Making a murder

[wadesworld]

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. 

So then how do we know the blood in the car came from the evidence vial?

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.

We saw 1 side to the story.  We saw a documentary that was titled MAKING a Murder.  If you think there was no bias or agenda being pushed by the filmmakers then sure there was reasonable doubt left.  But there is absolutely no way we saw both sides of the story and all of the importance evidence in this case from this documentary.  Again, if this documentary showed the evidence both for and against Steven Avery, you must believe that the prosecutors in this case were stupid enough to call a witness whose only testimony that would "aid" them really hurt them when calling the woman who tested the bullet found in Avery's garage.  Do you think the prosecutors were dumb enough to think that the defendants would NOT take a look at that woman's report, read that she accidentally contaminated the bullet with her own DNA, and had nothing more to testify besides for things that aided Avery's case (there was no blood anywhere, no DNA in the trailer, etc.) and said, "Hmm, this is a great witness to put on the stand!"  Of course not, but that's all we saw.  We saw the stuff that made Avery look like an innocent victim, and we didn't see whatever else she said in her testimony because it most likely provided a lot of damning evidence against Avery.  And that's how the entire documentary was.

Unless people watched the entire month 2-3 week long trial, I'm not sure how anybody can come to the conclusion based on this documentary that there was reasonable doubt.  Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, but the reality is, based on this documentary alone, nobody knows.  We saw half of the story.

[Coleman]

So then how do we know the blood in the car came from the evidence vial?

We saw 1 side to the story.  We saw a documentary that was titled MAKING a Murder.  If you think there was no bias or agenda being pushed by the filmmakers then sure there was reasonable doubt left.  But there is absolutely no way we saw both sides of the story and all of the importance evidence in this case from this documentary.  Again, if this documentary showed the evidence both for and against Steven Avery, you must believe that the prosecutors in this case were stupid enough to call a witness whose only testimony that would "aid" them really hurt them when calling the woman who tested the bullet found in Avery's garage.  Do you think the prosecutors were dumb enough to think that the defendants would NOT take a look at that woman's report, read that she accidentally contaminated the bullet with her own DNA, and had nothing more to testify besides for things that aided Avery's case (there was no blood anywhere, no DNA in the trailer, etc.) and said, "Hmm, this is a great witness to put on the stand!"  Of course not, but that's all we saw.  We saw the stuff that made Avery look like an innocent victim, and we didn't see whatever else she said in her testimony because it most likely provided a lot of damning evidence against Avery.  And that's how the entire documentary was.

Unless people watched the entire month 2-3 week long trial, I'm not sure how anybody can come to the conclusion based on this documentary that there was reasonable doubt.  Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, but the reality is, based on this documentary alone, nobody knows.  We saw half of the story.

I consider myself quite informed on the trial. I grew up in Northeast Wisconsin and remember the media's coverage of the trial quite well. In fact, prior to viewing the documentary my opinion of both Avery and Dassey were quite negative, due to being from that area. If anything, I held a bias against them. I have seen the Netflix documentary. I have read numerous rebuttals of the documentary online, as well as plenty of other articles on evidence left out of the documentary that both help and harm the case of Steven Avery. I have also read the Wisconsin Court of Appeal's ruling on the case. If you know what became of Ken Kratz after the trial, you know he has the moral backbone of a chocolate eclair.

You may disagree with my opinion, but characterizing my opinion as having been based on merely one side of the story is disingenuous.

[wadesworld]

I consider myself quite informed on the trial. I grew up in Northeast Wisconsin and remember the media's coverage of the trial quite well. In fact, prior to viewing the documentary my opinion of both Avery and Dassey were quite negative, due to being from that area. If anything, I held a bias against them. I have seen the Netflix documentary. I have read numerous rebuttals of the documentary online, as well as plenty of other articles on evidence left out of the documentary that both help and harm the case of Steven Avery. I have also read the Wisconsin Court of Appeal's ruling on the case.

You may disagree with my opinion, but characterizing my opinion as having been based on merely one side of the story is disingenuous.

