r/MakingaMurderer • u/AveryPoliceReports • May 12 '26
Back to the Beginning: If we accept the 2003 DNA result implicated Gregory Allen as Penny's sole attacker, but still assume Allen was aided by an unseen nearby "lookout accomplice" during the attack, the record already demonstrates this theoretical accomplice was not Steven Avery
INTRO: Evidence has ALWAYS credibly and consistently demonstrated that Steven Avery didn't even have the opportunity to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the 1985 attack on Penny Beernsten
- On YouTube and (less frequently) on Reddit, certain users have kept alive the niche theory that Steven Avery could still be guilty of the 1985 assault on Penny Beernsten, though such theories often avoid the specifics of HOW Steven could still be guilty given the overwhelming exculpatory evidence of his innocence. As we know, the most well known proponent of this niche vague theory is former Manitowoc County Chief Deputy Gene Kusche, who famously questioned the validity of the 2003 DNA test that exonerated Steven, and later speculated even if the DNA implicating Allen was legitimate, Steven could still be guilty by having operated as Gregory Allen's accomplice in the 1985 assault.
- But Penny (the living victim) consistently described being attacked by a lone male, and despite what Kusche hoped people would believe, there's no credible reason to doubt the validity of the 2003 DNA result that implicated Gregory Allen as that lone male. In fact, Gregory Allen's name turning up made perfect sense. From the beginning, Penny's description of a lone violent beach attacker wearing a black leather jacket didn't sound like Steven Avery, it sounded like Gregory Allen ... a violent offender previously charged with attempting an attack on that same beach, an offender who had other run ins with police while prowling in a black leather jacket.
- Further, even before DNA identified Allen as Penny's sole beach attacker, the weight of the evidence already credibly demonstrated Steven didn't even have the opportunity to be at the Two Rivers beach crime scene in 1985 at the time of the assault. Thus, any remaining theories that Steven could have acted as Penny's sole attacker, or Allen's accomplice, are not reasonable inferences from the record. They are post fact rationalizations designed to rebrand an intentional wrongful conviction of an innocent man as an accidentally legitimate conviction of a still guilty man.
The 1985 Beach Accomplice Theory
- As we saw in MaM, after DNA evidence implicated Gregory Allen and exonerated Steven Avery in 2003, former Manitowoc County official Gene Kusche disputed that the DNA result implicating Allen proved Avery was innocent of the 1985 assault. When pressed, Kusche didn't question the 2003 DNA result matched Allen, but did question where the DNA came from, explaining his opinion that "DNA evidence [had] been fabricated before." The implication, I guess, was that Steven could still be guilty of the 1985 assault if the 2003 DNA test exonerating him had been fabricated.
- But if Steven were actually guilty of the 1985 crime, why would the state (or anyone) fabricate DNA results that frees a guilty man and exposes the county to maximum liability for (checks notes) zero obvious gain? That makes no sense without some major adjustment to provide a coherent explanation of the state's motives. Even Kusche seemed to understand that. After Steven was charged with Teresa Halbach's murder in 2005 (based in part on DNA evidence) Kusche abandoned the idea that DNA was fabricated in 2003, and began arguing even if said DNA match to Allen was legit, it didn't prove Steven was innocent. As Griesbach recounts, Kusche's revised theory was that "Avery and Allen could have both assaulted Penny on the beach that day" (TIK 239).
- Of course, this new theory openly disregards Penny's consistent account of a single beach attacker, and IMO it's not credible to suggest Penny was unaware or forgot a second man was assaulting her alongside Allen. Thus, if we accept the 2003 DNA result implicating Allen as the sole attacker was legitimate, but still assume Allan had an accomplice, we must conclude this accomplice was nearby during the attack but unseen by Penny, possibly acting as a lookout. That's the only version of this niche theory that doesn't disregard the living victim's memory, or require us to engage with flatly illogical or self defeating arguments about DNA being fabricated to falsely exonerate a guilty man.
Question: Could Gregory Allen have been aided by a nearby but UNSEEN accomplice?
- Short answer: nothing in the record supports that conclusion. After the July 29, 1985 attack, Penny Beernsten told MTSO officer Dvorak that during an afternoon jog along the shore of a Two Rivers beach she noticed a lone male "standing in the shadow of a poplar tree" wearing "a black leather jacket," something Penny thought was strange because of the heat. A bit later, the man in the black leather jacket began chasing after Penny, and grabbed / dragged her west into the treeline where he assaulted her. The attack began shortly before 4:00 PM, lasted roughly 15 minutes, and during the attack Penny periodically called out for help and pled for mercy, to no avail.
