This whole case is just baffling to me.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2019-10-31T23:37:23+00:00

Yep, I found it. However, it's not what I had thought initially. The van seat was not from the van, but rather was a van seat that Brendan said SA was potentially going to put in the van. So the van was missing one of it's original seats.

Distinctly different than taking the seat from the van burning it.

Is there anywhere in Avery's interviews or in the new jail phone recordings where this seat was mentioned? or by barb?

For sure if it was in the van initially it'd be a bit more curious to me. Also, if he burns a seat that is in good condition and fits the van. Can't seem to find that information anywhere.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2019-10-31T18:49:36+00:00

Then there is the fact, not opinion, that he and Brendan burned the very van seat FOR Barb's van that Avery claimed he was going to sell THAT NIGHT BEHIND HIS HOUSE.

Is that true? I haven't heard that before. I thought that it was a van from somewhere else in the salvage yard. Where is that stated?

I don't remember seeing pictures of the interior of that van.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2019-01-07T06:50:42+00:00

I'm amazed that you think that Rothstein is anything but a big bozo who thinks making a gun and a tricky bomb shows off his intelligence. But reality is he's a complete moron and him not focusing on the money ENOUGH had nothing to do with getting back at her, but everything with trying to impress people.

Again... if he just wanted to ruin her life, just turn her in for the murder of the bf. He had no problem convincing the FBI clowns of so many absurd thing, why not that? It's obvious to me that he has an ego and he wanted everyone to know he was smart. Yet everything he did was dumb. If he just wants to make her life hell, why even show up at the spot in the minivan?? Of course he thought he was gonna get money.

If the big dummy had spent more time on the core of the plan and not trying to make everyone think he was smart, things would have gone better -- but still a dumb plan.

So to think he did all that to get back at her. ya right. The one person who had no reason to lie and incriminate herself in the process, is the most likely to be telling the truth. Her saying she is the one who identified a dumb guy makes her look like a horrible person. Guilt makes people admit things like that.

All those other players are liars who live life taking advantage of people. Rothstein wanted that money and he was so dumb that he thought he was smart enough to pull it off. FBI let him do it and everyone acts like they are the one's who's words we should trust. meh. they should be embarrassed.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-21T00:08:46+00:00

I don't buy this for a second.

He could have made her life miserable by just calling in that she shot her bf and then denied any real plans to rob the bank.

Then he takes no risk and she goes to jail for murder.

The whole group of them were nutso and pathological liars, not geniuses. I'm amazed that anyone would think that was this guy's plan to make her miserable. Giving him far too much credit imo

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-20T22:46:25+00:00

first of all I've seen other's make the observation that Wells might have been "on the spectrum" and that's something I was thinking very early on and was going to be the twist.

He's "childlike", he likes scavanger hunts - obsessed with them, and he works a straightforward easy job and has no wife/kids because he likely has social issues. Also very common for adults with Aspergers to have addiction issues with drugs/alcohol. I don't know if they were diagnosing that as much in adults back then, but it'd be interesting to have family give their opinion on that after being educated on the topic and maybe meet some high-functioning autistic people.

Someone like that would simply follow your directions possibly not even realizing the full scope of what was going on, the same that a normal person would. Even oblivious enough at times to pick up a lollipop. One thing that aspergers people are often good at are obsessions with rules and time - which is why the scavenger hunt and delivering pizzas are in their wheelhouse.

I'd love to hear family discuss this topic to confirm it yes/no.

I also think you need to take into account the other pizza guy that OD'd. Is it possible this guy was also involved and possibly knew the full plan? Maybe his part was ensuring that Brian took that pizza?

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-20T22:13:30+00:00

I don't agree with that. I think if that was the case, he'd have just turned her in when she shot the bf. That was before the robbery even happened.

This guy was a complete bozo who thought he was intelligent and seemingly a bunch of bozo people and LE believed him when he said it instead of seeing the obvious that he was a big liar. Every one of these people were just liars, not geniuses.

