MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: JD on December 28, 2015, 05:40:32 AM
-
I just finished watching "making a murder" on Netflix, and wow...
I voted no (on accident) When I first started watching the film, I was set on both parties being guilty, however this film changed my opinion
If you're looking for a really eye opening short 10 video series, I highly suggest watching.
Also the Yelp comments on Ken kratz law office is hilarious.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/kratz-law-firm-west-bend
-
Absolutely phenomenal show. Amazing that the film had ZERO narration and yet it was as captivating as it was.
The film definitely reduced the degree of certainty that I had about the Averys killing her. I'm still not 100% sold that they are innocent.
Innocence question aside, I don't see how a jury convicts him. Even if he did do it, IMO there is enough there for reasonable doubt. The Manitowoc Sheriff deputies should have been nowhere near the Avery property. And yet they are the ones who find all of the crucial evidence? As I see it (and I'm far from a legal scholar), Avery was never given a fair trial because he was not given a fair arrest, as it were. In other words, the deck was stacked against him going into the trial.
-
wow! just read a bunch of kk's comments on yelp. wow again! i voted NO as in avery and nephew guilty, but now i'm going to have to watch the netflix documentary. thanks for bringing this to our attention. this seemed like an open/closed case as reported by the media. isn't it special how the deprived can rise to the level of power they do(ken kratz) it seems he did so not to do the job he was supposed to be doing, but rather to facilitate or provide a means to feed his sexual fantasies and ego-a little misplaced would be an understatement-heyna?
-
I don't know how anyone could watch this series and feel that the Avery's are guilty. I honestly don't know where to begin, but the treatment of Brendan and the role that Len Kachinsky played in this thing is especially appalling.
-
wow! just read a bunch of kk's comments on yelp. wow again! i voted NO as in avery and nephew guilty, but now i'm going to have to watch the netflix documentary. thanks for bringing this to our attention. this seemed like an open/closed case as reported by the media. isn't it special how the deprived can rise to the level of power they do(ken kratz) it seems he did so not to do the job he was supposed to be doing, but rather to facilitate or provide a means to feed his sexual fantasies and ego-a little misplaced would be an understatement-heyna?
Total railroad job by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department
-
Two episodes in and loving it. Very well done, guessing we'll have binged it all by this weekend.
-
I don't know how anyone could watch this series and feel that the Avery's are guilty. I honestly don't know where to begin, but the treatment of Brendan and the role that Len Kachinsky played in this thing is especially appalling.
Haven't watched it, but am familiar with the case. Based on the physical evidence, don't know how anyone could think Avery isn't good for the murder.
-
I don't know how anyone could watch this series and feel that the Avery's are guilty. I honestly don't know where to begin, but the treatment of Brendan and the role that Len Kachinsky played in this thing is especially appalling.
I haven't watched it yet -I will soon - but is there a point that the movie is trying to make? And if so, doesn't that mean they might leave out stuff that might lead to a different conclusion?
Since you have watched it already, I'd be interested in your opinion as to whether the show presents both sides or if is advocating for innocence.
-
Finished watching it last night. Not sure what to think as far as their guilt or innocence goes.
The series does seem very one sided, but my guess is that the prosecution was offered to give their side, but likely refused to participate.
I don't think the series is trying to claim innocence for either Avery or Dassey, but that neither one received what we as Americans have a constitutional right to, and that is a fair trial. I do think the documentary makes a very strong case for that, especially in regards to the treatment of Dassey.
-
I haven't watched it yet -I will soon - but is there a point that the movie is trying to make? And if so, doesn't that mean they might leave out stuff that might lead to a different conclusion?
Since you have watched it already, I'd be interested in your opinion as to whether the show presents both sides or if is advocating for innocence.
If you're going to watch it, I won't get into too many specifics. But I will admit I think the filmmakers did have an agenda here, but after seeing the way this investigation/case was handled it seems well founded to me. FWIW there is a lot of courtroom footage that presents the prosecution's case.
-
Three episodes in I'd say it is advocating for innocence, and it makes a really compelling case. I'd love to hear the other side, because frankly it feels unreal that they got a conviction given the circumstances.
Maybe things will change, but I came in with no doubt that Steven Avery was guilty. After watching the first few episodes, I can't imagine anyone not seeing this as a clear frame up.
-
Gracias Tortuga, Lazer, and Brew.
-
I agree with what most are saying.
I'm not sure Avery and dassey are innocent, but I don't see how you can get a conviction of a guilty verdict after seeing this.
Scary, really.
-
dassey's confession was too detailed for a 60 i.q. besides, producers had too much of a vested interest in either creating doubt or leaning not guilty. they spent 10 years on this thing.
-
dassey's confession was too detailed for a 60 i.q. besides, producers had too much of a vested interest in either creating doubt or leaning not guilty. they spent 10 years on this thing.
You think Dassey's confession is actually what happened? Despite the evidence found in Avery's trailer and the timeline given by the prosecution...not to mention his attorney wasn't there and the detectives clearly coerced the entire thing.
-
dassey's confession was too detailed for a 60 i.q. besides, producers had too much of a vested interest in either creating doubt or leaning not guilty. they spent 10 years on this thing.
It flowed so smoothly because he got the story from a movie (Kiss the Girls), as evidenced by the fact that he told police that he cut Halbach's hair, which happens in that movie. I've never seen the movie, but apparently the way that Dassey said that he killed Halbach is the same way that the murderer in the movie kills his victims.
Anyway, I agree that you should always be skeptical about documentaries. The makers of most typically have an agenda. But even if there is bias in this particular documentary, those Manitowoc Sheriffs should have been nowhere near that crime scene.
-
*SPOILER ALERT*
Anyone here from Manitowac?
How has this affected your community?
It sure did seem like he may get off the charges.
Curious to see what was the damning evidence that compelled the jury to decide the way they did.
-
I'm very surprised by the poll results so far. A bunch of people just going off of what they heard on TV.
What a complete railroad job. All of those public employees involved should be fired. Hopefully their community is outraged.
http://www.businessinsider.com/anonymous-helps-making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-2015-12
-
Dassey's confession appears to be a complete joke. They show a ton of the interview footage, including the original interviews by detectives without his mother present, the special investigator that kept telling him what to add to his story and what to draw in his letter, and the subsequent interviews by detectives without his lawyer present where they keep badgering him and feeding him what he should say.
I get that the documentary has an agenda, but until someone presents information that conclusively proves otherwise, that confession was a series of browbeating authority figures taking advantage of a learning disabled child by telling him exactly what to say and draw to support their case.
-
Even the conviction of Avery.
I mean, he may have done it. But he definitely didn't do what the prosecution said. They found a bullet with blood on it in the garage, but no other blood at all? I mean, that's impossible. There would be at least blood splatter over all of the crap in that garage.
They tore that family's property apart for a week, and the only place they found blood was on that bullet and in the back of that poor lady's car. Why in the world, if she was murdered on the property, would her blood end up in the back of her own car? Not in his house, or his garage, or the rest of their property.
Avery may well have killed the victim, but the prosecution's story was complete bullcrap.
-
I'm very surprised by the poll results so far. A bunch of people just going off of what they heard on TV.
What a complete railroad job. All of those public employees involved should be fired. Hopefully their community is outraged.
http://www.businessinsider.com/anonymous-helps-making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-2015-12
I accidentally hit NO and would have selected YES.
But that's based on what I watched.
I want to know more about what they DIDN'T show that could be pivotal to the case.
-
Haven't watched it, but am familiar with the case. Based on the physical evidence, don't know how anyone could think Avery isn't good for the murder.
Then maybe you should watch it before commenting. While I don't know if Avery is ultimately guilty the evidence presented at his trial absolutely creates reasonable doubt.
And that Brendan Dassey has not received a new trial is absurd.
-
Then maybe you should watch it before commenting. While I don't know if Avery is ultimately guilty the evidence presented at his trial absolutely creates reasonable doubt.
And that Brendan Dassey has not received a new trial is absurd.
I'm familiar with the evidence and the case and have studied it from multiple aspects. I don't need to watch the Netflix special to comment on the case.
The title alone (Making a Murderer - not the subject of this thread) illustrates the bias.
Avery is a sicko murderer.
-
I'm familiar with the evidence and the case and have studied it from multiple aspects. I don't need to watch the Netflix special to comment on the case.
The title alone (Making a Murderer - not the subject of this thread) illustrates the bias.
Avery is a sicko murderer.
The Netflix documentary certainly leans in one direction but that doesn't make the evidence presented any less compelling. This is my first exposure to the case so I did not have any pre-existing bias, as you certainly do.
I don't see how a reasonable, logical person can look at what the defense presented and not see a reasonable doubt in regards to his guilt. If she was killed in the garage as stated, where's the DNA? There is no way Avery was intelligent enough to remove every last indication of DNA in an environment like that. That's just one of many items that creates doubt in regards to her being killed as the prosecution portrayed.
-
Thought this was gonna be 'bout Vince Foster, hey?
-
Thought this was gonna be 'bout Vince Foster, hey?
Wow, um.... really clever :-\
-
just watched parts 1 and 2. i know it's early in the game here, but i'm getting a tummy ache.
they set this documentary up really well. one of big things that bothers me so far is that they had free roam of avery's property for 8 + days...hmmmmmmm
the timeline of all this, the chit hitting the fan with manitowoc county and teresa's disappearance is interesting
i may have to change my vote from guilty to "present" heyna get my drift?
-
I'm almost done and thus far, there's definitely stuff the documentary leaves out. Avery called Halbach three times that day, twice using *67, he specifically requested Auto Trader send her out, some of the bone fragments found had melted pieces of the tire that Avery burned attached to them. The documentary definitely does ignore some of the pieces that convicted Avery.
That said, there's no way it happened the way the prosecution asserts. The Dassey story would have left blood and DNA all over Avery's trailer, while their follow up that she was shot in the garage is completely implausible because there's no DNA found outside the bullet.
My problem with the case is that it requires you to believe Steven Avery is two things: a criminal mastermind and a bumbling moron. He was smart enough to remove all his fingerprints from the vehicle, yet stupid enough to leave his blood all over the interior. He was smart enough to get rid of her car, but stupid enough to keep it on his property and not use the car crusher he had. He was smart enough to get rid of the body, but stupid enough to not use the smelter on his property and after burning it 20 feet from his house, scattered the remains to two additional burn sites. He was smart enough to scrub all DNA out of the garage (or presumably set up a Dexter-style kill room) but stupid enough to leave the bullet behind. He was smart enough to remove all traces of Teresa from his house but stupid enough to leave the RAV-4 key there with his DNA on it.
I think it's pretty clear the guy is no genius. His lawyer from 1985 at one point said of the murder something to the effect of "it seems to sophisticated for Steven." I think that's dead on. The one crime Steven Avery is guilty of is that he's not very bright. If that was worthy of a life sentence, however, 25% of our population would need to be locked up.
-
Chick and I started it last night and are 3-4 episodes in. Compelling stuff. I'll make a couple of preliminary comments.
1) I don't remember any of the prosecutorial overreach or Avery wrongful conviction in 1985 ever being highlighted in the mainstreet press as the trial unfolded. The October 2005 timeline is pretty compelling. I had no knowledge of these circumstances at the time even though I marginally followed the case via jsonline. I find that fact itself somewhat curious. Was I THAT out of the loop or was it downplayed? My guess is the latter. I don't miss too much typically.
2) Recall that the 'rules of evidence' do not apply in a documentary. It's important not to take 'as complete' the film we're watching. I'm not suggesting that the filmmakers are fabricating anything but context is always important.
3) For the conspiracy theory to be accurate, one must believe it went well beyond Manty. Would public officials arrange a murder and pin it on a guy to stop a wrongful imprisonment lawsuit? Would they get their buddies in Calumet Co. to go along? Is every public official that corrupt? All the judges in the tank? Did Avery's seemingly solid defense team fail to present any of this conspiracy evidence and convince even one juror?
4) This is a filmmaker's dream. You're doing this nice little documentary on the wrongful imprisonment of a guy and BANG, right in the middle this story happens right in front of you. You already have the family's trust and keep going allowing events to take you wherever. My kid would kill for this. But knowing what I know about making these things, 95% of the real time film is on the editing room floor. Just remember that as you watch.
Bottom line. I'm driving the speed limit next time I'm in town.
-
Chick and I started it last night and are 3-4 episodes in. Compelling stuff. I'll make a couple of preliminary comments.
1) I don't remember any of the prosecutorial overreach or Avery wrongful conviction in 1985 ever being highlighted in the mainstreet press as the trial unfolded. The October 2005 timeline is pretty compelling. I had no knowledge of these circumstances at the time even though I marginally followed the case via jsonline. I find that fact itself somewhat curious. Was I THAT out of the loop or was it downplayed? My guess is the latter. I don't miss too much typically.
2) Recall that the 'rules of evidence' do not apply in a documentary. It's important not to take 'as complete' the film we're watching. I'm not suggesting that the filmmakers are fabricating anything but context is always important.
3) For the conspiracy theory to be accurate, one must believe it went well beyond Manty. Would public officials arrange a murder and pin it on a guy to stop a wrongful imprisonment lawsuit? Would they get their buddies in Calumet Co. to go along? Is every public official that corrupt? All the judges in the tank? Did Avery's seemingly solid defense team fail to present any of this conspiracy evidence and convince even one juror?
4) This is a filmmaker's dream. You're doing this nice little documentary on the wrongful imprisonment of a guy and BANG, right in the middle this story happens right in front of you. You already have the family's trust and keep going allowing events to take you wherever. My kid would kill for this. But knowing what I know about making these things, 95% of the real time film is on the editing room floor. Just remember that as you watch.
Bottom line. I'm driving the speed limit next time I'm in town.
Thoughts...
1) I was working in local news at the time. I remember what a huge flip this was from Avery being celebrated as the model of the wrongly convicted to being vilified overnight. I don't think close to all of this came out, because the prosecution did a good job of painting the conspiracy theory as a crazy, out-there theory, and as the documentary will later note, it's really difficult to convince the jury that the police are the bad guys. There may have been some that believed the conspiracy, but I do think that was a minority, even in the media.
2) Yup. Have to think of their agenda, which is pretty clear. That said, there was a lot of context I think many of us missed at the time that the documentary does a good job of collecting.
3) Bear in mind while the venue changed to Calumet County, the judge and jury were still from Manitowoc. Honestly, I don't even get the point of a change of venue in this case unless it's to reduce the number of people in the audience. I think it's conceivable that 1-2 cops could have planted the evidence and spent the next few months applying pressure to the investigators. Had Avery's lawsuit gone through, Manitowoc would have been on the hook for $36M, have to think it could have bankrupted the county. Lots of motivation for lots of people to not really make things easy on Avery.
4) Yes, it definitely is.