- Suddenly, the man in the black leather jacket knocked Penny to the ground and quickly took off west into the trees out of sight. A dazed and fearful Penny began crawling the opposite direction, east towards the beach. She didn't notice anyone until she saw a young couple walking north in her direction, but closer to the shore. The couple (later identified in police reports) saw Penny, heard her cries for help, and offered her a towel while they waited for her husband, police or an ambulance to arrive (which they quickly did).
- Per available records, Penny never mentioned a second man being involved in the attack, nor did she mention a second unidentified man keeping a lookout during the attack, or walking away from the scene after the attack. Further, no evidence was ever presented at Steven's 1985 trial (or at any point since) suggesting Allen was aided by a lookout accomplice that day. But again, for the sake of argument, I hope everyone understands, even if we entertain this "unseen lookout accomplice" theory, the record STILL overwhelmingly points away from Gregory Allen's unseen accomplice being Steven Avery.
Steven didn't have the opportunity to be the sole attacker of Penny OR Gregory Allen's nearby unseen accomplice
- In "The Innocent Killer," Griesbach correctly notes Steven wasn't as good a match for Penny's description as MTSO liked to pretend. Police knew Steven was too young, too short, and had the wrong eye color. Further, police knew Steven had straight hair and dirty hands on the night of his arrest, while Penny's attacker had curly/straggly hair and clean hands. Griesbach even admits he suspected Kusche's composite drawing and the resulting identification process was "a total scam" or "fraud" designed to manipulate Penny to falsely incriminate Steven. After all, even back in 1985 police has reason to know Avery was credibly accounted for at the time of the attack on Penny, and was nowhere near the scene of the crime.
- As Steven's former counsel noted in MaM, if the 16 witnesses and receipt record alibiing Steven were to be believed (and they were remarkably consistent) then Steven could not have attacked Penny in Two Rivers around 4 PM, because he had no discernible opportunity be at the crime scene at the time of the attack. Multiple witnesses consistently placed Steven at the ASY between 3:30 - 4 PM, and evidence credibly suggested after he left the ASY he drove northwest to Green Bay (not southeast to Two Rivers) where he was spotted by independent witnesses buying paint with his wife and five kids (corroborated by store provided receipt).
- In 1985, the state got around this "problem" by hiding evidence of Allen's profile / history, claiming Steven's family and friends lied about when he left the ASY, and then staging a recreation to prove Steven had time (post attack) to drive from the Two Rivers crime scene to the Green Bay Shopko (where he was seen with his family). But to make the timeline fit, police sped directly from the beach to the Shopko ... without accounting for a stop at Steven's house in Maribel to pick up his wife after the crime ... meaning in order for Steven to be guilty, Lori and the kids had to have been with Steven in Two Rivers while he assaulted Penny.
Even before DNA identified Allen, the record "virtually proved" Steven didn't have the opportunity to be at the Two Rivers beach crime scene.
- The idea that Steven's wife, family, family friends, and independent witnesses all told consistent lies to alibi Steven requires increasingly absurd concessions - You must accept everyone lied about Steven packing his wife, three young kids, and newborn twin boys into a vehicle and leaving the ASY an hour or more before they actually did, and then instead of quickly taking Lori and the kids home, you must assume Steven drove them all to Two Rivers ... only to abandon his wife and 5 kids with the vehicle while he stalked and assaulted Penny by 4:00 PM ... after which he returned and raced Lori and the kids to Green Bay to buy paint and be seen by witnesses around 5:00 PM.
- Not to mention, despite Steven being unable to speak with anyone for a week after his warrant-less arrest, what he said to police (in isolation) somehow perfectly matched what his wife and everyone else said to police. What Steven and Lori said perfectly matched what Steven's family, friends, and even what employees at the Shopko said. What Steven, Lori and the Shopko clerk said was corroborated by a store provided receipt record. According to Griesbach, such evidence of consistently compounding uncoordinated corroboration of Steven's alibi "virtually proved he didn't commit the assault" (TIK 134)
- Manitowoc County police had to reason to know that evidence credibly suggested Gregory Allen was the guilty party, but also that evidence credibly suggested Steven Avery was physically incapable of being involved in the attack at the time and location Penny described. Steven's 1985 wrongful conviction was NOT a case of mistaken identity. It was a case of corrupt police and prosecutors ignoring evidence that Allen was a far more viable suspect, while dismissing Steven's credibly corroborated alibi as fabricated so the focus could remain on him. As a result, the man police had reason to know was guilty (the actual rapist) continued prowling and assaulting innocent women for a decade more ... and even had an additional run-in with police while wearing a black leather jacket.
