Making a murder

[keefe]

That's hilarious. As someone who worked in a lab and has drawn blood, that's laughable. Those types of tube have a very spongy type of rubber at the top. Yes, a vacutainer needle is inserted into the tube in order to fill it with blood, but it's not like there's a notably visible hole left behind, and definitely not a hole that leaves residual blood around the insertion point.

The inserted needle coupled with the vacuum pressure the empty tube has inside it is how the blood is drawn out of the line in the first place. But the issue was the visible blood speck at the top of the EDTA tube. I've drawn that type of tube 100 times and never left a blood spot. If there's a blood spot, either the person who drew it was inept (it is a prison nurse...) and was somehow dripping blood after finishing the draw or it was tampered with.

And none of her testimony would explain why the seal on the evidence container was broken in the first place.

Not saying Avery didn't do it, but someone tampered with that vial, and no amount of prison nurse testimony changes that. I'm not saying that from conjecture, I'm saying that because I dealt with literally thousands of these tubes every week as a medical laboratory processing tech, because I've drawn hundreds of these tubes myself, and because my wife's degree is in medical laboratory technology.

I think that the fundamental issue is that the sealed evidence box was clearly tampered with.

All the rest is mental masturbation.

There is compelling reason to doubt the prosecution's story - which is different than saying he is innocent. The degree of malfeasance that took place is sufficient reason to reject the state's case. That is different than saying Avery did not do it. But the bar needed to be cleared to deny a man his liberty must be very high for a society predicated on liberty.

[wadesworld]

Just finished watching the throw.  I haven't read this thread yet but plan to, but my original reaction is that while it is 100% clear the investigation was horribly mishandled and people should be held accountable for that, I personally don't think you can take much away from this series as far as determining whether Avery and Dassey are innocent or not.  We see a completely 1 sided story with this documentary.

For example, do people really believe that the State would call a witness if the only thing she could provide for their side was a bullet that they knew the defense would argue was contaminated and shouldn't have been considered conclusively having Teresa Halbach's DNA on it?  Of course not.  But that's all we saw.  The State asking whose DNA was on the bullet, and then the cross examination with her saying she accidentally contaminated the bullet, saying there was no blood found in the garage or in Avery's trailer, etc.  So would the State really call this woman as a witness if that is all she provided them?  Of course not.  There is no doubt in my mind that she provided evidence that supported the State's argument, we just didn't see it.

And that's how it almost surely is with just about every witness in the documentary.  We saw 1 side of the story, and they left out a lot of key information (Halbach telling a coworker she wouldn't go back to his house after a previous meeting there, Avery calling her 3 times that day blocking his phone number twice, Avery's history of violence towards his ex fiance, etc.).

In my opinion, Avery most likely was guilty and if we saw the other side of the story we'd probably understand how the jury could find him guilty.  Dassey it's hard to say.  He obviously was influenced by the investigators and even if he was guilty he was obviously heavily influenced by Avery.

[wadesworld]

Very damning evidence of malfeasance.  And remember, that wasn't some re-enactment.  I guess I'm not sure why (maybe it was and we just don't know) the tape of that wasn't shown at trial.  It makes the entire prosecution case suspect because any 3rd grader can understand exactly what happened.  Couple that with the 3 swabs vs. 6 issue and the fact that the failure to detect the blood preservative doesn't necessarily means it's not present testimony......

This guy may have done it be a re-trial is clearly in order based on what I've seen.

The tape being broken is an issue, but all blood vials have that hole puncture at the top of it.  That's how they get the blood into the vial.

Also, why does it matter if 3 or 6 swabs of the blood were tested?  If even 1 of those blood samples were to prove (not arguing that they do, just saying) that there was no EDTA in the one of the 6 blood spatters in the car, that shows Avery's untouched blood was in the car.  If the police planted the other 5 splatters they should be in a lot of trouble for it.  But Avery's untampered blood (DNA) was still in the car in that situation.

[jsglow]

The tape being broken is an issue, but all blood vials have that hole puncture at the top of it.  That's how they get the blood into the vial.

Also, why does it matter if 3 or 6 swabs of the blood were tested?  If even 1 of those blood samples were to prove (not arguing that they do, just saying) that there was no EDTA in the one of the 6 blood spatters in the car, that shows Avery's untouched blood was in the car.  If the police planted the other 5 splatters they should be in a lot of trouble for it.  But Avery's untampered blood (DNA) was still in the car in that situation.

No, it simply shows that they couldn't find EDTA in the blood using the test the redeveloped, not that it wasn't there.  Kind of like when chick can't find her car keys. 