-
Brew, I think your right about a lot of this. Seems to me that a corrupt Manty team certainly could have planted the evidence on a totally insecure site out at the salvage yard. Let's not give away any info here but having a murder dropped in their lap on or about 11/1/05 certainly could have gotten the Manty brains thinking 'opportunity'.
-
Brew, I think your right about a lot of this. Seems to me that a corrupt Manty team certainly could have planted the evidence on a totally insecure site out at the salvage yard. Let's not give away any info here but having a murder dropped in their lap on or about 11/1/05 certainly could have gotten the Manty brains thinking 'opportunity'.
The comments of the female cop filming the trailer all but prove that the department felt this was their lucky day.
-
Avery's sweat on the key.. Avery's sweat under the hood of the car... coppers planted that too?
-
Avery's sweat on the key.. Avery's sweat under the hood of the car... coppers planted that too?
The key for me is one of the most damning pieces of evidence that it was a frame. They searched his bedroom four straight days and suddenly, miraculously the key "falls out" of the bookshelf that had already been stripped clean previously, and is discovered by the two sheriffs that were most consistently pointed at as the culprits of the frame, guys that based on statements from Manitowoc should not have even been on the property? Not only that, but how is Avery's DNA on that key but Halbach's isn't? Again, that would suggest he was smart enough to wipe the key down, but stupid enough to afterwards contaminate it and leave it in the most obvious place possible? And while it was found with relative ease, that was after four days of searching that same room, and by the two guys deposed in the Avery lawsuit and presumably with the most to lose?
Maybe Avery killed her, maybe someone else did, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the key was planted, especially since it seemed pretty clear from the dispatch tapes that Colborn found Halbach's vehicle before it was found on the Avery property.
-
The comments of the female cop filming the trailer all but prove that the department felt this was their lucky day.
The key for me is one of the most damning pieces of evidence that it was a frame. They searched his bedroom four straight days and suddenly, miraculously the key "falls out" of the bookshelf that had already been stripped clean previously, and is discovered by the two sheriffs that were most consistently pointed at as the culprits of the frame, guys that based on statements from Manitowoc should not have even been on the property? Not only that, but how is Avery's DNA on that key but Halbach's isn't? Again, that would suggest he was smart enough to wipe the key down, but stupid enough to afterwards contaminate it and leave it in the most obvious place possible? And while it was found with relative ease, that was after four days of searching that same room, and by the two guys deposed in the Avery lawsuit and presumably with the most to lose?
Maybe Avery killed her, maybe someone else did, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the key was planted, especially since it seemed pretty clear from the dispatch tapes that Colborn found Halbach's vehicle before it was found on the Avery property.
That is what gets me. If Avery did such a great job of hiding everything else, how on earth can he be so careless as to leave the key next to his shoes in his bedroom? It is a total crock. Also ZERO DNA on the key of Teresa Halbach? COME ON.
-
Brew, you indicated you were in the media at the time. Did you follow (or cover) this closely in real time? Are you well-versed on the 'facts' without reliance on the film? (I'm trying very hard to stay objective and highly skeptical. eg: I KNOW OJ did it.)
-
Avery's sweat on the key.. Avery's sweat under the hood of the car... coppers planted that too?
Easily. He is clearly a pretty grubby guy and probably had sweaty dirty clothes laying around the entire house. Pit stained T-shirt... and I have 8 days to figure it out?
Give me break.
-
Easily. He is clearly a pretty grubby guy and probably had sweaty dirty clothes laying around the entire house. Pit stained T-shirt... and I have 8 days to figure it out?
Give me break.
Yeah, we are talking about a guy who had the fact that he did not own underwear entered into evidence in his rape trial.
-
Brew, you indicated you were in the media at the time. Did you follow (or cover) this closely in real time? Are you well-versed on the 'facts' without reliance on the film? (I'm trying very hard to stay objective and highly skeptical. eg: I KNOW OJ did it.)
I was following it from Milwaukee, but at the time, I was involved far more in the production side of the news than the content. We got all the information to look at and edit, but it was the reporters and producers that were most intimate with the details. Watching this has jogged a ton of my memory, but there were definitely some things that were public that I didn't remember.
What really amazes me is that I remember vividly how most of us felt the conspiracy theory was a huge reach by the defense. I think one of the problems the defense faced in terms of public perception is that stories are generally told in 2-3 minute increments. I was following the story mostly through our own coverage, and while I remember the basic facts without the film, a ton of this has jogged my memory.
Based on what I knew then, I definitely went into this thinking 100% Avery was guilty. After watching 9/10 of the documentary, I would now say I feel he is 90% innocent, and 100% it did not happen the way the prosecution claimed. Even considering the additional information I am aware of, I don't think there's nearly enough to not get him off on reasonable doubt.
-
There was also the absolute refusal to look at other suspects.
The victim's ex-boyfriend as well as her roommate should have been investigated further. The ex admitted to "guessing" her voicemail password and listening to messages after her disappearance. He claimed not to have erased anything yet voicemails were erased. The roommate did not report her missing for a few days.
Then there was Brendan Dassey's brother and step-father, who both had access to the property and whose only alibis were happening to see each other driving down the road during the timeframe in question, when a school bus driver contradicted the timing of the story that was told.
I also read that there was a man in the area whose wife had reported him after some very off behavior that could have led one to believe he should be looked into but that was also ignored.
I'm beyond stunned that Avery's nephew was never granted a new trial after everything that was presented during his appeal.
-
*SPOILER ALERT*
Anyone here from Manitowac?
How has this affected your community?
I grew up in Manitowoc, my folks still live there. Even after watching the series, I believe most people in the Manitowoc area still think Avery is guilty, simply because people in that area know what type of people the Avery's are and the things that family has done over the years. I'm not saying people haven't raised their eyebrows when they saw the type of work done by the MCSD on this case,... but I think many in the community still believe he's responsible, regardless of the series.
-
Chick and I started it last night and are 3-4 episodes in. Compelling stuff. I'll make a couple of preliminary comments.
4) This is a filmmaker's dream. You're doing this nice little documentary on the wrongful imprisonment of a guy and BANG, right in the middle this story happens right in front of you. You already have the family's trust and keep going allowing events to take you wherever. My kid would kill for this. But knowing what I know about making these things, 95% of the real time film is on the editing room floor. Just remember that as you watch.
This is key to me. Doing a sympathetic story already, and being close to the family will definitely cloud what is put in the show and what is on the cutting room floor.
-
Re-try him in a death state and burn him at the stake while stoning him!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Re-try him in a death state and burn him at the stake while stoning him!!!!!!!!!!!
Old, angry, white men.
-
Re-try him in a death state and burn him at the stake while stoning him!!!!!!!!!!!
Jay Bee was the jury foreman.
-
Here's the important question: Who is that young silver fox reporter and why is he being wasted in that small market? 8-)
-
I grew up in Manitowoc, my folks still live there. Even after watching the series, I believe most people in the Manitowoc area still think Avery is guilty, simply because people in that area know what type of people the Avery's are and the things that family has done over the years. I'm not saying people haven't raised their eyebrows when they saw the type of work done by the MCSD on this case,... but I think many in the community still believe he's responsible, regardless of the series.
Isn't that part of the problem? Those dirty people out the Mishicot way?
-
I also read that there was a man in the area whose wife had reported him after some very off behavior that could have led one to believe he should be looked into but that was also ignored.
the German guy discussed on Reddit who's wife found burnt lace panties in his possession
-
The key for me is one of the most damning pieces of evidence that it was a frame. They searched his bedroom four straight days and suddenly, miraculously the key "falls out" of the bookshelf that had already been stripped clean previously, and is discovered by the two sheriffs that were most consistently pointed at as the culprits of the frame, guys that based on statements from Manitowoc should not have even been on the property? Not only that, but how is Avery's DNA on that key but Halbach's isn't? Again, that would suggest he was smart enough to wipe the key down, but stupid enough to afterwards contaminate it and leave it in the most obvious place possible? And while it was found with relative ease, that was after four days of searching that same room, and by the two guys deposed in the Avery lawsuit and presumably with the most to lose?
Maybe Avery killed her, maybe someone else did, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the key was planted, especially since it seemed pretty clear from the dispatch tapes that Colborn found Halbach's vehicle before it was found on the Avery property.
no big deal-al franken's re-election team gave them a few pointers-heyna?
this is evolving as a real nice thread-nice input and observations. there are too many ups and downs to make sense out the conviction at minimum. i'm going to be continuing to watch the docu. as soon as the MU game is over-maybe sooner if we don't turn this game around
-
Isn't that part of the problem? Those dirty people out the Mishicot way?
absolutely agree. if they can't separate their opinions and feelings about the avery's, they don't belong on the case. i can't believe the manitowoc police had that much hate on the guy to wrongly send him to prison while they allowed gregory allen to remain free and put the community in harms way-he did rape (only?) 2 more people. fortunately didn't kill anyone...that they know of
-
the German guy discussed on Reddit who's wife found burnt lace panties in his possession
Yep, that was it. If there is any truth to that story and it wasn't checked out because they had "their guy" it is egregious. As much as they clearly hate Avery, you think they'd want to be absolutely sure that a murderer wasn't still out there.
-
Yep, that was it. If there is any truth to that story and it wasn't checked out because they had "their guy" it is egregious. As much as they clearly hate Avery, you think they'd want to be absolutely sure that a murderer wasn't still out there.
Yeah, but this is the same sheriff's department that had confirmation from another law enforcement agency that Avery was wrongly convicted and they had left someone guilty of sexual assault on their streets for a decade and they suppressed that information for 8 more years, so I can't say I have much faith in Manitowoc caring if they get criminals off their streets.
-
just saw the part where the evidence from 1985 was clearly tampered with. small styrofoam container with it's tape seal broken and the box that contained it with it's tape seal clearly violated. the vial of blood was penetrated with a syringe-like device as noted by the puncture mark through the rubber cap-hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........stay tuned?
-
just saw the part where the evidence from 1985 was clearly tampered with. small styrofoam container with it's tape seal broken and the box that contained it with it's tape seal clearly violated. the vial of blood was penetrated with a syringe-like device as noted by the puncture mark through the rubber cap-hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........stay tuned?
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.
-
And some point in the docu series, I wondered that so many possible civil employees and now state employees were caught in this mess - either directly or indirectly - that the prosecution HAD to push forward AND be supported or they ALL look bad.
They say small town politics is different from big town politics, but when it comes to power, pride, and purpose, they are very, very similar.
-
Wife and I are two and a half episodes in and it is a very compelling documentary. Regardless of Avery's guilty or innocence, I do think it is an excellent example of how the deck can be stacked against a citizen simply because the weight of the government says he/she is the one.
I do find it very interesting the comment from the poster from Manitowoc, there is clearly a bias in the town against the Avery's that is even stronger than the documentary implies, certainly makes things more believable that there could be a conspiracy. And it seems fair to say his rape conviction in 1985 was a de facto conspiracy whether intentional or not. Very curious to see how the rest of the documentary turns out.
-
Some of us older dudes will recall Professor Marc Griesbach, who taught philosophy at Marquette for decades and was Chairman of the Athletic Board for years. His many children are all very successful, including William Griesbach, a Federal Court Judge in Green Bay.
Another son, Michael Griesbach, a Marquette lawyer, wrote on the Avery cases. He is currently an assistant DA in Manitowoc County, and ruffled a lot of local feathers with this book. It's a good and easy read, if any are interested:
The Innocent Killer: A True Story of a Wrongful Conviction and its Astonishing Aftermath
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Innocent-Killer-Conviction-Astonishing-Aftermath/dp/1627223630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451926004&sr=8-1&keywords=Griesbach
-
Wife and I are two and a half episodes in and it is a very compelling documentary. Regardless of Avery's guilty or innocence, I do think it is an excellent example of how the deck can be stacked against a citizen simply because the weight of the government says he/she is the one.
I do find it very interesting the comment from the poster from Manitowoc, there is clearly a bias in the town against the Avery's that is even stronger than the documentary implies, certainly makes things more believable that there could be a conspiracy. And it seems fair to say his rape conviction in 1985 was a de facto conspiracy whether intentional or not. Very curious to see how the rest of the documentary turns out.
Two episodes in. Fascinating stuff. I know very little about the case, so I'm trying to be careful about what I read...don't want to know too much before it unfolds on the show.
-
We watched this over the weekend, while it is compelling as presented I can't buy that the sheriffs dept. would have killed Halbach in order to frame Avery. This leaves me thinking no way any actual killer not named Avery would be able to leave the evidence conveniently on Avery property for the cops to find and use against Avery, granted the finding of the key IS troubling as well as the lack of investigating the roommate and ex-boyfriend.
Kratz has now given interviews stating that Avery's sweat DNA was found under the hood of the RAV4 and that was introduced in the trial, the makers have not commented if that is true.
BTW, Halbach's brother (seen often as the family spokesman) has worked for the Packers for the last 12 years.
-
4) This is a filmmaker's dream. You're doing this nice little documentary on the wrongful imprisonment of a guy and BANG, right in the middle this story happens right in front of you. You already have the family's trust and keep going allowing events to take you wherever. My kid would kill for this. But knowing what I know about making these things, 95% of the real time film is on the editing room floor. Just remember that as you watch.
I'm obviously not doing a very good job being careful about what I read before I finish the series...
I found this article (http://mentalfloss.com/article/73172/17-compelling-facts-about-making-murderer) interesting. I figured that the filmmakers were already involved before the murder. Apparently not.
-
Wife and I are two and a half episodes in and it is a very compelling documentary. Regardless of Avery's guilty or innocence, I do think it is an excellent example of how the deck can be stacked against a citizen simply because the weight of the government says he/she is the one.
As a further, maddening example of this gov't overreach, I'd recommend "Dinosaur 13" on Netflix. Stunning what a prosecutor can do when he puts his mind to it.
-
Some of us older dudes will recall Professor Marc Griesbach, who taught philosophy at Marquette for decades and was Chairman of the Athletic Board for years. His many children are all very successful, including William Griesbach, a Federal Court Judge in Green Bay.
Another son, Michael Griesbach, a Marquette lawyer, wrote on the Avery cases. He is currently an assistant DA in Manitowoc County, and ruffled a lot of local feathers with this book. It's a good and easy read, if any are interested:
The Innocent Killer: A True Story of a Wrongful Conviction and its Astonishing Aftermath
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Innocent-Killer-Conviction-Astonishing-Aftermath/dp/1627223630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451926004&sr=8-1&keywords=Griesbach
Yep. There is a Griesbach (forgot which one) in the documentary. That must be why I was saying, "Where have I heard that name before?'
-
We watched this over the weekend, while it is compelling as presented I can't buy that the sheriffs dept. would have killed Halbach in order to frame Avery. This leaves me thinking no way any actual killer not named Avery would be able to leave the evidence conveniently on Avery property for the cops to find and use against Avery, granted the finding of the key IS troubling as well as the lack of investigating the roommate and ex-boyfriend.