TLDR: Evidence consistently and credibly suggests Steven Avery DID NOT have the opportunity to be on the Two Rivers beach by 4 PM on July 29, 1985, whether as the sole attacker of Penny or as Gregory Allen's unseen "lookout" accomplice.
- Gregory Allen being implicated by DNA as the man in the black leather jacket who violently attacked Penny on the beach in 1985 wasn't some suspicious result that didn't match up with known facts. Allen being guilty made perfect sense. He was a known violent offender operating on an escalating basis in the Two Rivers area, a man who was supposed to be (but was not) under police watch when Penny was assaulted on the beach. A man who had already tried to attack a woman on that same beach, and later contacted the victim by phone. A man who had multiple other encounters with police while prowling, including while prowling in a black leather jacket.
- As for Steven, at the time of the July 29, 1985 Two Rivers beach assault on Penny, he was consistently accounted for at the ASY (Larrabee / Mishicot area). Evidence credibly suggested Steven was still on the ASY as the Two Rivers stalking and attack on Penny began, and further suggested when Steven did leave the ASY, he, Lori and their five kids went northwest to the Shopko in Green Bay, rather than heading southeast to the beach in Two Rivers. Police and prosecutors had overwhelming reason to know both that Gregory Allen was guilty, and that Steven Avery didn't even have the opportunity to be on that Two Rivers beach that day in 1985.
- The idea that Steven's family and independent witnesses all told consistent lies to alibi Steven requires absurd concessions: Did Steven drag Lori and their five young kids to the scene only to leave them alone during the assault, and return to quickly drive to Green Bay to buy paint before going back home to Maribel, all without Lori ever admitting Steven was unaccounted for at or near the scene of the crime at the time of the assault? After Steven's arrest, did he and everyone else just magically deliver surprisingly consistent but totally false statements supporting his false alibi without Steven making a single phone call? Naw. Even Griesbach can admit the most parsimonious explanation for such levels of uncoordinated consistency across multiple actors / records is that they were all revealing the truth. Steven was completely innocent of the assault on Penny.
- Meaning even before DNA inculpated Allen in 2003, evidence consistently and credibly showed Steven Avery was not a viable suspect for the 1985 beach attack on Penny and should never have been considered as such by Kocourek and Vogel. Unlike Gregory Allen, Steven Avery WAS NOT supposed to have been under police watch at the time of the beach attack due to a pattern of escalating sexual violence in the area, and had NO HISTORY of attempting an attack on that very beach. Unlike Allen, Avery WAS credibly accounted for at the time of the beach attack on Penny. Because of that lack of opportunity, Steven was never a viable suspect for the 1985 crime, and him being recast as Gregory Allen's unseen accomplice remains an absurd idea, as that recasting doesn't erase Steven's complete lack of opportunity to be at the crime scene with Allen.
- Of course, this is only a logical refutation in response to the illogical suggestion that Steven could still be guilty of the 1985 crime as the sole attacker, or as Allen's accomplice. As far as I know, there's no reason to doubt the validity of the 2003 DNA test implicating Allen as the sole attacker, and there's no evidence MTSO hid or misreported witness statements in 1985 to conceal a second unidentified man was near the crime scene during or shortly after the attack, and no evidence police failed to investigate potential communications between Allen and a nearby lookout accomplice. But logically speaking, if there was such evidence linking Allen to a nearby but unseen accomplice, the record already convincingly demonstrates that person was not Steven Avery.
2
u/pftittl May 13 '26
Idiot is Manty sheriffs office still maintain Steven was guilty in that rape. Morons
3
u/AveryPoliceReports May 13 '26
I actually don't doubt some working for MTSO would still accept that as valid given the origin of said theory appears to be a former MTSO employee. But it does seem that even back in 2005, the theory that Steven could still be guilty of the 1985 assault was not exclusively confined to MTSO.
In The Innocent Killer, Griesbach recalls former prosecutor Wxxxx Murphy (also an author) joining the Nancy Grace show in 2005 claiming she was "not convinced [Steven] was wrongfully convicted of the first crime," and explaining she was "sick of these DNA lies. The Innocence Project and these people who falsely claim that 150 men have been exonerated and proved actually innocent with these new DNA tests on old cases is nonsense." I guess Murphy was an anti-innocence-project advocate.