[wadesworld]

To the contrary I think his defense was quite solid and did what they could.  You have to remember that everything included in the documentary is everything they could find.  The defense was limited to certain things that they could present in court.  There were some things that were deemed inadmissible.

I thought the defense did a pretty poor job.  They admit that they don't think the police murdered Halbach, but their defense was mainly that the police framed Avery.

They should've spent more time pointing out the flaws in the prosecutors' story as to what happened.  Stabbed and shot raped in the bedroom?  Dragged to the garage?  Shot in the garage?  Where is the evidence of it all?  No blood in the trailer, outside, or in the garage.  Even if they cleaned it all up, blood would've slipped into cracks in the garage floor, which the investigators tore up to look for, and found none.  So their story isn't possible.  That's how they could've gotten Avery off.  Not by a story about the police framing Avery.

[rocket surgeon]

I thought the defense did a pretty poor job.  They admit that they don't think the police murdered Halbach, but their defense was mainly that the police framed Avery.

They should've spent more time pointing out the flaws in the prosecutors' story as to what happened.  Stabbed and shot raped in the bedroom?  Dragged to the garage?  Shot in the garage?  Where is the evidence of it all?  No blood in the trailer, outside, or in the garage.  Even if they cleaned it all up, blood would've slipped into cracks in the garage floor, which the investigators tore up to look for, and found none.  So their story isn't possible.  That's how they could've gotten Avery off.  Not by a story about the police framing Avery.

they had a really tough job finding many(jury) that didn't have some sort of bias, admittedly or not.  hell, i wouldn't doubt some wanted a front row seat for this circus.  remember the scene where the 2 defense attorneys were reading over the initial comments from prospective jurors?  granted, he read the ones he needed to for the documentary, but i don't think they were far off a consensus given the media attention on avery and his character

[wadesworld]

That's an insanely high pre-deliberation number to flip. That's why.

It's cool dude, you got your mind made up we get it. Regardless, Zellner's going to get her day in court and I'll bet a Powerball winner that Avery walks free again.

I don't see any chance in hell Avery ever walks free again.  The very best case scenario for him is he gets a retrial and is found guilty again.

[rocket surgeon]

I don't see any chance in hell Avery ever walks free again.  The very best case scenario for him is he gets a retrial and is found guilty again.

doesn't double jeopardy come in to play there?

[brewcity77]

I think that the fundamental issue is that the sealed evidence box was clearly tampered with.

All the rest is mental masturbation.

There is compelling reason to doubt the prosecution's story - which is different than saying he is innocent. The degree of malfeasance that took place is sufficient reason to reject the state's case. That is different than saying Avery did not do it. But the bar needed to be cleared to deny a man his liberty must be very high for a society predicated on liberty.

Agreed. The box being tampered with is evidence enough of a problem.

The tape being broken is an issue, but all blood vials have that hole puncture at the top of it.  That's how they get the blood into the vial.

Also, why does it matter if 3 or 6 swabs of the blood were tested?  If even 1 of those blood samples were to prove (not arguing that they do, just saying) that there was no EDTA in the one of the 6 blood spatters in the car, that shows Avery's untouched blood was in the car.  If the police planted the other 5 splatters they should be in a lot of trouble for it.  But Avery's untampered blood (DNA) was still in the car in that situation.

Yes, it goes through a hole in the top, but it doesn't look anything like that. Seriously, I used to handle over 1,000 of these vials daily. It was my job. When you use a vacutainer to get blood in there, it doesn't leave a noticeable mark like that. And it definitely doesn't leave a visible blood stain. That would only be left by someone taking it out after the fact, and that's not how techs get blood back out, they simply remove the cap and take what they need. Trust me, I spent 6 years working in a lab with these types of specimens every day, and my wife has her bachelor's in the subject and has been working in a lab for a decade now.

The second they showed the cap on that tube, we could both instantly tell it had been tampered with by someone who didn't know what they were doing. It may not be clear to a layman, but to someone who has professionally handled those, it was painfully obvious.

[Jay Bee]

One of the only stations I watch, Investigation Discovery, will air a special on Saturday 1/30 on the Avery murder case.. will be interesting to see their coverage post-Netflix doc.

BTW, they just aired a good show on Robbie Hawkins.. focused on his childhood vs. the Westroads Mall shooting.. don't know how you ever stop these things from happening.

[wadesworld]

Agreed. The box being tampered with is evidence enough of a problem.