Kratz has now given interviews stating that Avery's sweat DNA was found under the hood of the RAV4 and that was introduced in the trial, the makers have not commented if that is true.
BTW, Halbach's brother (seen often as the family spokesman) has worked for the Packers for the last 12 years.
Definitely info that was left out of the documentary. However, the defense didn't assert the police killed Halbach, they merely asserted they framed Avery for the killing. What stood out to me was Colborn finding the RAV-4 days before it was found on the Avery property. Yes, he denied in court that he found it, but when you listen to the dispatch tape, that sure as hell sounded like a cop calling in a car he was looking at.
I'm not sure who killed her, but I have little doubt that Colborn (likely with Lenk) found the RAV-4 and possibly the body, moved it onto the property, added the blood from the vial, and framed Avery. The property they were on was huge. Another interesting note was the cremains being moved, they likely could have been burned on the Avery property at night without anyone there even realizing it, then moved to the two other burn locations.
No idea who killed her, but there's definitely enough there for reasonable doubt, and a ton of evidence to point towards a frame.
-
Definitely info that was left out of the documentary. However, the defense didn't assert the police killed Halbach, they merely asserted they framed Avery for the killing. What stood out to me was Colborn finding the RAV-4 days before it was found on the Avery property. Yes, he denied in court that he found it, but when you listen to the dispatch tape, that sure as hell sounded like a cop calling in a car he was looking at.
I'm not sure who killed her, but I have little doubt that Colborn (likely with Lenk) found the RAV-4 and possibly the body, moved it onto the property, added the blood from the vial, and framed Avery. The property they were on was huge. Another interesting note was the cremains being moved, they likely could have been burned on the Avery property at night without anyone there even realizing it, then moved to the two other burn locations.
That's where I am with 3 episodes to go.
No idea who killed her, but there's definitely enough there for reasonable doubt, and a ton of evidence to point towards a frame.
-
Yep. There is a Griesbach (forgot which one) in the documentary. That must be why I was saying, "Where have I heard that name before?'
Last year Griesbach was on True Murder, a podcast by a dude in Canada.. has authors on to talk about true crime books they've written.. a lot of these guys provide great insights.. the Griesbach interview was probably.. around a year and a half ago?? I'll try to find/add a link.. HERE. (free) (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-zupansky1/2014/08/14/the-innocent-killer-michael-griesbach)
-
Crap.
Just did some LinkedIn stalking.
Ken Kratz is a Marquette Law School Grad.
Len Kachinsky, however is got his degree from Bucky.
-
Crap.
Just did some LinkedIn stalking.
Ken Kratz is a Marquette Law School Grad.
Len Kachinsky, however is got his degree from Bucky.
No reason to 'crap' that.
Add me!!!
Seriously... Avery is a murdering nut.
-
No reason to 'crap' that.
Add me!!!
Seriously... Avery is a murdering nut.
Great. I will add both of you and you can both send me inappropriate messages.
-
We wrapped it up tonight. If Avery didn't do it, which by definition means that Brendan didn't do anything either, then I feel most sorry for the two moms who lost their innocent sons to the prison system. As one of the defense team members said, you can guarantee that that you never commit a crime but you can NEVER guarantee that you'll never be accused.
-
We watched this over the weekend, while it is compelling as presented I can't buy that the sheriffs dept. would have killed Halbach in order to frame Avery. This leaves me thinking no way any actual killer not named Avery would be able to leave the evidence conveniently on Avery property for the cops to find and use against Avery, granted the finding of the key IS troubling as well as the lack of investigating the roommate and ex-boyfriend.
Kratz has now given interviews stating that Avery's sweat DNA was found under the hood of the RAV4 and that was introduced in the trial, the makers have not commented if that is true.
BTW, Halbach's brother (seen often as the family spokesman) has worked for the Packers for the last 12 years.
Don't have to. Grubby dude with dirty clothes laying around the house for 8 days while the cops roamed.
-
I found the following links to be insightful:
http://decider.com/2015/12/31/the-5-best-making-a-murderer-fan-theories/
And here are some original (i.e., pre-Making a Murderer) news stories from various newspapers from around Wisconsin:
http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/archive.php?ac=t&forumid=122767&date=03-16-2009&t=796684-1
Relevant evidence that the documentary omits:
*Avery calls and specifically requests Halbach to come out, allegedly under a fake name
*Ballistic expert testifies on behalf of prosecution that the bullet found was fired from a gun in Avery's room. Defense argues that the ballistic methods are dated, untrustworthy.
*Police recovered a pair of jeans from Brendan Dassey that were covered in bleach (Dassey told them that he and Steve Avery cleaned the floor of the garage thoroughly with bleach)
But even with this evidence and even if God Himself came down and told me that Avery is guilty, I still believe that he should be let go by virtue of the clearly-demonstrated police malfeasance (e.g., calling in the Rav4), to say nothing of the police negligence (eg, not considering alternative suspects).
-
After taking 10 years to make this I sure wish they would have taken more time than the prosecutor did to investigate alternative suspects. It almost seems that they did more of that in the rape conviction than the murder trial.
-
I found the following links to be insightful:
http://decider.com/2015/12/31/the-5-best-making-a-murderer-fan-theories/
And here are some original (i.e., pre-Making a Murderer) news stories from various newspapers from around Wisconsin:
http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/archive.php?ac=t&forumid=122767&date=03-16-2009&t=796684-1
Relevant evidence that the documentary omits:
*Avery calls and specifically requests Halbach to come out, allegedly under a fake name
*Ballistic expert testifies on behalf of prosecution that the bullet found was fired from a gun in Avery's room. Defense argues that the ballistic methods are dated, untrustworthy.
*Police recovered a pair of jeans from Brendan Dassey that were covered in bleach (Dassey told them that he and Steve Avery cleaned the floor of the garage thoroughly with bleach)
But even with this evidence and even if God Himself came down and told me that Avery is guilty, I still believe that he should be let go by virtue of the clearly-demonstrated police malfeasance (e.g., calling in the Rav4), to say nothing of the police negligence (eg, not considering alternative suspects).
[/b]
I've read all that too. Didn't know about the bleach jeans. Couple to add include *67 calls to hide identity followed by 'regular' call at 5p possibly to set alibi. Also the Avery restraints purchase some weeks prior. I'm not saying Avery didn't do it but I remain convinced that the sheriff's office at a minimum piled 'extra' evidence to make sure this conviction stuck. I'm also convinced that Dassey's original PD (and investigator) were not jealously representing their client's interest as was their absolute duty, especially given Dassey's clear mental limitations. Frankly, this would have been much cleaner had the trial been moved to Milwaukee where the entire community hadn't yet formed an opinion. Avery started out with a presumption of 'guilty'.
-
Some of us older dudes will recall Professor Marc Griesbach, who taught philosophy at Marquette for decades and was Chairman of the Athletic Board for years. His many children are all very successful, including William Griesbach, a Federal Court Judge in Green Bay.
Another son, Michael Griesbach, a Marquette lawyer, wrote on the Avery cases. He is currently an assistant DA in Manitowoc County, and ruffled a lot of local feathers with this book. It's a good and easy read, if any are interested:
The Innocent Killer: A True Story of a Wrongful Conviction and its Astonishing Aftermath
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Innocent-Killer-Conviction-Astonishing-Aftermath/dp/1627223630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451926004&sr=8-1&keywords=Griesbach
Any relation to Joe Griesbach at MUHS?
-
Any relation to Joe Griesbach at MUHS?
Sibling
-
Once you all finishe making a murderer , read this : http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php.
Intrigued by the show and even though I knew the filmmakers had an agenda I thought There was reasonable doubt regarding Steven and likely innocence for Brendon - until my daughter sent me this link. The doc left out a ton of stuff. New conclusion: cops may be bad, system may be flawed but Steven was guilty as charged and most likely so was his nephew.
-
Yeah, we are talking about a guy who had the fact that he did not own underwear entered into evidence in his rape trial.
I think pretty much any guy in Levis was hangin' loose throughout the '70's and'80's...
-
Once you all finishe making a murderer , read this : http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php.
Intrigued by the show and even though I knew the filmmakers had an agenda I thought There was reasonable doubt regarding Steven and likely innocence for Brendon - until my daughter sent me this link. The doc left out a ton of stuff. New conclusion: cops may be bad, system may be flawed but Steven was guilty as charged and most likely so was his nephew.
I'm pretty sure we went through most of the unmentioned evidence in the previous 3 pages.
-
I'm pretty sure we went through most of the unmentioned evidence in the previous 3 pages.
Fair enough, Hards, but this was the first time I saw all of the doc's omissions laid out together. Since then I've been alerted to even more. My conclusion? If you just watch "Making a Murderer" it looks like Dassey is innocent and Avery has at least reasonable doubt. But had I watched the actual trial and seen ALL of the evidence (that I've now seen), Avery is guilty and so probably is his nephew. Some police misconduct? Sure, probably was in OJ's case, too (which I watched pretty much gavel to gavel). When cops are sure they have their guy they sometimes do stupid, even criminal or immoral things. But I had no doubt that OJ slit two people's throats. And I think beyond a reasonable doubt Steven Avery killed Teresa.
-
Fair enough, Hards, but this was the first time I saw all of the doc's omissions laid out together. Since then I've been alerted to even more. My conclusion? If you just watch "Making a Murderer" it looks like Dassey is innocent and Avery has at least reasonable doubt. But had I watched the actual trial and seen ALL of the evidence (that I've now seen), Avery is guilty and so probably is his nephew. Some police misconduct? Sure, probably was in OJ's case, too (which I watched pretty much gavel to gavel). When cops are sure they have their guy they sometimes do stupid, even criminal or immoral things. But I had no doubt that OJ slit two people's throats. And I think beyond a reasonable doubt Steven Avery killed Teresa.
I think he probably did too. Not sure if I think that beyond a reasonable doubt. But I still have a problem with Dassey (full disclosure - I've only watched eight episodes...the Dassey trial is just beginning). The main problem I have with Dassey's conviction (spoiler alert!) is that there is absolutely no way in hell the murder happened they way he described it. None. So I'm really struggling to understand how the kid gets convicted when it is clear that his confession was not supported by the evidence. The only thing that I've heard from his confession that I think has an interesting tie in to the actual evidence was that he told them Avery popped the hood on the Rav4 and their was DNA found that supported that statement. But the story that she was bound, raped and stabbed in the bedroom...I don't believe that happened.
-
We finished this just the other day. I also accidentally was aware of the Pajiba post with the additional information while watching the last six episodes, but still have reasonable doubt.
- At the least, Dassey was coerced into multiple confessions. Kachinsky and O'Kelly are terrible. Dassey got f*cked.
- Lenk and Colburn had to have planted the key, and it's inconceivable the key had none of Halbach's DNA
- It's awfully convenient that the only bullet with Halbach's DNA was /also/ found by Manitowoc County PD later in the case, had poor testing practices, and the entire sample was used up and cannot be re-tested. Where's the professionalism?
- If Avery did it, why is Halbach's blood in the RAV4?
- Avery is not some criminal mastermind that can fully clean up almost ALL the physical evidence tying him to the murder, and also simultaneously an idiot that leaves a key out, doesn't use a car crusher, and doesn't use a smelter.
I found the following links to be insightful:
http://decider.com/2015/12/31/the-5-best-making-a-murderer-fan-theories/
Thanks for this article. Very helpful. The popsugar article is even more thorough. "The German" theory is interesting.
http://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Making-Murderer-Theories-39585210?stream_view=1#photo-39585231
-
- Avery is not some criminal mastermind that can fully clean up almost ALL the physical evidence tying him to the murder, and also simultaneously an idiot that leaves a key out, doesn't use a car crusher, and doesn't use a smelter.
This, the cell phone records, and Colburns calling the plate in are the things I'm having trouble getting past to say Avery is guilty. (I'm only on episode 7). I don't know how you can advocate a theory that requires a person be simultaneously a diabolical genius and a raging idiot.
So he can clean up the bedroom where he and his nephew raped, slit the throat, and shot the victim leaving no trace but he leaves both his and her blood in the vehicle(while leaving no finger prints), but leaves the car easily discoverable and burns the body and possessions in multiple locations increasing the likelihood that someone will discover something?
Colburn calls in plates for a car he shouldn't know about and that's not weird? And her voicemail is full as of Halloween, the brother and/or ex-BF access the records/VM and suddenly the mailbox isn't full....but nothing was deleted?
It's all far more bizarre then I remembered. Not saying he didn't do it, I just don't see anyway you can convict beyond a reasonable doubt. And I definitely believe the police were up to some shady shiz
-
Will never understand why people (including many here) are always so eager to believe conspiracy theories. More fun? More interesting? What? If you want to believe something, you are far more likely to believe it.
Based on the complete details of the case, and having been around while it was going on, if you come down on the side of the documentary makers, you are basically putting yourself in the same company as the small group of folks that think (thought) OJ didn't do it.
-
We finished this just the other day. I also accidentally was aware of the Pajiba post with the additional information while watching the last six episodes, but still have reasonable doubt.
- At the least, Dassey was coerced into multiple confessions. Kachinsky and O'Kelly are terrible. Dassey got f*cked.
- Lenk and Colburn had to have planted the key, and it's inconceivable the key had none of Halbach's DNA
[/b]
- It's awfully convenient that the only bullet with Halbach's DNA was /also/ found by Manitowoc County PD later in the case, had poor testing practices, and the entire sample was used up and cannot be re-tested. Where's the professionalism?
- If Avery did it, why is Halbach's blood in the RAV4?
- Avery is not some criminal mastermind that can fully clean up almost ALL the physical evidence tying him to the murder, and also simultaneously an idiot that leaves a key out, doesn't use a car crusher, and doesn't use a smelter.
Thanks for this article. Very helpful. The popsugar article is even more thorough. "The German" theory is interesting.
http://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Making-Murderer-Theories-39585210?stream_view=1#photo-39585231
This is what gets me, she has had that key for what did they say 4 years, and it's got a cloth/nylon type attachment on it and there is none of her DNA anywhere on there? That is just impossible.
-
Will never understand why people (including many here) are always so eager to believe conspiracy theories. More fun? More interesting? What? If you want to believe something, you are far more likely to believe it.
Based on the complete details of the case, and having been around while it was going on, if you come down on the side of the documentary makers, you are basically putting yourself in the same company as the small group of folks that think (thought) OJ didn't do it.
Generally speaking, I agree with you. And I certainly wouldn't necessarily say I'm coming down on the side of the film-makers, but I do have some doubts. I recognize their bias. But I think one fundamental difference between this case on the OJ case is that several of the same players were involved in a pretty egregious situation with Avery just a couple years earlier. My usual bias would be to totally doubt the police/prosecutorial misconduct allegation. But in this case, I can't help but recall the prior conviction which I never would have believed. So many problems in this case -- the ones that give me some level of doubt of Avery's guilt -- would have been avoided if the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department would have done what they said they were going to do: stay out of the investigation. Honestly, in light of the fact that Avery was predicting they would try to frame him even before they arrested him, I'm astounded that they kept involving themselves in the investigation.