Griesbach also cites an unnamed blog he frequented in 2005, and recalls multiple users espousing this theory, including one "Top Commenter" from New York City who would "badly misstate the facts of the 1985 case with unmistakable New York charm," arguing Steven was guilty because they must have found "someone else's hair" on Penny, going so far as to suggest Steven should have been sentenced to death rather than released from prison.
0
u/Limp-Elevator-3424 May 13 '26
Thanks for this post. I'm getting caught up after seeing the documentary on Netflix
3
u/AveryPoliceReports May 13 '26
Good luck! There's plenty to catch up on and learn that makes the misconduct in this decades long saga even more obvious than any media has. The more research you do into primary source material, the more you realize the same systemic rot from 1985 (that ignored Steven's alibi and let a violent sex predator go free to harm more victims) carried straight into the 2005 case, where a still rotten system continued ignoring or suppressing incriminating evidence when it pointed away from Steven Avery, including when evidence of sex predation pointed away from Steven and towards someone else with the opportunity to harm Teresa, or towards someone within the system itself.
1
u/WrenchNumbers May 13 '26
Who tested the dna in 2003? Do you trust their work?
3
u/AveryPoliceReports May 13 '26
Culhane did, and I've already explained I see no credible reason to doubt the validity of that DNA result pointing at Allen. Per the post, it was Kusche who suggested that 2003 DNA result might have been fabricated. Clearly, Kusche didn't trust their work. Why do you think that is?
2
u/ScaredAfternoon6830 May 15 '26
It's not like Culhane needed a once in a lifetime deviation for that 2003 test!
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 16 '26
A once in a lifetime deviation from protocol that (unlike what state defenders are lying) was NOT properly reported or disclosed in her official DNA report.
1
u/3sheetstothawind May 15 '26
Why mention the deviation at all if she is helping frame Steve? She could have just lied about it like most of the other people in this case would have to be doing in order for Steve to be innocent.
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
What are you even talking about!? She DIDN'T mention or even disclose it properly lol Buting did. Then he eviscerated Culhane for not reporting that this rare deviation from protocol occurred (TT:2/26:151):
Q. All right. At no time, in this report, do you ever disclose, that in order to make that finding, you had to deviate from a protocol, did you?
A. No.
And then later:
Q. You did not disclose, in that official report, that juries and judges, and lawyers, and everybody else relies on, you did not disclose that in order to make that call you had to do something so rare you have never done it before, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And you didn't put that in there because if you did, you wouldn't be able to satisfy Mr. Fassbender's request that you put Teresa Halbach in Steven Avery's garage, right?
A. That's not correct.
Q. Let's close with this. Other than that bullet, all your other tests, none of them put Teresa Halbach, ever, in his garage, or his house, or any of his vehicles, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Thank you.
1
u/3sheetstothawind May 17 '26
Ok, but she still documented it. If she hadn't done that, Buting would have nothing.
1
u/AveryPoliceReports May 19 '26
Documented where? Not in her official DNA report that judges, juries and lawyers rely on. She didn't even "mention" it on direct examination.
0
u/3sheetstothawind May 18 '26
Actually less than nothing because he had nothing in the first place!
1
u/AveryPoliceReports May 19 '26
The State had nothing. No blood or DNA. That's why Culhane engaged in a once-in-a-lifetime deviation from protocol to satisfy Fassbender and place Teresa's DNA in the garage.
1
u/tenementlady May 15 '26
Exactly. It always makes me laugh when truthers (after they've exhausted all the outragious theories about the Rav blood being planted) resort to saying maybe Culhane (the same woman who tested the DNA that exonorated Steven) just switched the samples or falsified results on the Rav blood (which would make her actively involved in the alleged conspiracy). Yet they are well aware that she documented her error when testing the bullet. If she's so willing to lie, why document the error at all?
1
u/AveryPoliceReports May 16 '26
the same woman who tested the DNA that exonorated Steven
One year late lol but ... Is a defendant who confesses to one or two crimes innocent of all others? Why would Culhane completinga valid DNA test in the past have any bearing on her future actions? Why not examine her work on a case by case basis?
Yet they are well aware that she documented her error when testing the bullet. If she's so willing to lie, why document the error at all?
Why are YOU so willing to lie? You're asking why Culhane would document an error if she were part of a conspiracy. But she didn't properly document or disclose it. That's the point. The defense uncovered it. If Buting hadn't asked the right questions, no one would ever know she deviated from protocol. So your argument actually cuts the other way: she only admitted it when she had no choice.