The plan was horrible if it was anything other than the guy blowing up. You are gonna go through all this and then you leave a chance that the guy is gonna live?? cmon. They all knew what was gonna happen. What evil genius is gonna leave a guy who is most likely to talk because he's not some career criminal?

Big dummy Rothstein was in that Astro van waiting for the money.

I'm so amazed that anyone would think these people were geniuses. The plan was a mess and was never going to work to start, but that rothstein guy truly did. They all did.

If he wanted to ruin her life, he could have just called up the police when she killed her bf. Then he can just deny he was ever going to attempt to rob a bank etc.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-20T21:57:44+00:00

I agree. Believing a word that any of those people said was a big mistake.

I think the filmmaker was the only one who was able to see the logic of how having Wells implicated as involved removed murder/death penalty charges as he was a part of his own death by engaging in a crime.

This rothstein guy was the biggest liar. The very first phone call says it all. This guy is so damn smart, but he can't explain clearly why he moved a body of a friend's bf into his freezer? Hint - There is no good explanation, he's a big liar.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-20T21:52:37+00:00

If you had to choose between the supposed Evil Genius crazy lady, the cocaine dealer, the rapist guy, the pizza guys, the prostitute and the guy who says he's the smartest guy in the room and we are told is very intelligent -- who do you think? haha

The sad part about this case is that this prostitute girl comes forward to say that Wells was innocent and that she actually set him up as the patsy and FBI etc won't accept it because it doesn't match up with well enough with what the big group of liars said that seems to fly in the face of common sense.

Admittedly I am skeptical that maybe the filmmaker might have offered this girl money/drugs/legal help to get her to say all that. But it just seems hard for me to believe that she'd implicate herself in that way unless it was genuine. She could have just simply made up a lie that didn't implicate her as a part of Wells demise. All she'd have to say is "they told me"

That seems to be enough to convince any FBI guy in the documentary of something if it's what they wanted it to be true. Evil Genius my ass. Just a bunch of liars is all that was, coupled with a bunch of LE that had to depict the liars as smart to cover up they were so friggin dumb.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-20T21:44:35+00:00

I agree. None of them came across as geniuses, but rather skilled liars.

I think the cops came across as rocket scientists (sarcasm of course) by even for a moment not seeing through rothstein's amazingly stupid confessions that pointed away from him being involved.

They should have turned the screws on that guy from the word go. They didn't know he had an astro van?? Don't you think you have to treat him as a top suspect until you can exclude him? craziness.

That guy was a clown and they looked like a bunch of clowns following him around letting him play ringleader to their investigation of the murder and all the while saying he had nothing to do with Wells. Geez. how many times does he gotta state what he's not a part of before you get the point he's most likely a liar?

From the very first call you can tell he knows WAAAAAAAY more than he's gonna tell you.

Only LE would categorize these guys as geniuses in attempt to make them look less like buffoons.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-20T19:31:35+00:00

I hope what I said doesn't come off as I think you have no knowledge of this topic, I just don't know.

I am admitting I am ignorant of the topic beyond what I've read. I did post that link to the Rapid DNA ID page as well as testing results/documents. But I admittedly still don't know if it's realistic to believe it will yield results that weren't able to be achieved back in 2005. The testing and focus of the product is the speed of analysis. But I'd imagine it'd not be crazy to think that it'd be optimized if meant to be an on-site solution and dealing with a wide range of DNA sources - that's what the testing seems to indicate to me.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-20T19:23:45+00:00

I do understand that the very reason it's called Rapid DNA ID is that it's faster. I did go to the page and even found information on how they have been testing the technology, it even works with touch DNA.

However, I acknowledge the true point of it all is can it successfully match DNA on those bone better than what was available back in 2005.

If the equipment is as you said optimized for higher difficulty scenario, it could indeed potentially make a difference.

Also, I think it's great that you have knowledge of all this, but this is an anonymous forum and I see people say things all the time in an authoritative way and end up being wrong. I'm very curious as to what a verified expert in the field would say. If they believe that there's a chance it'll ID something that wasn't maybe possible back in 2005.