I think the OJ case provides a very interesting comparison. In my opinion and from what I've seen and read, there were far more questions about questionable police actions in this case.
-
Will never understand why people (including many here) are always so eager to believe conspiracy theories. More fun? More interesting? What? If you want to believe something, you are far more likely to believe it.
Based on the complete details of the case, and having been around while it was going on, if you come down on the side of the documentary makers, you are basically putting yourself in the same company as the small group of folks that think (thought) OJ didn't do it.
Completely disagree.
-
Will never understand why people (including many here) are always so eager to believe conspiracy theories. More fun? More interesting? What? If you want to believe something, you are far more likely to believe it.
Based on the complete details of the case, and having been around while it was going on, if you come down on the side of the documentary makers, you are basically putting yourself in the same company as the small group of folks that think (thought) OJ didn't do it.
No. Being 'around it while it was going on' makes you extremely biased. Something like 93% of people thought Avery was guilty from the poll that the defense did when they took the case.
-
No. Being 'around it while it was going on' makes you extremely biased. Something like 93% of people thought Avery was guilty from the poll that the defense did when they took the case.
Well, that's probably because he is guilty. Like I said, some of you folks are crazy about your conspiracy theories.
But hey, I'm just biased because I saw (all of) the coverage as it took place, but the folks who made and are buying into the documentary, of course are not. Good grief. Thanks for validating my point.
-
Well, that's probably because he is guilty. Like I said, some of you folks are crazy about your conspiracy theories.
But hey, I'm just biased because I saw (all of) the coverage as it took place, but the folks who made and are buying into the documentary, of course are not. Good grief. Thanks for validating my point.
I don't recall ever following the coverage of any murder trial where the media wasn't looking to sensationalize and make a defendant look as guilty as possible.
-
Just started watching it tonight... the first episode was enough for my wife - a prosecutor herself (though not in Wis) - to be sickened and embarrassed to the point where I'm being left to watch the rest of the series alone.
And I can't wait to watch the rest of it... because then I get to ask her about how many innocent people she's gone after in her career. Though the answer is going to be zero (she's a civil prosecutor, so innocence vs. guilt isn't really the question), it is going to be fun giving her sh/t for a while.
Needless to say, I'll be getting reacquainted with an old friend named PornHub over the next few weeks, but it's so going to be worth it.
-
Well, that's probably because he is guilty. Like I said, some of you folks are crazy about your conspiracy theories.
But hey, I'm just biased because I saw (all of) the coverage as it took place, but the folks who made and are buying into the documentary, of course are not. Good grief. Thanks for validating my point.
No, I'm calling you biased for making a judgement about something that you fully admit you don't have all of the information about.
You know, the very definition.
-
No, I'm calling you biased for making a judgement about something that you fully admit you don't have all of the information about.
You know, the very definition.
+1
-
My opinion, he definitely did it, but I couldn't convict him of it.
I also couldn't blame the jury for finding him guilty at the time. It appears the defense did a pretty lackluster job putting together their case as this documentary did a much better job, except for the whole leaving important information out.
There's also no doubt that the Manny Sheriff's department screwed up again, they should have stayed out of it. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, called in Calumet County, but still couldn't stay away. Idiots. This whole documentary is garbage if they stay away from the murder investigation.
-
My opinion, he definitely did it, but I couldn't convict him of it.
I also couldn't blame the jury for finding him guilty at the time. It appears the defense did a pretty lackluster job putting together their case as this documentary did a much better job, except for the whole leaving important information out.
There's also no doubt that the Manny Sheriff's department screwed up again, they should have stayed out of it. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, called in Calumet County, but still couldn't stay away. Idiots. This whole documentary is garbage if they stay away from the murder investigation.
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.
-
Will never understand why people (including many here) are always so eager to believe conspiracy theories. More fun? More interesting? What? If you want to believe something, you are far more likely to believe it.
Based on the complete details of the case, and having been around while it was going on, if you come down on the side of the documentary makers, you are basically putting yourself in the same company as the small group of folks that think (thought) OJ didn't do it.
In your mind, could Avery be guilty but there still be a "conspiracy" to "enhance the evidence against him". Or a lack of judgement that prevented the police from looking at other suspects?
And even if Dassey and Avery are guilty....do you want your legal system to behave the way it did in this case(especially with a teenager who clearly has cognitive issues)?
-
In your mind, could Avery be guilty but there still be a "conspiracy" to "enhance the evidence against him". Or a lack of judgement that prevented the police from looking at other suspects?
And even if Dassey and Avery are guilty....do you want your legal system to behave the way it did in this case(especially with a teenager who clearly has cognitive issues)?
Do I want a legal system that convicts men guilty of rape and murder? Yes I sure do. Never been a perfect system, and never will be. Which outcome are you happier with, OJ Simpson who nearly cut his wife's head off but was set free, or Avery who you seem to agree was guilty, and is currently sitting in prison for the crimes he committed? Same legal system, similar cases, but two extremely different outcomes. I haven't looked for data to back it up, but I have to believe guilty criminals not convicted outnumber innocent people wrongly committed by what, 1000:1? 10,000:1? How many rapists are walking around today that will never see the inside of a jail cell? Again, the same legal system. It is reprehensible to me how many people care more and get so up in arms about the extremely rare and (and usually wrong) suspected cases of improperly convicted criminals than they do about the actual victims of crime.
(and no, I do not concede any sort of conspiracy occurred - documentary presents crafted theories and suspicions, but nothing that should be considered proof)
-
Do I want a legal system that convicts men guilty of rape and murder? Yes I sure do. Never been a perfect system, and never will be. Which outcome are you happier with, OJ Simpson who nearly cut his wife's head off but was set free, or Avery who you seem to agree was guilty, and is currently sitting in prison for the crimes he committed? Same legal system, similar cases, but two extremely different outcomes. I haven't looked for data to back it up, but I have to believe guilty criminals not convicted outnumber innocent people wrongly committed by what, 1000:1? 10,000:1? How many rapists are walking around today that will never see the inside of a jail cell? Again, the same legal system. It is reprehensible to me how many people care more and get so up in arms about the extremely rare and (and usually wrong) suspected cases of improperly convicted criminals than they do about the actual victims of crime.
(and no, I do not concede any sort of conspiracy occurred - documentary presents crafted theories and suspicions, but nothing that should be considered proof)
I honestly don't know if he did it or not. And you are taking an ends justify the means approach, something I would never agree with. Additionally, you are basing your absolute conviction on news stories not actually being at the trial, how is that different or less biased then a documentary? Basically your argument is "I think he is guilty therefore anything that says he isn't can't be correct." Pretty myopic view.
-
Basically your argument is "I think he is guilty therefore anything that says he isn't can't be correct." Pretty myopic view.
No. I'm saying I think he's guilty, so do police, prosecutors, and most importantly 12 jurors, not to mention the judge who handed down a sentence. You on the other hand are basing your opinion on the information hand picked and presented by 2 filmmakers.
I can't take an ends justify the means approach if I don't think anything untoward took place, now can I?
BTW, How'd his appeal go? appellate court in on the conspiracy too, eh?
-
No. I'm saying I think he's guilty, so do police, prosecutors, and most importantly 12 jurors, not to mention the judge who handed down a sentence. You on the other hand are basing your opinion on the information hand picked and presented by 2 filmmakers.
This was also true when he was convicted of rape in 85. I'm not saying he didn't do it - he certainly may have. But even with knowledge of some of the information prosecutors used against him that was not presented in the documentary, I have a hard time seeing how someone can say he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon how the crime was presented in court.
-
No. I'm saying I think he's guilty, so do police, prosecutors, and most importantly 12 jurors, not to mention the judge who handed down a sentence. You on the other hand are basing your opinion on the information hand picked and presented by 2 filmmakers.
I can't take an ends justify the means approach if I don't think anything untoward took place, now can I?
BTW, How'd his appeal go? appellate court in on the conspiracy too, eh?
First, you don't know what I'm basing my opinion on and it's based on more than just a documentary.
Second, as Vander pointed out, Avery was already wrongly convicted once, so why couldn't that happen again? I agree that if a jury convicts, it is extremely likely that the person is guilty....however looking at the evidence in totality here, I can't be nearly that conclusive.
Besides if juries conviction was the standard, why have an appeal system? And I have no idea why his appeals were rejected, may have nothing to do with his guilt or innocence
-
First, you don't know what I'm basing my opinion on and it's based on more than just a documentary.
Second, as Vander pointed out, Avery was already wrongly convicted once, so why couldn't that happen again? I agree that if a jury convicts, it is extremely likely that the person is guilty....however looking at the evidence in totality here, I can't be nearly that conclusive.
Besides if juries conviction was the standard, why have an appeal system? And I have no idea why his appeals were rejected, may have nothing to do with his guilt or innocence
Another interesting fact shared in the documentary was that I believe on the first day of deliberation seven of the jurors thought he was innocent, three thought he was guilty, and two were undecided. Of course, people can change their minds during the deliberation process but there is also the factor of the personalities involved. Maybe a couple of those jurors had their minds made up before the trial and were extremely strong-willed and pushed those other nine jurors in a different direction. It's just not as cut-and-dried as some of the posters here believe, IMO.
Also, in regards to Avery specifically requesting her and blocking his number before calling her - being a creep perv doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. Of course, it doesn't help either.
-
Also, in regards to Avery specifically requesting her and blocking his number before calling her - being a creep perv doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. Of course, it doesn't help either.
And don't forget a previous visit that creeped her out when he came to the door in nothing but a towel. Being a perv doesn't make you a murderer but when the object of your perversion ends up dead after you've made sure she shows up at your place it sure doesn't look good for you.
-
Second, as Vander pointed out, Avery was already wrongly convicted once, so why couldn't that happen again?
Is a guy who's already been hit by lightning once more likely to be hit by it again than anybody else?
If anything, I would think the fact that he'd already been unjustly convicted of a serious felony and then exonerated might work to his benefit. I'm sure the jurors knew it and might be more sympathetic. And the judge and prosecutors knew their every move would be even more scrutinized than usual.
-
Is a guy who's already been hit by lightning once more likely to be hit by it again than anybody else?
If anything, I would think the fact that he'd already been unjustly convicted of a serious felony and then exonerated might work to his benefit. I'm sure the jurors knew it and might be more sympathetic. And the judge and prosecutors knew their every move would be even more scrutinized than usual.
First lightening is arbitrary and without awareness so it is by it's nature random. Being wrongly convicted of two different crimes could go either way. People could be more on their toes to not let it happen again or there is incentive to "make this one stick". So I can't say whether it's more likely to happen twice or not, it's not statistically measurable.
Maybe I'm weird, but I'm guessing he probably did it but the police did plant evidence which taints the whole thing. I just can't get past the logic gap that requires Avery to be a forensic mastermind in one moment and an oblivious buffoon to evidence in another.
-
First lightening is arbitrary and without awareness so it is by it's nature random. Being wrongly convicted of two different crimes could go either way. People could be more on their toes to not let it happen again or there is incentive to "make this one stick". So I can't say whether it's more likely to happen twice or not, it's not statistically measurable.
Maybe I'm weird, but I'm guessing he probably did it but the police did plant evidence which taints the whole thing. I just can't get past the logic gap that requires Avery to be a forensic mastermind in one moment and an oblivious buffoon to evidence in another.
I would agree with the "make this one stick" angle if the cops/prosecution thought a guilty guy walked the first time. When an innocent man spent 18 years in the joint the first time I'd say it's advantage defendant.
I don't think it's weird at all to think he did it but the police acted improperly. Probably happens more often than we'd like to know.
-
Is a guy who's already been hit by lightning once more likely to be hit by it again than anybody else?
Actually, I think it is, statistically... but that's probably because the majority of people who get struck by lighting twice (or more) have careers, lifestyles, hobbies, etc. that make them more likely to be struck by lightning anyway.
I know I'm speaking wayyyy too soon here, but 2.5 episodes in and I can say that all of you who are half-way or more through the series sound like you're focused on what you think is the A-Plot but is actually the B-Plot. Honestly, who the f--- cares about 2005? I'm not saying murdering Halbach is anything near justified, but what happened in 1985 (and again in 1995 or 1996) is the exponentially greater issue here... in fact, I would go so far as to say that if Avery wasn't convicted in 1985 - heck, even if he were released in 1995/6 - it's a pretty safe bet that Halbach is still out taking pictures today.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the last 8 episodes are merely fodder for the issue of the first two. I hate to seem like I'm discounting the brutal murder of an innocent woman, but her death - by virtue of it being an indirect consequence of - is merely a distraction to a much greater injustice.
EDIT: After all, the title of the documentary is Making a Murderer, and nobody was made in 2005... it was all set in motion two decades prior.
Not only is my wife a civil prosecutor for the State of Illinois, my cousin is also a DA (far, far away from Manitowoc, thankfully). What is so mind-boggling here (to me) is that two people who are extremely close to me don't even have the capability to ever even think about how they would pull something like this off if the situation arose... it's not that they don't have the resources or intellect to railroad someone if they wanted, but I suppose it's simply that they have a human conscience that precludes the "want" from ever manifesting itself.
The DA is our omega defense against police corruption (which is much more widespread than we think) in a given jurisdiction... and frankly, that's apparently too much power to give to one person. As disgusting as the activites of Dvorak, Kocourek, Lenk and Colborn were... Vogel was - and remains - the ultimate evil.
-
Keep in mind that of those 18 years, six were for a crime that had nothing to do with the wrongful conviction:
http://badgerdiggings.com/js-archive/unjust-jail-term-didnt-make-a-monster/
-
Keep in mind that of those 18 years, six were for a crime that had nothing to do with the wrongful conviction:
http://badgerdiggings.com/js-archive/unjust-jail-term-didnt-make-a-monster/
Nothing new there/ Yes Avery was no model citizen and coming from a small WI town myself I know how police can focus on certain individuals. Heck, they were following the actual rapist day to day in Avery's case. I had a friend with a suspended license back in around 1977 and the police would pull over the car even when friends were driving him around in it.
-
ya know, avery and dassey may have done it, but i think the "establishment" was trying to bring it on home and count the basket, nail it, throw it down if you will
-
I'm just pleased the White House has commented on the case.
Avery is a sick murderer. There are many dirty cops. The legal system has many flaws.
-
I'm just pleased the White House has commented on the case.
Avery is a sick murderer. There are many dirty cops. The legal system has many flaws.
White House was forced to respond.
-
I'm just pleased the White House has commented on the case.
Avery is a sick murderer. There are many dirty cops. The legal system has many flaws.
I will say this, and I don't want to turn this political...there's a whole wretched hive of scum and villainy for that....but Avery's guilt or innocence is a very distant concern with me.