Fair enough.  I just have a hard time believing that the 12 people who actually heard the evidence in the case and were responsible for making the decision as to whether he was guilty murdering Halbach were in on the conspiracy to save a county some money because of a wrongful conviction lawsuit on the suspect, as well as the judge, and the FBI (the F stands for Federal, not Manitowoc, not Wisconsin, but Federal), etc.  I personally believe that the 12 people who actually heard all the evidence had more information on the case than people who read some biased news articles and watched a biased documentary on the case.

Having said that, I think the case was completely mishandled by the investigative team(s), and people should be held responsible for that.

But that doesn't lead me to believe that a man should walk just based on that.  Let's keep in mind this man had a history of violence against women (see: his ex-fiancé), had a history with Halbach (see: her complaint to a coworker about him), and tried to disguise who he was in order to ensure she's the one who came out to his property the same exact day she went missing.  Just as coincidental as some of the evidence seemingly is in favor of the prosecution in Making a Murder, that's a whole lot of coincidence if Avery was innocent, too.  Halbach would essentially have to be in on the framing herself at that point.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Let me ask this question in regards to a jury in Manitowoc.....in such a small town, isn't it more likely that a number of members of the jury either knew each other or knew of each other?  If so, couldn't that potentially lead to a greater likelihood of intimidation or at least strong persuasion by some of the members within that jury pool?  Especially with the reputation the Avery family had and how well-publicized the case was?  Or am I off-base that could be a possibility? 

[jsglow]

Let me ask this question in regards to a jury in Manitowoc.....in such a small town, isn't it more likely that a number of members of the jury either knew each other or knew of each other?  If so, couldn't that potentially lead to a greater likelihood of intimidation or at least strong persuasion by some of the members within that jury pool?  Especially with the reputation the Avery family had and how well-publicized the case was?  Or am I off-base that could be a possibility?

Certainly a problem.  It would have been smart to move the trial to either Green Bay or Milwaukee.  But water over the dam, I suppose.

[Eldon]

So then how do we know the blood in the car came from the evidence vial?

We saw 1 side to the story.  We saw a documentary that was titled MAKING a Murder.  If you think there was no bias or agenda being pushed by the filmmakers then sure there was reasonable doubt left.  But there is absolutely no way we saw both sides of the story and all of the importance evidence in this case from this documentary.  Again, if this documentary showed the evidence both for and against Steven Avery, you must believe that the prosecutors in this case were stupid enough to call a witness whose only testimony that would "aid" them really hurt them when calling the woman who tested the bullet found in Avery's garage.  Do you think the prosecutors were dumb enough to think that the defendants would NOT take a look at that woman's report, read that she accidentally contaminated the bullet with her own DNA, and had nothing more to testify besides for things that aided Avery's case (there was no blood anywhere, no DNA in the trailer, etc.) and said, "Hmm, this is a great witness to put on the stand!"  Of course not, but that's all we saw.  We saw the stuff that made Avery look like an innocent victim, and we didn't see whatever else she said in her testimony because it most likely provided a lot of damning evidence against Avery.  And that's how the entire documentary was.

Unless people watched the entire month 2-3 week long trial, I'm not sure how anybody can come to the conclusion based on this documentary that there was reasonable doubt.  Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, but the reality is, based on this documentary alone, nobody knows.  We saw half of the story.

"Making a murderer"

Interpretation 1: Manitowoc Sheriffs set Avery up.  He was not a murderer, they made him into one through evidence tampering.

Interpretation 2: Manitowoc Sheriff falsely accused Avery of rape, sending him to prison for 18 years.  18 years in prison turned (read: made) Avery into a murderer.

EDIT: Damn OP

[Jay Bee]

Cripes almighty, it's not called "Making a Murder."

[Coleman]

Fair enough.  I just have a hard time believing that the 12 people who actually heard the evidence in the case and were responsible for making the decision as to whether he was guilty murdering Halbach were in on the conspiracy to save a county some money because of a wrongful conviction lawsuit on the suspect, as well as the judge, and the FBI (the F stands for Federal, not Manitowoc, not Wisconsin, but Federal), etc.  I personally believe that the 12 people who actually heard all the evidence had more information on the case than people who read some biased news articles and watched a biased documentary on the case.