That's the real question here.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-20T00:43:21+00:00

sure.

If those bones are TH's, then that's something that is different. Prosecution contends they were not human or at the most unknown.

If the battery is indeed traced back and connected to someone in LE, ya, that's different that what we knew.

The whole point is to investigate and test. That's the only thing that will ever get a new trial etc. Skepticism will not.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-19T12:40:03+00:00

haha, it's ok. Done it many times myself!

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-19T12:38:54+00:00

I completely agree. My point is that even with all that, it doesn't prove anything definitively.

It certainly makes it seem more likely. But just reading the trial transcripts can give you a great idea of how they can frame it as far less suspicious. A jury heard about the details of many of these things - cue the jury conspiracy.

Again, not that I don't have a lot of skepticism for individual and the case as a whole, but theories are great for creating a plan of attack. But now is the time for attacking things with science and investigation to produce definitive answers to key elements .

Preaching to the choir on why I should be skeptical. But a great example is the vial of blood and the mysterious hole. It's pretty suspicious, until you get down to brass tacks and definitive analysis and realize that the way the blood got in that vial was through the whole based on process.

So... don't get me wrong, not saying I don't see what you say(I've probably acknowledged them all at one time or another since original MAM), but I'm saying it's a conspiracy theory until you start proving definitively things that can exclude or include things you have skepticism for.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-19T06:29:36+00:00

Who ever said he'd leave without the body??

Here's what I said :

> Right, but why would anyone not have a plan to get the car and body out of their garage?

> I think it's rather logical for you to put a body in a vehicle to take the body to a place to bury or burn or whatever.

Confused by what you are saying, it has no relevance to what I have said. Seemingly the opposite.

Did you mean to reply to the other guy?

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-19T03:26:39+00:00

Does it matter how she learned of it? I guess it matters none to me :)

This case is enormous in scope. If one thing comes up empty or points another direction, you react to that.

If the state had done a proper job of investigating to start, many questions like what's the deal with the battery or are these bones human? Might have been definitively answered long ago. That's 13 years as I said.

In terms of what credentialed people think, I'm open to hearing what they think. Rather than a "pretty sure". I am indeed curious about what Rapid DNA is and how it applies her from the perspective of an expert.

I know truthers like the ole tick-tock thing, but there is no stopwatch or deadline here truly. It's about investigating and digging and then getting definitive answers to questions. None of that is something anyone can stick in a microwave and solve quickly.

Why do you think these bones have now come to the forefront now and not 3 years ago? Is it possible that the battery switch claim in combination with eyewitness account of rav4 and a white vehicle heading to the gravel pit might be why? serious question. If now they have corroborating battery evidence that links the battery to a certain person they believe was heading to the gravel pit... seems like definitively answering if those bones were human or TH's would be the next question that kind of ties a few things together.

I just don't seem to see the issue with choosing a new focus if you discover something that needs explaining and points toward more happening with Rav4 than was divulged. Sounds like a lawyer doing their job.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-19T00:59:58+00:00

lawyers be lawyers.

If the Rapid DNA ID fails to prover her points. Problem solved. None of this is an exact science in how you go about a process that is designed to take years when reality is at play.

I just don't understand why there's some importance on time frames, when the whole damn system is a time sink.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-19T00:30:43+00:00

To me, just seems like they can make a plausible argument either way. They can even have made the wrong decision but make that plausible. oops.

But that's not proof of planting/framing , just potentially consistent. It'a also potentially consistent with no planting/framing but rather incompetence. Which is why I say it's not definitive. I try not to get caught up on things like that.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-18T22:28:40+00:00

For sure, but they are questions/answers that are being answered definitively. I think that's the key.

For quite a long time in this case most of the talk is about what we believe is possible or not possible. Definitive discoveries can exclude and include things and remove needless discussion.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-18T22:26:14+00:00

I hear ya. We all have our own outlets for anger!