I'm actually concerned with how the police and prosecution acted in this case and its not all that different than the types of things going on in Chicago and NYC, etc. Stuff that the BLM movement are protesting. I wish someone would make the connection between the two instead of carrying on about Avery. For me, it's another example of those in power abusing their power or not respecting the presumption of innocence that should be concerning.
-
I will say this, and I don't want to turn this political...there's a whole wretched hive of scum and villainy for that....but Avery's guilt or innocence is a very distant concern with me.
I'm actually concerned with how the police and prosecution acted in this case and its not all that different than the types of things going on in Chicago and NYC, etc. Stuff that the BLM movement are protesting. I wish someone would make the connection between the two instead of carrying on about Avery. For me, it's another example of those in power abusing their power or not respecting the presumption of innocence that should be concerning.
One of the things that stuck with me was one point in the pre-trial wrangling (dealing with whether the state would use the nephew's confession), the prosecutor made a comment about how the judge's decision might result in the state starting the trial "swimming upstream." The defense attorney responded (paraphrasing), "With all due respect, the prosecution is supposed to be swimming upstream. The current is what we call the presumption of innocence." I thought it was a very good response to the prosecutor's comment.
-
One of the things that stuck with me was one point in the pre-trial wrangling (dealing with whether the state would use the nephew's confession), the prosecutor made a comment about how the judge's decision might result in the state starting the trial "swimming upstream." The defense attorney responded (paraphrasing), "With all due respect, the prosecution is supposed to be swimming upstream. The current is what we call the presumption of innocence." I thought it was a very good response to the prosecutor's comment.
That quote really stuck with me as well.
-
I will say this, and I don't want to turn this political...there's a whole wretched hive of scum and villainy for that....but Avery's guilt or innocence is a very distant concern with me.
I'm actually concerned with how the police and prosecution acted in this case and its not all that different than the types of things going on in Chicago and NYC, etc. Stuff that the BLM movement are protesting. I wish someone would make the connection between the two instead of carrying on about Avery. For me, it's another example of those in power abusing their power or not respecting the presumption of innocence that should be concerning.
Exactly. The 2005 decision is irrelevant. The problem is the actions of the county officials in 1985, and the question is to what extent did said actions influence the actions by such officials in 2005.
BLM is a very apropos comparison... their movement is based on the foundation that the deck has been stacked against minorities for a very long time, which is true. The deck was stacked against Avery in 1985, and evidently, nobody's shuffled the cards since.
Though I think it's more likely than not that Avery killed Hallbach (or at the very least played a material role), there is a great deal of doubt in my mind. I realize that's a sticky point for some people because it requires one to admit the reality that law enforcement could stage a murder, something most people reject. But it certainly wouldn't be the first time law enforcement has staged a murder, it wouldn't even be the first time in the past year. Heck, it wouldn't be the first time in the past 130 days that law enforcement staged a murder within 90 miles of Milwaukee.
-
Exactly. The 2005 decision is irrelevant. The problem is the actions of the county officials in 1985, and the question is to what extent did said actions influence the actions by such officials in 2005.
BLM is a very apropos comparison... their movement is based on the foundation that the deck has been stacked against minorities for a very long time, which is true. The deck was stacked against Avery in 1985, and evidently, nobody's shuffled the cards since.
Though I think it's more likely than not that Avery killed Hallbach (or at the very least played a material role), there is a great deal of doubt in my mind. I realize that's a sticky point for some people because it requires one to admit the reality that law enforcement could stage a murder, something most people reject. But it certainly wouldn't be the first time law enforcement has staged a murder, it wouldn't even be the first time in the past year. Heck, it wouldn't be the first time in the past 130 days that law enforcement staged a murder within 90 miles of Milwaukee.
I'm not convinced that the law enforcement would need to be involved in the murder if Avery didn't do it. If, for example, Avery's other nephew and the brother in law (or was he just the mother's boyfriend?) did it, it would not be unthinkable that the sheriff's department might believe with every fiber of their being that Avery did it. The body was found burned in a nearby quarry -- pretty damning evidence against the last person known to have seen her alive. The vehicle was found at some undisclosed, nearby location. If they were totally convinced that Avery did it, perhaps they would move bones to his fire pit, move the vehicle to his property, plant the key, the bullet and the DNA. I'm not saying this happened, but it's a possibility that is far short of actually killing an innocent woman to frame Avery. I also understand that this is wild speculation. I think the defense worked hard to suggest that one or two people could have done this without the involvement of everyone else in the department or prosecution.
-
Some of you could really benefit from this series...only four in, but writer is presenting an episode by episode debunking of the act of fiction these filmmakers put together.
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/ (http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/)
Some of you are clearly off the deep end with you fascination and desire to buy into the conspiracy theory (for reasons I will never understand). Basically, you want it to believe it and consequently are willing to take this odd documentary at face value, despite considerable evidence and background they conveniently left out that pretty clearly demonstrates that not only are the accused guilty, but also that nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution.
-
Some of you could really benefit from this series...only four in, but writer is presenting an episode by episode debunking of the act of fiction these filmmakers put together.
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/ (http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/)
Some of you are clearly off the deep end with you fascination and desire to buy into the conspiracy theory (for reasons I will never understand). Basically, you want it to believe it and consequently are willing to take this odd documentary at face value, despite considerable evidence and background they conveniently left out that pretty clearly demonstrates that not only are the accused guilty, but also that nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution.
Huh, the guy's a Marquette grad with a Law degree from UW-Madison. I assumed he was going to be some BS conservative blowhard because of the station he works for. I'll read up on his articles, thanks for the link!
-
Some of you could really benefit from this series...only four in, but writer is presenting an episode by episode debunking of the act of fiction these filmmakers put together.
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/ (http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/)
Some of you are clearly off the deep end with you fascination and desire to buy into the conspiracy theory (for reasons I will never understand). Basically, you want it to believe it and consequently are willing to take this odd documentary at face value, despite considerable evidence and background they conveniently left out that pretty clearly demonstrates that not only are the accused guilty, but also that nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution.
I think Avery probably did it, and the right person is sitting in jail. But you cannot say that "nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution" because the Manitowoc Sheriff's department was not supposed to be involved in the investigation. And they were. Intimately. Virtually every significant piece of evidence was found by the Manitowoc Sheriff's department. Had they stayed out of it -- like they said they would -- this documentary probably would not have even been made. It certainly would not have gotten the attention that it got. They brought this upon themselves.
-
Huh, the guy's a Marquette grad with a Law degree from UW-Madison. I assumed he was going to be some BS conservative blowhard because of the station he works for. I'll read up on his articles, thanks for the link!
I'm not sure that disqualifies him ;)
-
Some of you could really benefit from this series...only four in, but writer is presenting an episode by episode debunking of the act of fiction these filmmakers put together.
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/ (http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/)
Some of you are clearly off the deep end with you fascination and desire to buy into the conspiracy theory (for reasons I will never understand). Basically, you want it to believe it and consequently are willing to take this odd documentary at face value, despite considerable evidence and background they conveniently left out that pretty clearly demonstrates that not only are the accused guilty, but also that nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution.
after reading the 1st three rebuttals there isn't much there already not discussed in this thread, nothing that exonerates the Sheriffs Dept. or prosecutors, mainly just representing the opposite POV
-
after reading the 1st three rebuttals there isn't much there already not discussed in this thread, nothing that exonerates the Sheriffs Dept. or prosecutors, mainly just representing the opposite POV
I'll be looking at them, but after reading the first one, it seems only focused on explaining why Avery was a legitimate suspect for the rape. Well, of course he was (just like he was a very good and legitimate suspect for the murder). But that wasn't the issue. The issue was that the police were so convinced immediately that Avery was their man, they ignored all other leads, other suspects and exculpatory evidence. History has shown us that they were wrong. In my mind, the entire point of the documentary is that they did the same thing in the second case. They were immediately certain that Avery was the killer. I suspect that they were right. But the way they handled the investigation -- most notably the Manitowoc Sheriff being actively involved even though they said they would not be -- created the appearance that perhaps they were doing the same thing again. I don't think they did -- there was far more evidence pointing to him and far less exculpatory evidence (there were only theories of what else "could" have happened, but not really any meaningful evidence suggesting that those things "did" happen). But there's something to be said for conducting things -- especially a murder investigation -- in such a way as to avoid even the appearance of bias.
-
I think Avery probably did it, and the right person is sitting in jail. But you cannot say that "nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution" because the Manitowoc Sheriff's department was not supposed to be involved in the investigation. And they were. Intimately. Virtually every significant piece of evidence was found by the Manitowoc Sheriff's department.
Yeah, and? You a may not like it. Your "victim" Steven Avery may not like it, but how does that make any of that evidence in any way tainted or invalid? The documentary tries to paint it that way based on theories, speculation and innuendo, but what facts or evidence actually support it?
-
I'll be looking at them, but after reading the first one, it seems only focused on explaining why Avery was a legitimate suspect for the rape. Well, of course he was (just like he was a very good and legitimate suspect for the murder). But that wasn't the issue. The issue was that the police were so convinced immediately that Avery was their man, they ignored all other leads, other suspects and exculpatory evidence. History has shown us that they were wrong. In my mind, the entire point of the documentary is that they did the same thing in the second case. They were immediately certain that Avery was the killer. I suspect that they were right. But the way they handled the investigation -- most notably the Manitowoc Sheriff being actively involved even though they said they would not be -- created the appearance that perhaps they were doing the same thing again. I don't think they did -- there was far more evidence pointing to him and far less exculpatory evidence (there were only theories of what else "could" have happened, but not really any meaningful evidence suggesting that those things "did" happen). But there's something to be said for conducting things -- especially a murder investigation -- in such a way as to avoid even the appearance of bias.
Well said.
-
Some of you are clearly off the deep end with you fascination and desire to buy into the conspiracy theory (for reasons I will never understand). Basically, you want it to believe it and consequently are willing to take this odd documentary at face value, despite considerable evidence and background they conveniently left out that pretty clearly demonstrates that not only are the accused guilty, but also that nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution.
The documentary is not odd. I thought it was well done. The contemporaneous footage made it incredibly compelling. Have you watched it? Very few true crime documentaries have that type of access throughout a trial.
You have noted that the filmmakers don't provide an inside view of the prosecution, and that is true. However, the prosecution's narrative was being blasted out by media outlets across the state. The sensational media coverage, and particularly the Kratz press conference (which I remember seeing a clip of while I was at MU at the time) shaped public opinion of Avery in an incredibly powerful way.
In my view, the film included the strongest evidence from both sides and necessarily excluded other evidence. There was no way to include everything into 10 hours.
Lastly, I have no idea how you can say "nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution." Again, have you watched Making a Murderer? There are numerous examples of questionable conduct and not following policy or best practices.
-
Yeah, and? You a may not like it. Your "victim" Steven Avery may not like it, but how does that make any of that evidence in any way tainted or invalid? The documentary tries to paint it that way based on theories, speculation and innuendo, but what facts or evidence actually support it?
My victim? Are you serious? Not sure why you're being such an ass about this. I've said repeatedly that Avery probably did it and the right guy is sitting in jail. That's not inconsistent with saying that the Manitowoc department screwed up. I'm not sure why that's hard for you to admit or understand. Our criminal justice system allows defendants to escape conviction by trying to create reasonable doubt. They don't necessarily have to prove anyone else did it. Avery's lawyers tried, but failed in this tactic. As a result, he's in prison for the rest of his life. I'm not suggesting that he should be pardoned or released.
I never said that it made the evidence tainted or invalid. It simply raises questions. They were stupid and their stupidity has caused some people to question their actions. There is nothing wrong with questioning their actions.
-
I don't think they did -- there was far more evidence pointing to him and far less exculpatory evidence (there were only theories of what else "could" have happened, but not really any meaningful evidence suggesting that those things "did" happen). But there's something to be said for conducting things -- especially a murder investigation -- in such a way as to avoid even the appearance of bias.
Here's the problem, the "appearance of bias" you refer to is the invention of two filmmakers. Prior to December 18, 2015 (I think that was the release date), there was no appearance of bias in anyone's mind (including the convicted rapist murders who know what they did).
Had they told the complete story, the way many are debunking their nonsense now, there would be no appearance of bias or any story in that story...of course, it also never would have seen the light of day on Netflix, because nobody would care enough to watch it.
-
I'll be looking at them, but after reading the first one, it seems only focused on explaining why Avery was a legitimate suspect for the rape. Well, of course he was (just like he was a very good and legitimate suspect for the murder). But that wasn't the issue. The issue was that the police were so convinced immediately that Avery was their man, they ignored all other leads, other suspects and exculpatory evidence. History has shown us that they were wrong. In my mind, the entire point of the documentary is that they did the same thing in the second case. They were immediately certain that Avery was the killer. I suspect that they were right. But the way they handled the investigation -- most notably the Manitowoc Sheriff being actively involved even though they said they would not be -- created the appearance that perhaps they were doing the same thing again. I don't think they did -- there was far more evidence pointing to him and far less exculpatory evidence (there were only theories of what else "could" have happened, but not really any meaningful evidence suggesting that those things "did" happen). But there's something to be said for conducting things -- especially a murder investigation -- in such a way as to avoid even the appearance of bias.
This is exactly right. How screwed up does a department have to be to make the exact same mistake against the exact same person at an incredibly critical time. By mistake, I mean woefully botch an investigation by focusing on one suspect and ramming forward against that person without blinders on. They were getting sued for $36 million, they had just been deposed in the case and came out looking pretty terrible, and don't forget, the person they should have convicted in 1985 raped again. It was a disgusting miscarriage of justice, and they never learned anything from it. Such hubris.
The Manitowoc Sheriff's office should have been the most invested in making sure the process ran smoothly, but they screwed things up. They should have never been on the Avery property. They should have allowed the scene to be processed properly by outsiders as was agreed to, yet they kept finding the critical pieces of evidence. The stakes were high and they doubled down on their bumbling ways. The Sheriff and Kratz did not do right by Theresa Halbach's family. They left the door open for this to come back up.
-
Here's the problem, the "appearance of bias" you refer to is the invention of two filmmakers. Prior to December 18, 2015 (I think that was the release date), there was no appearance of bias in anyone's mind (including the convicted rapist murders who know what they did).
Had they told the complete story, the way many are debunking their nonsense now, there would be no appearance of bias or any story in that story...of course, it also never would have seen the light of day on Netflix, because nobody would care enough to watch it.
I disagree. There was concern about the appearance of bias from the very beginning. Why do you think the Manitowoc Sheriffs department decided that they would not be involved in the investigation? They knew that there would be allegations that they had a conflict of itnerest and that if they were involved there would be potential for an appearance of bias. It was a very wise decision. Then they totally disregarded that decision. The result: the appearance of bias that they hoped to avoid when they made their initial decision. They made a good decision; they should have stuck with it.