Yes, it goes through a hole in the top, but it doesn't look anything like that. Seriously, I used to handle over 1,000 of these vials daily. It was my job. When you use a vacutainer to get blood in there, it doesn't leave a noticeable mark like that. And it definitely doesn't leave a visible blood stain. That would only be left by someone taking it out after the fact, and that's not how techs get blood back out, they simply remove the cap and take what they need. Trust me, I spent 6 years working in a lab with these types of specimens every day, and my wife has her bachelor's in the subject and has been working in a lab for a decade now.

The second they showed the cap on that tube, we could both instantly tell it had been tampered with by someone who didn't know what they were doing. It may not be clear to a layman, but to someone who has professionally handled those, it was painfully obvious.

Then why in the world, when your argument in court is that the police framed Avery, is this not brought up? Why is this shown as an epiphany and sure fire win in the case at the end of the episode it was brought up, only for the defense attorney to comment that what he had thought was a huge deal was no longer a huge deal in the next episode, and then the vial was never featured in the actual hearing? If it was that clear that the vial was so obviously tampered with the defense would be absolutely all over it with a home run witness discussing how there's no way that vial was anything but tampered with. But instead we never saw pictures of the vial in the trial at all, despite the defense arguing Avery was framed by the police.

[Benny B]

Then why in the world, when your argument in court is that the police framed Avery, is this not brought up? Why is this shown as an epiphany and sure fire win in the case at the end of the episode it was brought up, only for the defense attorney to comment that what he had thought was a huge deal was no longer a huge deal in the next episode, and then the vial was never featured in the actual hearing? If it was that clear that the vial was so obviously tampered with the defense would be absolutely all over it with a home run witness discussing how there's no way that vial was anything but tampered with. But instead we never saw pictures of the vial in the trial at all, despite the defense arguing Avery was framed by the police.

Once the FBI test was ruled admissible, purporting the blood vial as evidence of framing would have been neutral at best for the defense and a blatant exercise in futility at worse.

[mu03eng]

I thought the defense did a pretty poor job.  They admit that they don't think the police murdered Halbach, but their defense was mainly that the police framed Avery.

They should've spent more time pointing out the flaws in the prosecutors' story as to what happened.  Stabbed and shot raped in the bedroom?  Dragged to the garage?  Shot in the garage?  Where is the evidence of it all?  No blood in the trailer, outside, or in the garage.  Even if they cleaned it all up, blood would've slipped into cracks in the garage floor, which the investigators tore up to look for, and found none.  So their story isn't possible.  That's how they could've gotten Avery off.  Not by a story about the police framing Avery.

In pretrail hearings it was ruled the defense couldn't point the finger at anyone else, only refute the prosecutions case. They were not allowed to float alternative theories to the crime, I think they mentioned that in like episode 4, which is why the prosecution never called Dassey. They didn't need his "theory" of how the crime went down and it would have opened up more doubt in cross examination.

[🏀]

They also knew Dassey wouldn't have helped their prosecution, his story changed several different type and he wouldn't have held during cross.

[jsglow]

doesn't double jeopardy come in to play there?

No.  Remember that he was found guilty.  A retrial can occur in that case.  Not suggesting that it is warranted necessarily.  Had he been found not guilty...... Prosecutors only get one bite at the apple, even if new evidence shows up.

[jsglow]

Then why in the world, when your argument in court is that the police framed Avery, is this not brought up? Why is this shown as an epiphany and sure fire win in the case at the end of the episode it was brought up, only for the defense attorney to comment that what he had thought was a huge deal was no longer a huge deal in the next episode, and then the vial was never featured in the actual hearing? If it was that clear that the vial was so obviously tampered with the defense would be absolutely all over it with a home run witness discussing how there's no way that vial was anything but tampered with. But instead we never saw pictures of the vial in the trial at all, despite the defense arguing Avery was framed by the police.

One of the things I think you need to realize is that the documentary is a highly redacted version of the trial and that EVERY scene utilized is for the sole benefit of the defense.  As an example, not mentioned anywhere in the film is that Avery's perspiration DNA was found on the hood latch of the RAV 4 and that the defense raised no allegation that any perspiration had somehow been collected or planted.  One simply can't treat the information offered in the documentary as anything approaching a complete transcript.  Had the blood vial evidence ultimately been comparable to the 'OJ glove' (I'm still puking in my mouth over that one), you can bet the bank it would have been in the film. 

[jsglow]

In pretrail hearings it was ruled the defense couldn't point the finger at anyone else, only refute the prosecutions case. They were not allowed to float alternative theories to the crime, I think they mentioned that in like episode 4, which is why the prosecution never called Dassey. They didn't need his "theory" of how the crime went down and it would have opened up more doubt in cross examination.