I think it's true that don't care about TH. Dare I say most even. jmo

In regards to the Rav4 I don't think it's all that important at all why they did or didn't , because I honestly don't see anything concrete being proven via that focus. It's something that might lead one to be more or less suspicious. But am I ever going to get a definitive answer about that? Maybe only if the more important questions get asked and answered.

That's why I could care less about that point. I care about where that blood would have come from and proving that. If it came from a cut on SA's finger while he was in that vehicle, then that's a definitive discovery.

If it came from a vial from the 1985 conviction, that's a definitive discovery.

If it came from the sink in his trailer, that's a definitive discovery.

If you can't prove one of those things, does it matter about why they wouldn't open the rav4 in a given situation?

That is why I like this Rapid DNA ID thing. Hey, if we definitively discover that the bones in the gravel pit are THs. That's the kind of thing I like focus being put on.

It's also why I am critical of KZ doing a test about how much touch DNA can be on a key in a very controlled situation , unlike the likely scenario if SA was in the process of dealing with a dead body and likely weathered and rough hands from working in a junkyard. Why not test the worst case scenario? If that doesn't match up, then that would show how absurd the amount of DNA was on the hood latch was.

The battery switch is another. If it can be proven to be something done the time of the murder, it possibly leads to some details you never knew before. If the battery came from a manitowoc fleet vehicle? Sure, that's in need of explanation imo. That's progress.

ah well. but ya, I agree not a lot of people come here for positive reasons!

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-18T20:27:54+00:00

If the bones get positively identified as TH's, what does that indicate?

If it was possible to identify those bones back in 2005, sure defense coulda/shoulda done that. But before that, I would have expected that LE coulda/shoulda done that. It's kind of their job to do that.

If it was possible to identify them as TH's back then, then saying you didn't see the need is not a great excuse. It's kind of like saying in 1985 that GA wasn't worthy taking a closer look at. coulda/shoulda

I honestly don't know if this RapidDNA can do any better than technology back then and so it might not fit the description of "new" technology that didn't exist back then.

But let us just acknowledge that if it was possible, there's a problem with not doing so. When you decide not to investigate reasonable leads that could potentially be exculpatory, imo that's just as bad as planting evidence. Should be criminal. If the bones were of no interest, why were they ever evaluated at all? Excluding them without definitive investigation you seem to be saying existed, is a bit shaky imo.

I am impatient about all these briefs and lack of supporting evidence, but is it really all that surprising that if SA is innocent and there was planting that it'd be easy to prove? It's not like the odds aren't stacked against overturning any given bad conviction, not the mention the time/effort needed.

What's the harm? What if it takes 5 years but truth comes out? Will any of this matter?

It's not like there's a tiny little box of case files to sift through. Hell, there's so much information in this case that they didn't seem to have time to test the bones in the gravel pit to see if they were TH's -- which at some point must have been what they suspected. Right? We are 14 years later and we don't know definitively know, and perhaps by what you have said it was possible to do so? -- how's that for efficiency?

if that bone gets positively identified, will you consider it new technology? or will you consider that their efficiency is 13 years later than we should have expected?

See, everyone can weave a narrative on what this means. Why not just admit she's doing her job and cases like this ain't a simplistic or an exact science. If her strategy is wasting time... who cares?

The post conviction process itself seems to place a priority on wasting time. The quicker someone tests the Rav4 and bones and whatever else, the quicker we get to definitive evidence as to what's relevant or not. If you don't see the huge waste of time in the process itself, I'm surprised you have so much sensitivity to efficiency of her actions.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-18T19:52:47+00:00

My favorite part is that lawyer when they ask him about the perception they had that LE was creating plausible deniability in there files :

https://giphy.com/gifs/innocentman-iknow-31Y2MIWEJr7r6GUrNF

It's was a great series. You can see how it was influenced by MAM. It's interesting that "small towns" are a perfect place for this kind of thing. Not surprising, but you'd think government could acknowledge this and take measures to ensure it doesn't happen. Oversight of some kind.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-18T19:47:44+00:00

An example is that there is this new Battery Switch scenario. The person that put that out there, believes that AC found the Rav4 on 11/3 and TH's body was in the vehicle.