That doesn't mean Avery is innocent.
-
Here's the problem, the "appearance of bias" you refer to is the invention of two filmmakers. Prior to December 18, 2015 (I think that was the release date), there was no appearance of bias in anyone's mind (including the convicted rapist murders who know what they did).
Had they told the complete story, the way many are debunking their nonsense now, there would be no appearance of bias or any story in that story...of course, it also never would have seen the light of day on Netflix, because nobody would care enough to watch it.
The prosecution narrative was the dominant one in the media at the time. It started with that Kratz press conference that biased everyone in the state! I sure remember it. The filmmakers are balancing the scales and asking people for a second look. I seriously can't believe you don't find any of their evidence suggestive of reviewing what you read/ heard at the time.
-
The prosecution narrative was the dominant one in the media at the time. It started with that Kratz press conference that biased everyone in the state! I sure remember it. The filmmakers are balancing the scales and asking people for a second look. I seriously can't believe you don't find any of their evidence suggestive of reviewing what you read/ heard at the time.
It's because his mind is made up. I watched the documentary without any recollection of this case so I was able to view it without any preconceived notions. As I've said a number of times before, Avery certainly may have done it. However, questioning how the case was handled and the existence of reasonable doubt does not automatically paint someone as an Avery supporter or him as a victim.
Unless you are willfully ignoring it, I have a hard time seeing how the documentary did not raise serious questions in terms of the handling of the case, of the Manitowoc involvement, and of some of the evidence presented. As some others have posted, it requires you to believe that Avery was both an idiot (leaving the RAV4 key in his bedroom) and a criminal mastermind (removing all traces of DNA in his bedroom and garage based on how the murder was portrayed). A whole lot doesn't add up.
-
I think Avery probably did it, and the right person is sitting in jail. But you cannot say that "nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution" because the Manitowoc Sheriff's department was not supposed to be involved in the investigation. And they were. Intimately. Virtually every significant piece of evidence was found by the Manitowoc Sheriff's department. Had they stayed out of it -- like they said they would -- this documentary probably would not have even been made. It certainly would not have gotten the attention that it got. They brought this upon themselves.
My thoughts exactly.
-
Good interview with the directors
My favorite quote
We would encourage anyone who is taking what Ken Kratz says at face value to take that information and claims of evidence and go back to the transcripts. Go to any part of the public record, and check what he's saying.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/11/10748138/netflix-making-a-murderer-review-interview
-
I disagree. There was concern about the appearance of bias from the very beginning. Why do you think the Manitowoc Sheriffs department decided that they would not be involved in the investigation? They knew that there would be allegations that they had a conflict of itnerest and that if they were involved there would be potential for an appearance of bias. It was a very wise decision. Then they totally disregarded that decision. The result: the appearance of bias that they hoped to avoid when they made their initial decision. They made a good decision; they should have stuck with it.
That doesn't mean Avery is innocent.
+1.
Doesn't mean he's innocent, but doesn't mean he's guilty either way.
-
And Evidence left out of "Making a Murderer" that looks good for Steven Avery.
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-pro-steven-avery-list-what-was-left-out-makin-230634
I know this has already been posted, but for the sake of full context, here's evidence left out of "Making a Murderer" that looks bad for Steven Avery.
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224
-
More than sufficient reasonable doubt.
The real issue is what in the hell is going on in the Manitowac County Sheriff's Department? They make the Keystone Cops look like Scotland Yard.
-
Watching the documentary, reading additional evidence, and following the story at the time, I have no idea who killed Teresa Halbach. Could be Avery, could be his brother, could be her ex-boyfriend, could be the creepy German, could even be Manitowoc police.
That said, I have very little doubt that Manitowoc police framed Steven Avery for the crime. He may very well have killed her, but I am convinced they did their part to help ensure a conviction.
Completely within the realm of possibility that Steven Avery both committed and was framed for the murder of Teresa Halbach.
-
Watching the documentary, reading additional evidence, and following the story at the time, I have no idea who killed Teresa Halbach. Could be Avery, could be his brother, could be her ex-boyfriend, could be the creepy German, could even be Manitowoc police.
That said, I have very little doubt that Manitowoc police framed Steven Avery for the crime. He may very well have killed her, but I am convinced they did their part to help ensure a conviction.
Completely within the realm of possibility that Steven Avery both committed and was framed for the murder of Teresa Halbach.
I am in the same space as you.
If justice were to be served there would be a hard look at how the prosecution establishment behaved throughout the entire matter. I would include Kachinsky and his bone-headed investigator in that review since they were clearly working against their client.
There are several more criminals in Manitowac who need some down time from society.
-
I am in the same space as you.
If justice were to be served there would be a hard look at how the prosecution establishment behaved throughout the entire matter. I would include Kachinsky and his bone-headed investigator in that review since they were clearly working against their client.
There are several more criminals in Manitowac who need some down time from society.
Add me to the guest list at your party. Whether Avery is guilty or not, there should be others going to jail, regardless.
Colborn should be doing a nickel for felony misconduct and felony obstruction. Kocourek and Vogel should probably be doing a dime for the same with an added conspiracy multiplier. As to Lenk, Kusche, Dvorak and Peterson, I'm not sure their acts rise beyond professional malfeasance to criminal misconduct, but they should at least be stripped of their rank & service time (i.e. pension credit) retroactively to the dates of their malfeasance.
-
Add me to the guest list at your party. Whether Avery is guilty or not, there should be others going to jail, regardless.
Colborn should be doing a nickel for felony misconduct and felony obstruction. Kocourek and Vogel should probably be doing a dime for the same with an added conspiracy multiplier.
Ok, Mr. Prosecutor, consider me one of 12 jurors and please make your case for the above. make sure I understand the relevant laws, and provide the specific proof and evidence that they violated them, beyond a reasonable doubt. Quick note, theories and speculation are neither proof nor evidence.
-
Ok, Mr. Prosecutor, consider me one of 12 jurors and please make your case for the above. make sure I understand the relevant laws, and provide the specific proof and evidence that they violated them, beyond a reasonable doubt. Quick note, theories and speculation are neither proof nor evidence.
If you know what exculpatory evidence is, then you'll know where this is going. If not... look it up if you want, but either way, I'm not going to prove anything to you because your mind is already made up.
To be clear, I'm not talking about 2005... I'm strictly talking 1985 here.
-
Ok, Mr. Prosecutor, consider me one of 12 jurors and please make your case for the above. make sure I understand the relevant laws, and provide the specific proof and evidence that they violated them, beyond a reasonable doubt. Quick note, theories and speculation are neither proof nor evidence.
Since you bring up 12 jurors, how do 7 jurors leave the courtroom and their initial lean is not guilty and then four days later all 7 have flipped?
-
Since you bring up 12 jurors, how do 7 jurors leave the courtroom and their initial lean is not guilty and then four days later all 7 have flipped?
So what, they were in on the grand conspiracy too? I don't know any more than you do. Better questions..who cares? What's the difference? What matters is their final decision. If it was six would that make it better? How about five? What do you think they were doing for four days, playing checkers? Jurors change their minds all the time, that's why it's called deliberation. What's your point?
-
So what, they were in on the grand conspiracy too? I don't know any more than you do. Better questions..who cares? What's the difference? What matters is their final decision. If it was six would that make it better? How about five? What do you think they were doing for four days, playing checkers? Jurors change their minds all the time, that's why it's called deliberation. What's your point?
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'll ask yet again, where is the evidence, exculpatory or otherwise, any evidence that proves that Avery either A) is not guilty, B) was framed by the authorities, or C) both. I've seen the theories and speculation, but nobody has can seem to provide anything the constitutes proof or evidence.
And yes, I do have my mind made up. Why? because the evidence...eye witness accounts, physical evidence, DNA, etc. says he's guilty. So say I, and so said 12 of Steven Avery's peers. Yet, so many here and elsewhere, who were nowhere near the actual trial, after watching a TV show 10 years later, consider themselves qualified to say that at best there should be reasonable doubt, and at worst he is not guilty and was framed by law enforcement.
But hey, I'm on open minded guy. Point me to some actual evidence that supports the theories and speculation an obviously biased TV show presented, that seemingly intelligent and rational people have inexplicably chosen to buy into, and maybe I can be convinced.
-
That's an insanely high pre-deliberation number to flip. That's why.
Compared to what? How long have you been a trial lawyer and jury consultant? You have as much knowledge on the topic as I do. Besides even if you're right, it's completely irrelevant.
Regardless, Zellner's going to get her day in court and I'll bet a Powerball winner that Avery walks free again.
Please count me in on that action.
-
Since you bring up 12 jurors, how do 7 jurors leave the courtroom and their initial lean is not guilty and then four days later all 7 have flipped?
No comment on the Avery case, but having served on a jury this doesn't surprise me. Plus, if it was 7-5 either 7 need to change or 5 need to change.
-
No comment on the Avery case, but having served on a jury this doesn't surprise me. Plus, if it was 7-5 either 7 need to change or 5 need to change.
In a murder case, it's very unlikely to have a number that high. Even more weird considering the oddities surrounding this case.
I believe it was 7 nots, 3 guilty and 2 undecided.
-
In a murder case, it's very unlikely to have a number that high.
Source? (Seriously, what's your source on that statement?)
-
I'll ask yet again, where is the evidence, exculpatory or otherwise, any evidence that proves that Avery either A) is not guilty, B) was framed by the authorities, or C) both. I've seen the theories and speculation, but nobody has can seem to provide anything the constitutes proof or evidence.
And yes, I do have my mind made up. Why? because the evidence...eye witness accounts, physical evidence, DNA, etc. says he's guilty. So say I, and so said 12 of Steven Avery's peers. Yet, so many here and elsewhere, who were nowhere near the actual trial, after watching a TV show 10 years later, consider themselves qualified to say that at best there should be reasonable doubt, and at worst he is not guilty and was framed by law enforcement.
But hey, I'm on open minded guy. Point me to some actual evidence that supports the theories and speculation an obviously biased TV show presented, that seemingly intelligent and rational people have inexplicably chosen to buy into, and maybe I can be convinced.
How does "being near the trial" make your opinion any more relevant than someone in China?
And aren't most, if not all news programs, papers, magazines "near the trial" especially biased towards the prosecutors version of events?
-
So what, they were in on the grand conspiracy too? I don't know any more than you do. Better questions..who cares? What's the difference? What matters is their final decision. If it was six would that make it better? How about five? What do you think they were doing for four days, playing checkers? Jurors change their minds all the time, that's why it's called deliberation. What's your point?
The conspiracy took place 30 years ago; the jurors weren't involved.
Hopefully, you're not using the kerfuffle of 2005 to justify a blatant miscarriage of justice twenty years earlier that directly led to the otherwise avoidable assault and rape of another woman back when Halbach was barely old enough to tie her own shoes. Or did you miss that part?
Again, the title is Making a Murderer. Not Becoming a Murderer. Not Diary of a Murderer. Making a Murderer. Hell, Fassbender said it himself... being locked up for 18 years for a crime you didn't commit can drive a person to kill.
Tell me, Navin... when you saw The Jerk for the first time, did you walk out of the movie theater thinking the plot of the movie was about an inventor who got in over his head?
-
How does "being near the trial" make your opinion any more relevant than someone in China?
And aren't most, if not all news programs, papers, magazines "near the trial" especially biased towards the prosecutors version of events?
I wasn't near the trial. No one was...except the jurors. That makes their opinion exponentially more relevant than yours, mine, or anyone else's. That's what I was referring to.
As to your second point about media coverage, no, I don't believe that at all. George Zimmerman immediately comes to mind. Rodney King not far behind.
All of that said, I guess I do consider the opinion of reporters who actually covered the trial at the time to be a bit more relevant than those who may not have. the links I posted the other day are a good example of that.
-
The conspiracy took place 30 years ago; the jurors weren't involved.
Hopefully, you're not using the kerfuffle of 2005 to justify a blatant miscarriage of justice twenty years earlier that directly led to the otherwise avoidable assault and rape of another woman back when Halbach was barely old enough to tie her own shoes. Or did you miss that part?
Again, the title is Making a Murderer. Not Becoming a Murderer. Not Diary of a Murderer. Making a Murderer. Hell, Fassbender said it himself... being locked up for 18 years for a crime you didn't commit can drive a person to kill.
Tell me, Navin... when you saw The Jerk for the first time, did you walk out of the movie theater thinking the plot of the movie was about an inventor who got in over his head?
I think I get it now...since the idea that he was wrongly convicted in 2005 has now been pretty comprehensively debunked, now the documentary is in reality all about the 1985 case (even though 80% of the series is about the 2005 case/trial, the supposed conspiracy, etc.). Got it. 1985 was a miscarriage of justice. Find me someone who denies that. That doesn't explain people signing petitions for a new trial, claims of planted evidence, coerced confessions, etc.
Everyone is to blame for Theresa Halbach's rape, torture, and murder except Steven Avery, is that it?
-
I think I get it now...since the idea that he was wrongly convicted in 2005 has now been pretty comprehensively debunked, now the documentary is in reality all about the 1985 case (even though 80% of the series is about the 2005 case/trial, the supposed conspiracy, etc.). Got it. 1985 was a miscarriage of justice. Find me someone who denies that.
Ken Peterson, for one. Gene Kusche, two.
Need I go on?
-
Navin, you seem quite knowledgeable about this case having observed it so closely 10 years back. Could you explain the car key to me? Why wasn't if found in the hours and hours of searching that one tiny room? Why was it found by someone who shouldn't have been in that room? Why didn't it have Halbach's DNA on it?
This piece of evidence is perplexing to me. It must be obvious to you. Please fill us in.
-
Saw an interview with Avery's ex fiancé' - claims she lied about talking to a "calm" Steven at 5pm the night of the murder because he threatened her. Said he routinely beat the shyte out of her and that "bitches owed him" because of his 1985 unfair conviction. Said she told the makers of the documentary that her remarks about Steven were lies told out of fear and asked them to cut those statements. They didn't.
-
Navin, you seem quite knowledgeable about this case having observed it so closely 10 years back. Could you explain the car key to me? Why wasn't if found in the hours and hours of searching that one tiny room?
Because nobody found it.
Why was it found by someone who shouldn't have been in that room?
Because he, who was not in the room by himself BTW, was the one looking for it, and it was also entirely legal for him to have been in that room.
Why didn't it have Halbach's DNA on it?
I don't know the answer to that anymore than you do. You know who's DNA was on it though? Steven Avery's.
Here again, you have nothing more than a suspicion of what could have happened, to try to support a theory of innocence. The actual facts and physical evidence however, provide proof of guilt. As soon as someone can provide some evidence, any kind of actual evidence to support the theory, it will be more worthy of consideration. Until then it is nothing more than that, a theory.
-
Because nobody found it.