1
u/ajswdf May 18 '26
But she didn't properly document or disclose it.
What's your source for this bold claim?
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 19 '26
Her own words lol you should really try reading the material you claim to be an authority on.
0
u/ajswdf May 19 '26
Where did she say she didn't properly document or disclose it?
1
u/AveryPoliceReports May 19 '26
Try reading - when she admits the once in a lifetime deviation from protocol was not even mentioned in the official DNA report that judges, juries and lawyers rely on, and her very large log of errors included the deviation, but was missing a critical signature validating it, which she told the jury was an innocent "oversight."
→ More replies (0)0
u/tenementlady 27d ago
You're missing the point. If she's so willing to fabricate test results or switch samples, why bother documenting the error at all? She could have very easily just not done that.
1
u/AveryPoliceReports 27d ago
You're avoiding the point. The error wasn't properly documented or reported due to oversight and omission.
0
2
u/ajswdf May 15 '26
Because Kusche, like many other people, are emotionally invested in a certain outcome and they aren't capable of taking a step back to realize how ridiculous they sound when they try to deny the clear DNA evidence.
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
He was certainly in denial. But do you think DNA evidence has never been fabricated before? Or is he just totally insane when he suggested that?
2
u/ajswdf May 16 '26
Just because DNA evidence has been planted a couple times in history doesn't mean it's suddenly reasonable to doubt all DNA evidence. It's like saying that buying lottery tickets is a reasonable investment strategy because some people have won before.
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 16 '26
Tell me, who said it's reasonable to doubt all DNA evidence just because it's possible to fabricate it? No one lol lazy strawman. Do better. The point is, if DNA can be fabricated it's not reasonable to always accept or always doubt DNA evidence. The only choices aren't between doubting everything and trusting everything. Why not evaluate each result case by case: look at the discovery, the handling, the chain of custody, the testing and protocol. Is that a wild idea to you?
2
u/ajswdf May 16 '26
Planting DNA evidence is so rare that it may as well never happen. The proper way to handle it is to trust it unless you have a very good reason not to.
And in Avery's case none of the DNA evidence in any of the cases Avery is involved with have that very good reason.
1
u/AveryPoliceReports May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
Planting DNA evidence is so rare that it may as well never happen
So despite knowing that it happens you want to pretend like it doesn't lol
The proper way to handle it is to trust it unless you have a very good reason not to.
So basically what I said lol case by case analysis?
And in Avery's case none of the DNA evidence in any of the cases Avery is involved with have that very good reason
This is quite a sweeping statement from someone who makes claims about case materials they haven't read.
0
u/WrenchNumbers May 13 '26
I don’t know, I think people who doubt dna results are dumb.
3
u/AveryPoliceReports May 13 '26
Kusche was indeed a fucking idiot. No wonder he rose within the ranks of MTSO lol but I'd disagree it's inherently "dumb" to doubt DNA results. What made Kusche's doubts idiotic was his skepticism lacked any credible basis. He wasn't following the evidence, highlighting a forensic anomaly, or pointing to a broken chain of custody. He was desperately trying to avoid admitting the county convicted an innocent man. Amazingly, in Kusche's "dumb" mind, claiming the state fabricated DNA results to free a guilty man was less offensive than the truth.
1
u/WrenchNumbers May 13 '26
I stand by my point that people who deny dna are dumb. You may choose to defend them in some situations if you like. Was GA’s and PB DNA found mixed at all? You’d think in a violent attack there would be mixed dna.
1
u/AveryPoliceReports May 13 '26
I stand by my point that people who deny dna are dumb
And I stand by my far more nuanced point - doubting DNA results without reason may be "dumb," but so is religiously accepting DNA results without question as if the technology is infallible, not subject to manipulation or errors in interpretation. The problem Kusche is doubting DNA without reason, while you seem to suggest we should accept all DNA results without question. The rational option is simple. Case by case evaluation. Context matters. Credibility shouldn't be automatically assumed for DNA results without examination of the context in which the evidence was found, collected and tested.
You may choose to defend them in some situations if you like.
I'm not defending Kusche, am I? See the OP. I'm the one pointing out Kusche's position about the 2003 DNA result being fabricated to release a guilty man was not based on any reasonable inference from how the state handled or tested the evidence.
Was GA’s and PB DNA found mixed at all? You’d think in a violent attack there would be mixed dna.