Yep, and this is the part that causes me some real problems.  I think the prosecution may have missed what really happened here.  I agree with wades that there should have been tons of forensic evidence supporting the trailer rape/garage shooting story, if entirely accurate.  What I'd like to hear more about is the unedited Dassey confession and how that fits with the actual forensic evidence from the case.  Those ends are still too loose for me but could be tightened up if I knew more.

[GGGG]

OK, I finished watching this.  Here are my thoughts.

1. Avery is a much worse person than was portrayed.  As others have mentioned, this documentary glosses over or ignores things that made him look bad throughout.  I am reasonably certain he did it.

2. That being said, I think the Manitowoc Sheriff's office helped to enhance the evidence to make sure he was going to be put away.  I think that group is corrupt as hell and should have been charged based on Avery's initial incarceration.

3. I thought how the criminal justice system treated Dassey was awful.  I don't think he had anything to do with the murder.  A 16 year old with a learning disability with no parent or lawyer present?

4.  That being said, I think they portrayed Dassey's mother in way too positive a light.  I think she was manipulating him as much as anyone.

5.  The only people I felt sorry for are the Halbachs.  This made me incredibly sad about our system.  Better than pretty much anything out there.  But still corrupt and biased. 

[wadesworld]

OK, I finished watching this.  Here are my thoughts.

1. Avery is a much worse person than was portrayed.  As others have mentioned, this documentary glosses over or ignores things that made him look bad throughout.  I am reasonably certain he did it.

2. That being said, I think the Manitowoc Sheriff's office helped to enhance the evidence to make sure he was going to be put away.  I think that group is corrupt as hell and should have been charged based on Avery's initial incarceration.

3. I thought how the criminal justice system treated Dassey was awful.  I don't think he had anything to do with the murder.  A 16 year old with a learning disability with no parent or lawyer present?

4.  That being said, I think they portrayed Dassey's mother in way too positive a light.  I think she was manipulating him as much as anyone.

5.  The only people I felt sorry for are the Halbachs.  This made me incredibly sad about our system.  Better than pretty much anything out there.  But still corrupt and biased.

On point 5, I found Halbach's brother's behavior very odd throughout most of it. He talked about already "grieving" before they found the car or bones. Him and the ex boyfriend, who clearly should've at the very least been questioned as a suspect, worked together to "guess" Teresa's voicemail password. The two were together during searches for Teresa. He talked about loving the police, etc. I don't know, the only time he seemed to act like someone had suddenly lost his sister to a brutal murder was at the sentencing hearing. That was the first time he got "choked up" while speaking publicly about it, and that was, what, over a year later? There were a few interviews he seemed upset or discouraged, but most of the time he seemed to be enjoying the whole process. His behavior seemed odd to me.

[Sir Lawrence]

Wades, have you discussed this with your pops?  I'd be interested in his take on it.

[GGGG]

But that is where I think the filmmakers did a good (or poor) job.  They spent a lot of time on making their guy look good and giving breath to conspiracy theories that I am not sure stand up. Maybe this thing was hyped up a bit too much for me, but I didn't always see what they expected me to see.  For instance, when Avery's attorneys didn't believe Halbach's cousin when she said she was "spritually lead to the car" and that someone told here it was there.  I think they just got lucky.  They also called her "strange."  I found her to be completely normal in a small town Wisconsin kind of way.  Very believable. 

[keefe]

  I found her to be completely normal in a small town Wisconsin kind of way. 

That's not a ringing endorsement...

[wadesworld]

Wades, have you discussed this with your pops?  I'd be interested in his take on it.

I didn't realize it had taken place in Wisconsin before watching episode one.  So when I saw that I asked him if he knew about the case (I am fairly certain he hasn't seen the documentary) and he immediately said, "Steven Avery murdered that woman."  Not having seen or known anything besides what I saw in episode 1, I left it at that.

[Coleman]

No, it simply shows that they couldn't find EDTA in the blood using the test the redeveloped, not that it wasn't there.  Kind of like when chick can't find her car keys. 

+1

[Coleman]

Whether or not Steven Avery did it (and I'm about 50/50 on that question), the amount of reasonable doubt, due to the ineptness (at best) or corruption (at worst) of the Manitowoc County's Sherrif Department should have produced a not guilty verdict.

If the State screws up, the defendant should walk. It is called a presumption of innocence. That didn't happen here.

What happened to Brendan Dassey, who I am almost certain had nothing to do with Halbach's murder, is despicable.