforts to test Teresa's RAV, or that the state backed out of their agreement to let her test the RAV. Yet, when asked for any evidence to back up these claims, no one can provide any.

Here is how things actually happened regarding the testing of the RAV.

August 26 2016: Zellner files motion for additional testing of evidence

November 23, 2016: Judge signs order for testing

Our judge just signed stipulation and order for the scientific testing to proceed in Steven Avery case. AG worked w/us.#MakingAMurderer

June 7, 2017: Zellner files motion for post conviction relief before the agreed upon testing is completed

October 3, 2017: Judge denies Zellner's 6/7/2017 motion for relief

October 6, 2017: Zellner files for relief from 10/3/17 decision, informs court she meant to stay and amend her 6/7/2017 motion but never got around to informing the court of her intention to amend, despite having time to inform the media of her intentions.

October 9, 2017: Zellner tweets that the state has not backed out of their testing agreement

The State is not reneging on agreement the question is will the court let us proceed to test & amend. #makingamurderer 7:43 AM - 9 Oct 2017

November 28, 2017: Zellner's motions for relief from the 10/3/17 are denied. Judge Sutkiewicz says there was no communication to the court that there would be additional evidence submitted in the case.

...extended period where Zellner seems to have lost interest in the RAV...

March 14, 2024: Zellner files second motion for scientific testing, informing the court that she now has the money to complete testing of the RAV

Because Mr. Avery’s counsel now has the financial resources, donated by Mr. Avery’s supporters, to conduct additional testing on items from Ms. Halbach’s vehicle that have never been tested previously for touch DNA, Mr. Avery is requesting, pursuant to the 2007 DNA Order entered by Judge Willis, that he be allowed to do such testing.

March 22, 2024: Zellner files reply to the state's opposition for a stay and remand listing the reason why she has not previously tested the RAV

Contrary to the State's claim that Mr. Avery could have conducted the testing previously, Mr. Avery's pro bono counsel did not have the finances to do so

So my question is: where did this myth come from that the state is fighting testing of the RAV? Can anyone provide any shred of evidence that the state backed out of an agreement to test the RAV?

Seems to me the state agreed to the testing in 2016 and Steven's counsel just haven't had the funds to complete the testing for the last 8 years or so.

1. MaM alleged that the reports written by Colborn and Lenk were hidden in a safe.

2. In depositions, Avery's lawyers ask why these reports were not in the file given to it by the county.

3. When Baldwin conducted her investigation of the 1985 case, her report very plainly documents the content of the Sheriff's safe, including these two documents.

4. According to court filings by Netflix, Colborn conceded in discovery that the files were in the safe.

Notes:

1. The report by Baldwin is rock solid. It is a detailed and plain recitation of what was contained in the Sheriff's safe. She had absolutely no reason to lie and no reason really to even know this would be an issue in the future. The fact this is corroborated by Avery's lawyers and apparently by Colborn himself should make it as close to 100% proven as anything in thus case.

2. However, if the documents were in the safe (and they most certainly were) this means the Sheriff lied under oath about them. This completely destroys the "no motive for planting" argument out of the water as the head of MTSO is willing to commit a felony to cover this up. Also kills the argument no one would risk going to jail over it.

3. This also means Griesbach who literally wrote the book on this subject and certainly was familiar wirh the case files has been going around (including here on this very sub) lying about this issue. Remember Griesbach is the one who first called for "a dedicated team" to do anti-MaM public relations, writing books, doing media interviews, appearing on Reddit, and even filing a friviouos lawsuit in part on this very issue on the safe.

4. Not only does that mean the anti-MaM response has been proven willing to flat out lie, it also means he filed knowingly false claims in state and federal court. So if we are keeping track, that's the guy elected sheriff and the guy elected DA lying under oath, lying to the public, and lying to the court.

Since nobody is here to defend law enforcement, we all agree right?

Shouldn't the very plain and unavoidable fact that the MTSO Sheriff was willing to lie under oath to harm Avery and protect the County undercut confidence in the murder investigation?

In Brendan's first interview Nov 6th 2005 (using transcript by I think), this was Brendan's first statement about it, and doesn't seem particularly influenced by the way the cops spoke to him.

DET. O’NEILL: Did you [see] Steve at all the rest of that day? BRENDAN: Yeah DET. O’NEILL: Where at? BRENDAN: He came over and he needed some help to push uh a jeep into his garage, cuz he was fixing it for Grandpa. DET. BALDWIN: What time was that? BRENDAN: About 7 or 8 DET. O’NEILL: How’d you help push em in.... it in? BRENDAN: **Pushed it in with our hands and...** DET. O’NEILL: Where’d he have to go to get that Jeep to bring it up by the garage? BRENDAN: It was right by the garage
...
S/A Skorlinski: What happened to that [gray] jeep you helped him put in the garage? BRENDAN: He’s still fixing it S/A Skorlinski: It’s still in there

His mom Barb first full interview I think, Nov 9th 2005, summary by DCI Kapitany

The gray Suzuki Samurai that was parked next to Steven's garage has been there, as far as she knew, for the last two to three weeks. Prior to that, Steven had it in his garage and, as far as she knew, he moved it outside the garage and beside it because he was going to try and fix it. None of Janda's boys mentioned anything about helping Steven move it back into the garage recently-within the last week and, more particularly, on 10/31/2005 or within a few days after that day. She does not believe that this Samurai runs, which is why Steven was going to fix it. **When Steven has moved it in the past he would use another vehicle to push it back into the garage.**