If you recall the initial juror vote was 7 not guilty, 3 guilty, 2 undecided. The juror who was excused  basically said that those who thought he was guilty intimidated the other jurors into a guilty verdict.

In my experience on a jury, which of course is anecdotal, this is also what I encountered. Those people who felt a guilty verdict were much more headstrong than the others and were very difficult to sway off their position, while those who initially felt a not guilty verdict were more open minded.

You may also recall they found Avery not guilty of mutilating a corpse, which is of course an inconsistent verdict. The theory is that perhaps the mixed verdicts were a compromise by an otherwise hung jury.

[wadesworld]

If you recall the initial juror vote was 7 not guilty, 3 guilty, 2 undecided. The juror who was excused  basically said that those who thought he was guilty intimidated the other jurors into a guilty verdict.

In my experience on a jury, which of course is anecdotal, this is also what I encountered. Those people who felt a guilty verdict were much more headstrong than the others and were very difficult to sway off their position, while those who initially felt a not guilty verdict were more open minded.

You may also recall they found Avery not guilty of mutilating a corpse, which is of course an inconsistent verdict. The theory is that perhaps the mixed verdicts were a compromise by an otherwise hung jury.

The excused juror's comments are what I found to be the biggest joke in this entire documentary.  They try to show this "unbiased person" who had all of the evidence and was set on Avery being an innocent man...yet this "unbiased person" is hanging out with the family at all of the trials after his dismissal from the jury.  Incredibly odd, if you ask me.

[Benny B]

The excused juror's comments are what I found to be the biggest joke in this entire documentary.  They try to show this "unbiased person" who had all of the evidence and was set on Avery being an innocent man...yet this "unbiased person" is hanging out with the family at all of the trials after his dismissal from the jury.  Incredibly odd, if you ask me.

If indeed the statement about the preliminary vote is factual, I don't see how bias is relevant to that fact.

If the statement about the preliminary vote is false, I would have expected someone to have gone on the record to refute it by now.

Nevertheless, the butler is correct... juries - especially in trials of extended length - are extremely malleable and sometimes all it takes is one person to sway the entire group.  12 Angry Men, though fiction, is widely accepted as a plausible portrayal of how some juries deliberate.  Sometimes it's one holdout, sometimes it's two or three.  And sometimes the holdouts win, sometimes they don't, and sometimes the juries hang.  That said, the general consensus is that is not typical for that many jurors to flip during deliberations... the odds are heavily on "not guilty" based on the prelim vote at that point, but strange things can happen when you lock 12 people in a room and instruct them to figure it out. 

I haven't seen the juror profiles, but my guess is that if indeed there were three preliminary guilty votes, those three votes likely came from the most educated, influential, authoritative and/or respected of the twelve.  Keep in mind that - generally speaking - people who try to weasel out of jury duty typically hail from the upper echelon as far as those four traits go, so many times, the majority of the pool is filled with people who get quite excited about the prospect of a free lunch and $9 stipend.  While that may be great for constructing a jury of Avery's "peers", it leads to apathy for the case, and thus a jury of twelve can essentially become a jury of two or three (or perhaps one) deciding on the fate of the alleged.  That's not exactly a recipe for justice, but while it's not a perfect system, it's the fairest one we have.... all the more reason the rest of the proceedings need to be balanced and done by the book.

[wadesworld]

If indeed the statement about the preliminary vote is factual, I don't see how bias is relevant to that fact.

If the statement about the preliminary vote is false, I would have expected someone to have gone on the record to refute it by now.

Nevertheless, the butler is correct... juries - especially in trials of extended length - are extremely malleable and sometimes all it takes is one person to sway the entire group.  12 Angry Men, though fiction, is widely accepted as a plausible portrayal of how some juries deliberate.  Sometimes it's one holdout, sometimes it's two or three.  And sometimes the holdouts win, sometimes they don't, and sometimes the juries hang.  That said, the general consensus is that is not typical for that many jurors to flip during deliberations... the odds are heavily on "not guilty" based on the prelim vote at that point, but strange things can happen when you lock 12 people in a room and instruct them to figure it out. 