Because he, who was not in the room by himself BTW, was the one looking for it, and it was also entirely legal for him to have been in that room.
I don't know the answer to that anymore than you do. You know who's DNA was on it though? Steven Avery's.
Here again, you have nothing more than a suspicion of what could have happened, to try to support a theory of innocence. The actual facts and physical evidence however, provide proof of guilt. As soon as someone can provide some evidence, any kind of actual evidence to support the theory, it will be more worthy of consideration. Until then it is nothing more than that, a theory.
lmao.
-
Not sure why you guys are engaging him anymore.
For the rest of the group, the garage was the best. Apparently she was shot in the head in there, and multiple times to the body. However, 74 IQ Avery scrubbed that garage, with all that junk, and scrubbed into layers of concrete so well it was spotless free of her DNA.
He was even smart enough to leave old samples of his own DNA everywhere, because if he scrubbed it that clean, there'd be little to no DNA.
It was only after being searched for two days, after the embarrassing coersion of a mentally challenged teenager, that they found a bullet fragment with her DNA on it. Which of course Lt. Lenk happened to be around for, again.
-
lmao.
So I guess that means you don't have any evidence, huh?
-
Not sure why you guys are engaging him anymore.
You're absolutely right, and I'm probably being trolled.
It drives me crazy when people confuse "evidence" with "proof," or put another way, he confuses circumstantial evidence (i.e., evidence that requires an inference to be made) with direct evidence (i.e., evidence that does not require an inference to be made). They're fundamentally different. He refers to a "theory of innocence" and claims that there is no "evidence" supporting of theory of innocence. That's simply not true. There is quite a lot of evidence supporting that theory. We may disagree about the quality of that evidence, but it is "evidence." The key wasn't found during the first several searches -- that's circumstantial evidence that it was planted. The bullet wasn't found until later -- circumstantial evidence that it was planted. Lenk was present when both of those pieces of evidence were found -- circumstantial evidence that it was planted. There was no blood in the room -- evidence that she wasn't murdered in that location or in the way that the confession indicated. There was none of her blood in the garage -- evidence she wasn't killed there. No damage to bed suggesting ties/chains -- evidence no one was bound there. There's actually a lot of evidence. Notably, the judge (and anyone knowledgeable about trial work) would agree with me -- it couldn't have even been presented to the jury if it wasn't relevant evidence. No direct evidence, of course. All is circumstantial and requires inferences. That's pretty common.
To illustrate how common it is, it's worth nothing that it's also a "theory" that Avery killed her. And there is no direct evidence that he did so -- only circumstantial evidence requiring inference. Nobody saw him do it. They just point to other facts that suggest that he did it. Again, that's how almost every criminal case works. But, it is obvious to me (and certainly to Navin) that there is far more and better evidence supporting the theory that Avery killed her. Her body was found on his property; her car was found on his property; his DNA was found on her keychain; a bullet with her DNA was found in his garage; his DNA was in her car; her phone was in a barrel on his property; he was the last person known to see her alive; he specifically requested her; the confession; when in prison he said he wanted to torture women; etc. Each of those items -- and more -- are circumstantial evidence that support the prosecution's theory that Avery killed her. I also note that this theory -- that Avery killed her -- is the most concrete part of the prosecution's theory. Once you get past that, the prosecution's theory gets a little hazy and shifts depending upon who is on trial (e.g., he killed her in the garage alone or he killed her in the bedroom with the nephew).
Avery doesn't have to prove his innocence, and in my mind he absolutely did not. All they have to do is create reasonable doubt, and they presented a pretty fair amount of evidence in an effort to do that. It wasn't enough for the 12 people who mattered. When filtered through the minds of a couple of filmmakers, it is enough for a lot of people. I generally have a pretty healthy respect for the jury system. As far as I know, Avery's attorneys were generally permitted to present the evidence that supported their theory. The jury rejected that evidence and felt that the state presented enough to prove guilt. I'm surprised by that decision, but acknowledge that I learned of the case initially and primarily through a pre-packaged version of events that wanted me to be surprised (and shocked) by that. I do think he probably did it, and I don't think he'll be freed.
All that said, I do still think that certain members of the Sheriff's department and the prosecution acted inappropriately. I also think they planted evidence. Those are not mutually exclusive from believing Avery did it.
-
Not sure why you guys are engaging him anymore.
For the rest of the group, the garage was the best. Apparently she was shot in the head in there, and multiple times to the body. However, 74 IQ Avery scrubbed that garage, with all that junk, and scrubbed into layers of concrete so well it was spotless free of her DNA.
He was even smart enough to leave old samples of his own DNA everywhere, because if he scrubbed it that clean, there'd be little to no DNA.
It was only after being searched for two days, after the embarrassing coersion of a mentally challenged teenager, that they found a bullet fragment with her DNA on it. Which of course Lt. Lenk happened to be around for, again.
If anyone need to read this series, it's you, or is this guy in on the conspiracy too? Man that is getting to be one long list of co-conspirators needed to pull this thing off.
This is for episode 7, but the rest are linked at the bottom.
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-7-14273518/ (http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-7-14273518/)
Finally, just to be clear, this guy for whom you and others are so sympathetic, lured a young girl to his house, chained her to his bed, raped and tortured her, had his nephew (whom he also sexually assaulted) do the same, before shooting her in the head and burning her body. Yet, you would rather choose to believe that law enforcement managed to pull off this elaborate frame job for which not a shred of actual evidence of any kind supporting the theory has appeared in 10 years.
-
You're absolutely right, and I'm probably being trolled.
It drives me crazy when people confuse "evidence" with "proof," or put another way, he confuses circumstantial evidence (i.e., evidence that requires an inference to be made) with direct evidence (i.e., evidence that does not require an inference to be made). They're fundamentally different. He refers to a "theory of innocence" and claims that there is no "evidence" supporting of theory of innocence. That's simply not true. There is quite a lot of evidence supporting that theory. We may disagree about the quality of that evidence, but it is "evidence." The key wasn't found during the first several searches -- that's circumstantial evidence that it was planted. The bullet wasn't found until later -- circumstantial evidence that it was planted. Lenk was present when both of those pieces of evidence were found -- circumstantial evidence that it was planted. There was no blood in the room -- evidence that she wasn't murdered in that location or in the way that the confession indicated. There was none of her blood in the garage -- evidence she wasn't killed there. No damage to bed suggesting ties/chains -- evidence no one was bound there. There's actually a lot of evidence. Notably, the judge (and anyone knowledgeable about trial work) would agree with me -- it couldn't have even been presented to the jury if it wasn't relevant evidence. No direct evidence, of course. All is circumstantial and requires inferences. That's pretty common.
Oh, I fully understand that circumstantial evidence is in fact evidence. I can at other times recall having had the very same argument about it on these very boards, and I don't necessarily disagree with the above. The problem in this case, is that the prosecution's theory of the case is supported by physical evidence, ballistics, DNA, phone records, taped phone conversations, eye witness accounts, and a friggin confession for God's sake. The defense developed a theory based on the circumstances. Unfortunately for them, that theory is supported by nothing but itself. At the time, and in 10 years since, nothing to provide any backing. Ten years that were spent actively preparing a documentary no less. No physical evidence, no DNA, no eye witnesses, no phone records, no photos, no video, no slip ups by the many co-conspirators.
It's funny, some of these guys fight me tooth and nail, but it's because I'm the one with my mind made up. Right. Got it. Which brings me back to my original post on this topic, I have no idea why so many seemingly bright and well educated people want to believe that what actually happened, didn't happen, and that this was some sort of frame job. From my perspective, that is the only explanation for so many people willfully ignoring the entire picture in favor of a TV show that is obviously crafted to make a particular case.
-
For the rest of the group, the garage was the best. Apparently she was shot in the head in there, and multiple times to the body. However, 74 IQ Avery scrubbed that garage, with all that junk, and scrubbed into layers of concrete so well it was spotless free of her DNA.
He was even smart enough to leave old samples of his own DNA everywhere, because if he scrubbed it that clean, there'd be little to no DNA.
It was only after being searched for two days, after the embarrassing coersion of a mentally challenged teenager, that they found a bullet fragment with her DNA on it. Which of course Lt. Lenk happened to be around for, again.
The DNA evidence is evidence for the prosecution but the lack of DNA is evidence for the defense. If she was chained to a bed, had her throat cut multiple times, had her hair cut, then taken to a garage and shot in the head and body multiple times.....how is there so little DNA? Seemingly the only Avery DNA(based on non-documentary sources) is the RAV4 and the key, the only Halbach DNA is the bullet fragment, the cremains, and the RAV4. Strikes me there should have been DNA every where. Additionally, way is her blood in the RAV4....dude was so lazy he had to use the RAV4 to move her the 100ft from the trailer to the garage?
-
Oh, I fully understand that circumstantial evidence is in fact evidence. I can at other times recall having had the very same argument about it on these very boards, and I don't necessarily disagree with the above. The problem in this case, is that the prosecution's theory of the case is supported by physical evidence, ballistics, DNA, phone records, taped phone conversations, eye witness accounts, and a friggin confession for God's sake. The defense developed a theory based on the circumstances. Unfortunately for them, that theory is supported by nothing but itself. At the time, and in 10 years since, nothing to provide any backing. Ten years that were spent actively preparing a documentary no less. No physical evidence, no DNA, no eye witnesses, no phone records, no photos, no video, no slip ups by the many co-conspirators.
It's funny, some of these guys fight me tooth and nail, but it's because I'm the one with my mind made up. Right. Got it. Which brings me back to my original post on this topic, I have no idea why so many seemingly bright and well educated people want to believe that what actually happened, didn't happen, and that this was some sort of frame job. From my perspective, that is the only explanation for so many people willfully ignoring the entire picture in favor of a TV show that is obviously crafted to make a particular case.
For the record, the prosecution's theory against Steven Avery was not supported by a confession. The prosecution did not enter evidence of the confession in that case (aside from the press conference, of course). In fact, unless I'm mistaken (always possible) the prosecution argued that Avery killed her alone in the garage. This is flatly contradicted by the confession.
I don't think there are many people here who are arguing, "what actually happened, didn't happen." They're arguing that they have doubt. That is a very different thing. You are certain. Others have some doubt. Inappropriate actions by some government officials created that doubt.
I have no idea why you, a seemingly bright and well educated person, refuse to admit several government employees engaged in questionable actions. It's perfectly fine to be utterly convinced that Steven Avery killed this woman -- the evidence certainly points that way and the jury was also convinced -- but still acknowledge that the Sheriff's department did some shockingly stupid things that has caused some to feel doubt. I also don't understand why, despite explaining that you understand circumstantial evidence, you continue to insist there is no evidence supporting Avery's theory. If you keep arguing something that you apparently understand is not true...I guess you're just trolling. Well done.
-
If anyone need to read this series, it's you, or is this guy in on the conspiracy too? Man that is getting to be one long list of co-conspirators needed to pull this thing off.
This is for episode 7, but the rest are linked at the bottom.
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-7-14273518/ (http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-7-14273518/)
Finally, just to be clear, this guy for whom you and others are so sympathetic, lured a young girl to his house, chained her to his bed, raped and tortured her, had his nephew (whom he also sexually assaulted) do the same, before shooting her in the head and burning her body. Yet, you would rather choose to believe that law enforcement managed to pull off this elaborate frame job for which not a shred of actual evidence of any kind supporting the theory has appeared in 10 years.
I feel like I need to reiterate. I believe Avery was involved, no doubt. I think Avery ultimately belongs in jail.
What I don't believe in is the cracker jack DA and his ploys that put Avery into jail. He was denied a fair trial.
I read that 1130 series, which doesn't offer much that hasn't been stated. It continues the narrative that pisses me off, Avery was guilty before the trial started. What really pisses me off is Manitowoc County started the investigation correctly, but they blew it. They couldn't stay away. Zellner will absolutely tear this apart, make Strang and Butting look like amateurs and Avery will get another trial. There won't be 12 jurors to find him guilty again with Zellner on the case.
-
This is funny
-
I read that 1130 series, which doesn't offer much that hasn't been stated. It continues the narrative that pisses me off, Avery was guilty before the trial started. What really pisses me off is Manitowoc County started the investigation correctly, but they blew it. They couldn't stay away. Zellner will absolutely tear this apart, make Strang and Butting look like amateurs and Avery will get another trial. There won't be 12 jurors to find him guilty again with Zellner on the case.
Incidentally, the 1130 series presents the other side of the story using a smattering of facts conveniently placed amongst a bunch of opinions and theories. Just like the Netflix series.
I'm going to keep repeating myself, because the irony here is that Avery may eventually walk free for a crime he did commit as a consequence of the earlier misconduct/malfeasance of law enforcement & the prosecution for which they were too busy covering their ass (for convicting him of a crime he didn't commit) when they should have been focused on the process of law. That is what the Netflix series is all about.
-
Incidentally, the 1130 series presents the other side of the story using a smattering of facts conveniently placed amongst a bunch of opinions and theories. Just like the Netflix series.
I'm going to keep repeating myself, because the irony here is that Avery may eventually walk free for a crime he did commit as a consequence of the earlier misconduct/malfeasance of law enforcement & the prosecution for which they were too busy covering their ass (for convicting him of a crime he didn't commit) when they should have been focused on the process of law. That is what the Netflix series is all about.
It truly is ironic that in the authorities zeal to put Avery away they may have made it easier for him to go free.
Side note, one of the things I don't understand and really hate about our criminal justice system is how the prosecution can argue two different theories(that are mutually exclusive) of the crime in two different trials against essentially co-defendants. The trial against Avery was that he went it alone while Dassey's trial involved them conspiring together. How does that make sense?
-
It continues the narrative that pisses me off, Avery was guilty before the trial started.
I'll say one thing on this and then move on, because I honestly don't care anymore. Everyone will move on from this and the guy is gonna die in prison which is what he deserves.
The above is what pisses me off, and is frankly something I do not understand. Of course he was guilty before the trial started. You know why? Because he's guilty. Is your expectation that a prosecutor is to consider a defendant innocent until proven guilty? No, that's not how it works. The jury has to do that, the judge needs to be impartial, but a prospector's repsonsibility is to prove the guilt they believe exists, so for the life of me I don't know what you (and others who have said the same thing) are talking about.
Unless of course you are referring to the jurors believing he was guilty before the trail began, because as you point out, 7 of them began deliberations leaning toward not guilty, so that doesn't make sense, particularly since being an expert on juries in mtprder trails, that seven number is outrageously high. Maybe the judge was in on it too. So when you say the narrative that he was guilty before the trail started pisses you off, guilty in the eyes of whom, and what was the impact of that? The media? The Public? Doesn't matter. It just strikes me as a very silly argument. If he did it, obviously he is in fact guilty. If he's proven guilty in the eyes of the jury, he's convicted, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
-
It truly is ironic that in the authorities zeal to put Avery away they may have made it easier for him to go free.