This is at about 21 mins to after 25 mins in the

It's not in the transcript post I found though, anyone got a transcript of that part? Especially around the 25 minute mark about pulling and pushing.

p.s. from what SA said in jail calls at the time, I understand he had fixed it enough to take to Crivitz some weekend but it broke again, so on Sunday afternoon Oct 30th he brought it back on the flatbed truck. That evening he had Brendan over helping move stuff in the garage where his new TV was for some reason, but there's no mention of the Suzuki jeep afaik, nor in the next day's call.

edit, pics. it was found in the garage facing forwards, indicating it had been pushed in from the front, travelling backwards. But they took the rear panel for testing, and released no results afaik

It is only in SA's second phonecall with Jodi, starting about 9pm, that he mentions going over there. Not in his first call with Jodi about half five pm.

SA said the Dasseys had eaten dinner and Barb was complaining the dishes needed washing. And when they returned Barb had done them. Did Barb make the dinner? What time usually? Would she have had time that day when she would get home about 5pm?

She would get home again with Scott about 7.45pm (give or take 15mins). Leave again about 9pm on her own.

p.s. Brendan actually recalled about 7 or 8pm.

edit: Brendan was interviewed six days after. Scott ten days.

edit I should've said Scott didn't recall which son. Was Baine still there? But why would SA be then.

The case of Steven Avery has captivated public attention since the release of the Netflix documentary series "Making a Murderer." At the heart of the narrative is the question of Avery's guilt or innocence in the murder of Teresa Halbach. One of the recurring points of discussion is the $36 million civil suit Avery filed against Manitowoc County for his wrongful conviction in a previous case. However, the notion that Avery would have received such a substantial sum, even if he hadn't been convicted of Halbach's murder, is a complex issue, and quite frankly it wasn't likely.

In 1985, Steven Avery was wrongfully convicted of a brutal assault and served 18 years in prison before DNA evidence exonerated him. In 2003, he filed a $36 million civil suit against Manitowoc County, its former sheriff, and former district attorney, alleging wrongful conviction and seeking damages for his wrongful imprisonment.

The likelihood of receiving substantial monetary awards varies based on several factors:

Proving Liability:Civil suits require the plaintiff to prove liability on the part of the defendants. In Avery's case, proving that Manitowoc County, its sheriff, and district attorney were negligent or engaged in misconduct leading to his wrongful conviction would have been challenging. At the time of the murder, they had only managed to demonstrate that Avery was wrongfully convicted -- not that negligence or misconduct were the cause.

Causation: In Avery's case, he would have needed to prove that the wrongful actions of Manitowoc officials directly resulted in his 12-year imprisonment*, including the loss of income, emotional distress, and other damages.

Juries: Civil cases rely on juries and judges, with wide latitude in awards. Avery's case garnered significant media attention and additional crimes. Manitowoc County's defense would likely have portrayed Avery as a repeat offender with a history of violence, potentially diminishing sympathy and therefore the amount awarded.

All of this would also need to be generally in line with other such scenarios -- meaning that a $36M award would need to be similar to others in similar cases. Sadly for Avery, it would not be. $2M would be more common.

And In many civil suits, particularly those involving high-profile defendants like government entities, settlements are often reached to avoid protracted legal battles and negative publicity. Given the uncertainty surrounding Avery's innocence or guilt in Halbach's murder and the additional allegations of crime, either party might have been inclined to settle for a lesser amount rather than risk a potentially costly and lengthy trial with a less obvious outcome.

So, would he have gotten $36M? Probably not. That amount was announced as an initial bid by his attorneys with none of the factors above having been demonstrated at the time of TH's murder but plenty of additional and in some cases still-prosecutable offenses having been unearthed.

*6 years being richly deserved for the assault and attempted abduction of Sandra Morris.

KK press conference after BD testified SA jokingly said to “help bury the body” on Nov 3, but according to MO it took place Nov 10. This is before the body is found, implication is that it’s an admission of guilt.

KK: “BD was a central figure in this trial to establish again the timeline and to establish the last person to see her. This was not, and is not, at least from the State’s perspective, a central part of this case at all”

That’s not contradictory at all… You can visibly see KK go from really cool and collected to frazzled in that press conference while reporters were grilling him about this really pivotal part to establishing a timeline. P1 E5 24min in

"I think 'Making a Murderer' is an accurate title. It is. But it was Steven Avery making Brendan Dassey into a murderer," Dan O'Donnell, a legal reporter and conservative Milwaukee talk show, says in the episode [9 of CAM]

In fact it's an accurate title in that misuse of guilt-presumptive techniques can induce false confessions-accusations to murder, making up a murderer.

Is Dan the guy who said he attended Kratz's press conference and went back to his media trailer and nearly threw up or something? Seems he was ignorant about false confessions and hasn't deprogrammed himself, despite Kratz saying he shouldn't have done that press conference.

Also disappointing that Angenette Levy would say

I just thought, how do you throw away a 16 year old for that long? But I also think the truth matters.

What truth does she mean??

NB: his trial had zero expert witnesses on misuse of Reid-style tactics inducing falsehoods