I haven't seen the juror profiles, but my guess is that if indeed there were three preliminary guilty votes, those three votes likely came from the most educated, influential, authoritative and/or respected of the twelve.  Keep in mind that - generally speaking - people who try to weasel out of jury duty typically hail from the upper echelon as far as those four traits go, so many times, the majority of the pool is filled with people who get quite excited about the prospect of a free lunch and $9 stipend.  While that may be great for constructing a jury of Avery's "peers", it leads to apathy for the case, and thus a jury of twelve can essentially become a jury of two or three (or perhaps one) deciding on the fate of the alleged.  That's not exactly a recipe for justice, but while it's not a perfect system, it's the fairest one we have.... all the more reason the rest of the proceedings need to be balanced and done by the book.

Avery's lawyers were the ones who talked about the original numbers on the deliberation votes (so to be honest I have no idea how they got those numbers as they certainly weren't in the room).

People argue their point in jury deliberations. That's what deliberations are for. I was just commenting on the fact that the documentary interviews this supposedly unbiased excused juror...who is showing up to Avery's trials sitting with the family. But again, he's not biased at all in this...

[Coleman]

Nevertheless, the butler is correct... juries - especially in trials of extended length - are extremely malleable and sometimes all it takes is one person to sway the entire group.

Benny, glad someone around here finally got the reference.

Especially in a 4 or 5 day deliberation after a weeks-long trial. Juries are made of human beings who get tired, get hungry, long for home, miss their spouses and families, are sick of seeing a loss of income (if self-employed), etc.

Some people are not confident of their own opinions. Some want to get home. It is not a stretch to imagine a jury that voted 7-3-2 as not guilty changed their opinion while few stubborn or headstrong jurors refused to budge.

Keep in mind that ultimately, a judge has to allow a jury to be hung. In a very high profile case such as this, he might tell them they need to keep deliberating to a verdict, and only allow them to declare themselves hung after a very long period of time. I'm not saying this happened here (it didn't), but its not like jurors who don't figure this out in a day or two can just declare a hung jury and go home. Deliberations drag on, and human wants and needs come into play.

The foreperson also generally caries exponentially more influence on the group. Since he was elected by the group, most people trust his or her opinion more than all others. If the foreperson was one of the 3 guilty votes, that would probably have swayed several more votes over to the guilty side.

In the end, we'll never really know. But it is well within the realm of possibility that it went down the way the excused juror says. Juries are a fascinating glimpse into human relational psychology. The opportunity to put 12 strangers into a room to decide on this big of a decision is incredibly interesting. I'm surprised there aren't more studies on them.

[Lennys Tap]

You may also recall they found Avery not guilty of mutilating a corpse, which is of course an inconsistent verdict. The theory is that perhaps the mixed verdicts were a compromise by an otherwise hung jury.

Not much of a compromise - kinda like convicting a guy of armed robbery/murder but acquitting him of speeding  in the getaway car.

[Coleman]

Not much of a compromise - kinda like convicting a guy of armed robbery/murder but acquitting him of speeding  in the getaway car.

I agree, and the "compromise" does nothing to alleviate the amount of time Avery spends in prison.

But still, it is a very strange verdict, and some sort of deal within the jury is the only explanation I can think of to explain it. Did the jury really think Avery killed Halbach, but then didn't burn her body in his fire pit? It just seems very strange to me. I could see a couple of the headstrong guilty votes on the murder count offer a not guilty on this charge and exasperated not guilty votes on the murder count taking it to end the standoff and swing to guilty.

[Lennys Tap]

I agree, and the "compromise" does nothing to alleviate the amount of time Avery spends in prison.

But still, it is a very strange verdict, and some sort of deal within the jury is the only explanation I can think of to explain it. Did the jury really think Avery killed Halbach, but then didn't burn her body in his fire pit? It just seems very strange to me. I could see a couple of the headstrong guilty votes on the murder count offer a not guilty on this charge and exasperated not guilty votes on the murder count taking it to end the standoff and swing to guilty.

Since it's guilty on the only charge that mattered and not guilty on one that didn't the most likely compromise was between 11 voting to convict and one on the fence. Your scenario - a truly divided jury coming up with a compromise that isn't one - doesn't seem realistic to me.