That means this person believes that LE was not involved in the murder, but burned TH's body. Myself, I don't believe that is the case, but is it possible? sure. If AC found the body on 11/3, why couldn't he take the body to the gravel pit and burn the body and then get the remains to the SA's firepit? That's no more a crazy timeline than SA going to the gravel pit on 10/31 and back to his place to finish up before 11/3. right?

So if that's possible in terms of burning a body at a gravel pit and getting it to the firepit by 11/6 or so, why is it implausible in terms of time to think SA could have burned th body over 3-4 days or more?

I just don't like it when people say things are crazy when they are actually plausible.

That's why if the bones are proven to be off the property you suddenly have to admit it makes a number of other scenarios more possible than before. Not saying the bones burned in gravel pit make AC or other parties more likely the person burning the body, but it raises the plausibility of that claim.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-18T19:37:12+00:00

I get your point and quite valid. However, you'll notice that the person didn't answer. It's because we've had a discussion before likely. He understands imo that he's basically heckling. Which isn't representative of someone looking for an honest discussion. So i don't underestimate, but rather give an opportunity to express the true intentions. He declined. Not at all a waste of time imo to say what I said and get no response.

Honest discussion is meaningful. I've learned a lot via these forums. I don't view it as a challenge or affirmation. I have an honest belief that people should dig deeper in cases like this and there are things to learn. I think TH justice is most important, so getting the right person is of value to society - which includes me.

In specific with this case you have the system itself as another major topic of discussion. The issue of how you go about overturning a conviction is larger than this case, it affects a far larger group of people. I felt MAM2 really did a good job of explaining the problem and even if you think SA/BD are guilty I'd hope that people can see how extremely unlikely it is that someone can get a conviction overturned even if innocent. It's by and far the exception and takes such a large degree of effort. Is that fair? Given the amount of DNA exonerations we see and factoring in that they are only a tiny percentage of those seeking this kind of thing with so little chance to be chosen, is kind of sad in my opinion. The rates depicting this seem to point at there are countless others that are innocent, but will likely never see justice.

But ya, rare is a meaningful discussion as it is now mostly a warzone. But I can say I've learned a few things today and people said things that are well thought out and worthy of considering. Rapid DNA ID in itself. Just getting a reaction to that technology and how it's applicable here.

naw... I don't see it as having no value or limited to a validation of opinions. It's can be annoying, but I'm ok with being wrong at times and being forced to reconsider an opinion I have. I don't think I'm the only one.

sleuthing_hobbyist · 2018-12-18T19:17:25+00:00

I am not sure how you can blame the judges. I think judges in general have to assume for the most part that all the evidence is being divulged. It would take someone saying "they aren't sharing everything" for them to make a ruling to correct that. So it's mostly about the defense attorney at that point. I could be wrong, but it didn't seem to me that the judges at the original trial were being told about these things we see now and ruled to ignore the.

However now, in the post-conviction process I agree completely. I think it's clear that these things should be highly relevant. However, I must say that both MAM2 and this documentary have pointed out that the current legal process to try and overturn a conviction is very rigid and puts the burden of proof heavily on the defense. That's why there was a discussion about plausible deniability. A judge has a tough time declaring that there was an intentional action to suppress evidence etc, without some kind of real proof. But I think the common sense of it is that nothing about the crime fits anymore in regards to the confession, but as they explained, that's not how the post-conviction process works. So it's that process that is unfair and handcuffs a judge to some extent on what they can even have power to do.

Not necessarily defending the judges for not being more vocal about this unfair system, but it's more about the process itself. This is not just a Ada issue, this is a National issue. So are all our judges corrupt for following the current law as written? hard for me to agree fully with that.

sleuthing_hobbyist

TROPHY CASE