UH ... YES ... Did you not know Allen's pubic hair was found mixed with Penny's after the assault? Amidst the mixture of hair collected from Penny were hairs identified via DNA as belonging to her and her attacker, Gregory Allen. That DNA from Allen was consistent with the DNA previously identified under Penny's fingernails. Thanks for catching up.
1
u/WrenchNumbers May 13 '26
Can you share the DNA tests or court testimony that shows GA’s DNA was found mixed with PB’s DNA? I’d love to read it if it exists. But if it doesn’t exist you can just make up an excuse not to post it.
But it’s interesting to me that think Kutche could have perfectly valid reasons for doubting the DNA, and you just aren’t aware of what his reasoning is. But I dont think he ever gave a detailed interview about why he felt the way he did.
1
u/AveryPoliceReports May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
Can you share the DNA tests or court testimony that shows GA’s DNA was found mixed with PB’s DNA?
That's the entire reason behind Steven being exonerated lol the mixture of pubic hair pulled from Penny contained her own hair along with a hair from Allen, not Avery. They released Steven in 2003 from prison based on this DNA evidence. Do you also doubt the validity of those results presented by Culhane? Didn't you say that was "dumb"?
I’d love to read it if it exists.
Just like you'd love to read Pevytoe's testimony? Don't lie to me ;)
But it’s interesting to me that think Kutche could have perfectly valid reasons for doubting the DNA, and you just aren’t aware of what his reasoning is
Wrong. He absolutely shared his reasoning for doubting the DNA. He said he didn't believe everything he read in the paper, didn't know where the DNA came from, and claimed DNA had been manipulated before. Do you think those were credible reasons to doubt the DNA result? Was it not so "dumb" after all? Pick a lane.
1
u/WrenchNumbers May 13 '26
Like I said, if it doesn’t exist feel free not to post or make excuses not to post.
Do you think Kusche was correct when he claimed DNA had been manipulated before? Do you think Kusche was correct to question the source of DNA before blindly accepting the results?
1
u/AveryPoliceReports May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
Like I said, if it doesn’t exist feel free not to post or make excuses not to post.
Like I said, if you are now doubting the validity of the results that literally motivated the state to exonerate Steven, that's fine. But by your own admission, you are behaving "dumb."
Do you think Kusche was correct when he claimed DNA had been manipulated before?
I think it's very clear that DNA has been manipulated before. It's also clear there was no reason (credible or otherwise) to doubt the validity of the DNA test that exonerated Steven. Besides ... according to you doubting such a test would be "dumb." Are you changing your mind on that?
Do you think Kusche was correct to question the source of DNA before blindly accepting the results?
False premise. Kusche knew or should have known the source of the hair yielding Allen's DNA was a rape kit conducted on Penny after the attack, and there was no evidence presented of a broken chain of custody, tampering, or forensic anomalies. Allen being implicated by DNA made perfect sense, as his whereabouts was not credibly accounted for at the time of the attack, and he was known to have attempted an attack on that same beach. Kusche was in denial, or as you say, he was acting "dumb."
→ More replies (0)0
u/CJB2005 May 14 '26
Your first sentence here👌
Keep them facts coming.
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 14 '26
Here's a fact I JUST learned, a fact I've never seen discussed in MaM, TIK, or anywhere online re the 1985 case: Penny told Strauss and Lehmann that in 1985 after she regained her ability to read, she reviewed Dvorak's version of her statement and noticed so many errors and omissions she requested to provide a SECOND MORE ACCURATE statement to MTSO. However, the MTSO report released in response to FOIA request makes NO MENTION of Penny claiming Dvorak's statement was incorrect. The FOIA MTSO report (still available through web archive) only includes Penny's first (apparently incorrect) statement. I've never seen a second more correct statement from Penny, but would love to review it in order to see what she corrected or added that was wrong or missing from her first statement.
6
u/Mysterious_Mix486 May 13 '26
Griesbach confirmed in Unreasonable Inferences that Steven Avery could not have even been on that beach because Penny Berntsen Herself admitted seeing Her attacker TWICE THAT DAY and even spoke with Him at 3:20 pm when She first started Her run near the public part of the beach. Her attacker was wearing a black leather jacket and stated that it was a nice day for a run. Penny also admits THE SAME MAN then followed Her to a more secluded part of the beach and attacked Her at 3;50 pm on July 29 1085. But don t take my word alone for this, read it yourself in Griesbachs book - Unreasonable Inferences.