[Benny B]

Since it's guilty on the only charge that mattered and not guilty on one that didn't the most likely compromise was between 11 voting to convict and one on the fence. Your scenario - a truly divided jury coming up with a compromise that isn't one - doesn't seem realistic to me.

There may be a strange benefit to Avery here, albeit one that was unintended by the jury...

There is no hard evidence that Avery killed Halbach (i.e. a "smoking gun").  There's plenty of circumstantial stuff that may have collectively added up to a conviction the first time, but if the original conviction is overturned, whatever the reasons are for such reversal likely involves certain evidence being thrown out, thus weakening the State's case against Avery.  In other words, if the homicide conviction is tossed, there's a high probability that an acquittal on the homicide charge may be inevitable.

But even if Zellner is successful in securing a re-trial for Avery on the homicide charge, Avery won't be tried again on the mutilation charge, because that would be double jeopardy (remember: it's a one-way street in favor of the defendant).

Why is this significant? 

Theoretically, had Avery originally been acquitted on the homicide charge but found guilty on the mutilation and firearm charges, he would have gone away for a maximum of 22.5 years (if max sentences were served consecutively).  In other words, if his homicide conviction is thrown out tomorrow, he would still be in jail for at least another 10 years had he originally been convicted on the mutilation charge.

Since he wasn't convicted on the mutilation charge, if his homicide conviction is thrown out tomorrow, he could be walking free in a matter of months (if held for re-trial), if not tomorrow (if he posts bond).

[Coleman]

Since it's guilty on the only charge that mattered and not guilty on one that didn't the most likely compromise was between 11 voting to convict and one on the fence. Your scenario - a truly divided jury coming up with a compromise that isn't one - doesn't seem realistic to me.

By that point it very well could have been 11-1 in favor of guilty. There were 5 days of deliberations. I am not suggesting the count was not guilty 7-3-2 until the very end. They probably recast votes at least once a day.

But to me, it still suggests some sort of deal to come to unanimity.

[Lennys Tap]

But to me, it still suggests some sort of deal to come to unanimity.

Agree

[Eldon]

Avery's lawyers were the ones who talked about the original numbers on the deliberation votes (so to be honest I have no idea how they got those numbers as they certainly weren't in the room).

People argue their point in jury deliberations. That's what deliberations are for. I was just commenting on the fact that the documentary interviews this supposedly unbiased excused juror...who is showing up to Avery's trials sitting with the family. But again, he's not biased at all in this...

I'm not sure any bias would even be relevant, but even if it were, it would seem that his bias was formed after coming to the conclusion that Avery was not guilty.  In other words, he developed a friendship with the family because he felt so passionate about Avery's lack of guilt.

[GGGG]

I'm not sure any bias would even be relevant, but even if it were, it would seem that his bias was formed after coming to the conclusion that Avery was not guilty.  In other words, he developed a friendship with the family because he felt so passionate about Avery's lack of guilt.

Yeah I get that. But he seemed odd.

[Jay Bee]

On jury duty, you're quickly reminded the 'jury of your peers' is the general public. They are dumb and dirty.

The legal process is flawed but it is what it is.

Nonetheless, Avery is a dirty killer who is guilty of the TH murder. Bury him with Satan!!!!!

[Benny B]

Nonetheless, Avery is a dirty killer who is guilty of the TH murder. Bury him with Satan!!!!!

I don't think Bill and Chelsea would appreciate that very much.  Pretty sure they are going to want her in the family buried plot.

[mu03eng]

Yeah I get that. But he seemed odd.

To be fair, everyone from Manitowoc seems odd in that doc.

Yeah?

[GGGG]

To be fair, everyone from Manitowoc seems odd in that doc.

Yeah?

I thought the upper midwest accents were hilarious.  They sounded almost intentionally exaggerated like in Fargo.

But most of the people you saw (Avery family) are relatively poor and living independently on the outskirts.  As I was watching the episodes, I went through and looked up multiple family members on the Wisconsin Court Access site, and pretty much all of them had some sort of run in with the law.  Even the 15 year old girl, who testified that she lied about Brendan Dassey, is now 25 and has had multiple offenses.

[Lennys Tap]

To be fair, everyone from Manitowoc seems odd in that doc.

Yeah?

Yeah. And that.