Side note, one of the things I don't understand and really hate about our criminal justice system is how the prosecution can argue two different theories(that are mutually exclusive) of the crime in two different trials against essentially co-defendants. The trial against Avery was that he went it alone while Dassey's trial involved them conspiring together. How does that make sense?
Unless the prosecution tries them as co-defendants (i.e. a single trial), due process requires that each case stand on its own; therefore the prosecution is free to argue separate theories in both trials just as the defense is able to present separate theories in both.
Also, consider that in most criminal cases involving multiple defendants, one or more of the defendants will usually plea out to a lesser charge so that the prosecution can ensure a conviction against at least one. Sometimes there is no plea bargain but the evidence against one is more damning than it is against the other. Sometimes facts/evidence that were exhibited in one trial are - for a variety of reasons - barred from exclusion in the other trial... any one of these could require a different strategy for the prosecution in different trials.
For example, Kratz thought he could effectively use Dassey's confession to convict Dassey, but if he used it in Avery's trial, Dassey could be cross-examined by the defense which could have spelled all sorts of trouble for Avery's prosecution insomuch as Dassey would have been discredited as a liar and, possibly, could have easily been portrayed by Avery's defense as the actual killer on cross-examination.
It all comes down to what the prosecution believes they can best utilize to prove their case and win a conviction (or what the defense thinks best rebuts the prosecution's argument). Sometimes that's soup from the same cauldron, sometimes it's not.
-
I'll say one thing on this and then move on, because I honestly don't care anymore. Everyone will move on from this and the guy is gonna die in prison which is what he deserves.
The above is what pisses me off, and is frankly something I do not understand. Of course he was guilty before the trial started. You know why? Because he's guilty. Is your expectation that a prosecutor is to consider a defendant innocent until proven guilty? No, that's not how it works. The jury has to do that, the judge needs to be impartial, but a prospector's repsonsibility is to prove the guilt they believe exists, so for the life of me I don't know what you (and others who have said the same thing) are talking about.
Unless of course you are referring to the jurors believing he was guilty before the trail began, because as you point out, 7 of them began deliberations leaning toward not guilty, so that doesn't make sense, particularly since being an expert on juries in mtprder trails, that seven number is outrageously high. Maybe the judge was in on it too. So when you say the narrative that he was guilty before the trail started pisses you off, guilty in the eyes of whom, and what was the impact of that? The media? The Public? Doesn't matter. It just strikes me as a very silly argument. If he did it, obviously he is in fact guilty. If he's proven guilty in the eyes of the jury, he's convicted, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Kratz said it himself, Avery was swimming up stream the entire time. No one is guilty before a trial.
Kratz did a beautiful job of making Avery guilty prior to trial, that horrendous press conference after the made up Dassey confession was absolute bush league that only would happen in the sticks like Manitowoc/Calumet.
This will be a fun thread to revisit, and I respect your opinion.
-
Unless the prosecution tries them as co-defendants (i.e. a single trial), due process requires that each case stand on its own; therefore the prosecution is free to argue separate theories in both trials just as the defense is able to present separate theories in both.
Also, consider that in most criminal cases involving multiple defendants, one or more of the defendants will usually plea out to a lesser charge so that the prosecution can ensure a conviction against at least one. Sometimes there is no plea bargain but the evidence against one is more damning than it is against the other. Sometimes facts/evidence that were exhibited in one trial are - for a variety of reasons - barred from exclusion in the other trial... any one of these could require a different strategy for the prosecution in different trials.
For example, Kratz thought he could effectively use Dassey's confession to convict Dassey, but if he used it in Avery's trial, Dassey could be cross-examined by the defense which could have spelled all sorts of trouble for Avery's prosecution insomuch as Dassey would have been discredited as a liar and, possibly, could have easily been portrayed by Avery's defense as the actual killer on cross-examination.
It all comes down to what the prosecution believes they can best utilize to prove their case and win a conviction (or what the defense thinks best rebuts the prosecution's argument). Sometimes that's soup from the same cauldron, sometimes it's not.
I understand it, but it's still illogical. I have a crime that was committed which could have only occurred one way but I can offer two completely different theories in an effort to get a conviction. If maintaining a single theory across all trials means someone goes free, then that speaks to either a flaw in the theory or a flaw in the evidence.
I think this is partly a result of the focus on conviction rates and not on the delivery of justice. DAs are trained to plea cases out but if they have to go to trial you better win. Doesn't matter whether it's the "right thing" or not.
I'd much rather have a few guilty people go free than any innocent people convicted
(weird to have to put this note here, but I mean this all generically, not specifically to Avery)
-
Because he, who was not in the room by himself BTW, was the one looking for it, and it was also entirely legal for him to have been in that room.
I don't believe that we actually know that. IIRC a Calumet officer was present in the trailer with 3 Manitowoc sheriffs but he did not actually state that he was physically watching Lenk when he discovered the key.
-
Wait just a minute. I just listened to Dan O'Donnell's rebuttal #7. Is that correct? Does the purple blood vial normally have a needle hole in the top so the blood sample can be placed INTO it from the syringe? Is the supposed evidence that the needle hole exists only because the vial had been tampered with a complete crock of sh*t? Assuming that's the case then I call into question the entire documentary because failing to indicate that the needle hole was 'entirely normal and proper' is a major omission by the filmmakers aimed only at misleading the audience.
I'm still of the mindset that Avery likely committed the crime. I'm also still of the mindset that Manitowoc Co. 'helped' support the evidence.
-
Wait just a minute. I just listened to Dan O'Donnell's rebuttal #7. Is that correct? Does the purple blood vial normally have a needle hole in the top so the blood sample can be placed INTO it from the syringe? Is the supposed evidence that the needle hole exists only because the vial had been tampered with a complete crock of sh*t? Assuming that's the case then I call into question the entire documentary because failing to indicate that the needle hole was 'entirely normal and proper' is a major omission by the filmmakers aimed only at misleading the audience.
I'm still of the mindset that Avery likely committed the crime. I'm also still of the mindset that Manitowoc Co. 'helped' support the evidence.
Glow
Let me first say I am not an MD or a blood test technician. But 3-4 times a year AF Flight Surgeons poke and prod us poor pilots in a process that includes drawing about 5 or 6 vials of blood.
There is a needle on one end that goes into the crook of your arm and a rubber stopper at the other end that attaches to each empty vial. As the technician fills a vial they remove the punctured stopper, seal that vial with another unpunctured stopper (which is color coded for the various tests they will run) which is immediately taped, and attach the punctured stopper to the next vial.
At the end of this, as I pull my flight suit back on, I watch the tech discard the sharp and the punctured stopper to ensure that my DNA does not contaminate the next guy's draw. I then sign my paperwork, initial each vial, and go back to the hangar.
From my experience every vial is sealed with a clean stopper that does not have a puncture hole. Frankly, that is mandatory to ensure the material integrity of the sample.
I don't know if this deviates from what Manitowoc County mandates but I have little faith in those sh1tbirds after viewing that series. And, in light of the packing seal having been broken without documentation, it would seem that someone did access that evidence improperly.
-
Wait just a minute. I just listened to Dan O'Donnell's rebuttal #7. Is that correct? Does the purple blood vial normally have a needle hole in the top so the blood sample can be placed INTO it from the syringe? Is the supposed evidence that the needle hole exists only because the vial had been tampered with a complete crock of sh*t? Assuming that's the case then I call into question the entire documentary because failing to indicate that the needle hole was 'entirely normal and proper' is a major omission by the filmmakers aimed only at misleading the audience.
I believe I remember that several episodes after the evidence pack was opened, there was a clip of the defense lawyers discussing the evidence and saying the potential tampering of the blood vial did not turn out to be the blockbuster they expected. While it did not stand out like earlier scene, I believe it was addressed in the documentary.
-
Glow
Let me first say I am not an MD or a blood test technician. But 3-4 times a year AF Flight Surgeons poke and prod us poor pilots in a process that includes drawing about 5 or 6 vials of blood.
There is a needle on one end that goes into the crook of your arm and a rubber stopper at the other end that attaches to each empty vial. As the technician fills a vial they remove the punctured stopper, seal that vial with another unpunctured stopper (which is color coded for the various tests they will run) which is immediately taped, and attach the punctured stopper to the next vial.
At the end of this, as I pull my flight suit back on, I watch the tech discard the sharp and the punctured stopper to ensure that my DNA does not contaminate the next guy's draw. I then sign my paperwork, initial each vial, and go back to the hangar.
From my experience every vial is sealed with a clean stopper that does not have a puncture hole. Frankly, that is mandatory to ensure the material integrity of the sample.
I don't know if this deviates from what Manitowoc County mandates but I have little faith in those sh1tbirds after viewing that series. And, in light of the packing seal having been broken without documentation, it would seem that someone did access that evidence improperly.
This was a point of contention for me.
From my understanding, the tubes are manufactured with rubber caps that are never removed. The sample goes in via a plastic hub, the device that basically looks like a plastic syringe with its needle on the inside. The needle pierces the cap, and the blood is drawn in due to a low pressure inert environment in the tube. (The pressure is a specific value, which in turn yields a specific volume of blood.) If the cap were removed or replaced in this process, it would contaminate the sample. So yes, my understanding is the same as glow's - all blood tubes containing a sample have already had their caps punctured at least once.
-
This was a point of contention for me.
From my understanding, the tubes are manufactured with rubber caps that are never removed. The sample goes in via a plastic hub, the device that basically looks like a plastic syringe with its needle on the inside. The needle pierces the cap, and the blood is drawn in due to a low pressure inert environment in the tube. (The pressure is a specific value, which in turn yields a specific volume of blood.) If the cap were removed or replaced in this process, it would contaminate the sample. So yes, my understanding is the same as glow's - all blood tubes containing a sample have already had their caps punctured at least once.
Who's our resident phlebotomist here?
Being an amateur specialist in aseptic procedure, I would suppose the type of cap/seal on the vial depends on the purpose of the draw... if it's going to be tested right away, then replacing the punctured stopper with a new stopper might be fine. But if the vial is being shipped or archived, you need to avoid all contamination - including exposure to oxygen - which means that not only do you have to prevent exposing the sample to non-sterile air (i.e. likely keeping the same stopper in place) but you also have to eliminate the vacuum in the vial so it doesn't draw any air in over time.
I think the issue wasn't so much the punctured stopper, it was the broken evidence seal. Anytime a piece of evidence is opened from archive, there should be a log noting the time/date/purpose/etc. and it should then be re-sealed with another tamper-proof tag. I'm not sure we ever got an explanation for that.
-
This was a point of contention for me.
From my understanding, the tubes are manufactured with rubber caps that are never removed. The sample goes in via a plastic hub, the device that basically looks like a plastic syringe with its needle on the inside. The needle pierces the cap, and the blood is drawn in due to a low pressure inert environment in the tube. (The pressure is a specific value, which in turn yields a specific volume of blood.) If the cap were removed or replaced in this process, it would contaminate the sample. So yes, my understanding is the same as glow's - all blood tubes containing a sample have already had their caps punctured at least once.
The AF Flight Clinic protocols might be different than those used for criminal procedures. And in our cases they are filling multiple tubes for a range of tests related to aviation physiology.
I am only saying what I have observed over the years. And I do know they test on-site because that same day the doc is telling us about issues with cholesterol, etc...
And for what it's worth when you have to provide a urine sample for Operation Golden Flow (based on the last number of your SSN) they immediately tape the warm cup and you initial the seal in the same way you do the blood seals. In this case, it is for drug screening (for pilots that includes OTC meds not prescribed by a flight doc) so it represents legal evidence.
I am not sure if USAF Flight Medicine protocols for blood draws differ from draws taken as evidence in criminal proceedings. But I can't see how they would be materially different.
-
The AF Flight Clinic protocols might be different than those used for criminal procedures. And in our cases they are filling multiple tubes for a range of tests related to aviation physiology.
I am only saying what I have observed over the years. And I do know they test on-site because that same day the doc is telling us about issues with cholesterol, etc...
And for what it's worth when you have to provide a urine sample for Operation Golden Flow (based on the last number of your SSN) they immediately tape the warm cup and you initial the seal in the same way you do the blood seals. In this case, it is for drug screening (for pilots that includes OTC meds not prescribed by a flight doc) so it represents legal evidence.
I am not sure if USAF Flight Medicine protocols for blood draws differ from draws taken as evidence in criminal proceedings. But I can't see how they would be materially different.
I can guess with some level of confidence that none of us -- including me -- have any particularly meaningful knowledge of blood collection/storage procedures in criminal cases in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin in the mid-1980s.
-
I can guess with some level of confidence that none of us -- including me -- have any particularly meaningful knowledge of blood collection/storage procedures in criminal cases in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin in the mid-1980s.
Agreed. To clarify: my contention was with a piece of defense evidence that may have been the product of a common procedure (the puncture mark, as I understand it.) Put me in Benny's camp where the bigger issue is a broken evidence seal that has not been re-sealed and dated. It may not demonstrate maliciousness, but at the very least it demonstrates laziness, incompetence, or both. Neither is a desirable trait in law enforcement.
-
Agreed. To clarify: my contention was with a piece of defense evidence that may have been the product of a common procedure (the puncture mark, as I understand it.) Put me in Benny's camp where the bigger issue is a broken evidence seal that has not been re-sealed and dated. It may not demonstrate maliciousness, but at the very least it demonstrates laziness, incompetence, or both. Neither is a desirable trait in law enforcement.
Yep. Which will be a problem in the future.
-
Yeah. I need to ask my kid. I paid a ton for that MUCN BSN degree. I know she takes blood samples on the job occasionally.
I too was troubled by the broken tape on the storage container.
-
Agreed. To clarify: my contention was with a piece of defense evidence that may have been the product of a common procedure (the puncture mark, as I understand it.) Put me in Benny's camp where the bigger issue is a broken evidence seal that has not been re-sealed and dated. It may not demonstrate maliciousness, but at the very least it demonstrates laziness, incompetence, or both. Neither is a desirable trait in law enforcement.
I agree completely. The chain of custody issues with the the blood evidence were troubling.
-
A third of Avery's 18 years were served concurrent with another awful crime he committed, aina?
He's a murdering dirtbag.
-
i haven't finished part 6 yet, but doesn't it come down to the existence of the blood stabilizer/preservative? if there was preservative detected in the samples avery supposedly left in the car, then it had to have come from the vial. i remember the one defense atty. talking about the FBI doing the testing for the preservative and he DID NOT trust them at all unless of course they gave him the answer he was looking for
-
He's a murdering dirtbag.
Correct, but don't forget the rape, torture, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, animal cruelty...yet there's a couple folks here who seem to be positively giddy at the prospect of him being freed one day (not gonna happen) as a result of this smoke and mirrors documentary. I don't get it.
-
I'll ask yet again, where is the evidence, exculpatory or otherwise, any evidence that proves that Avery either A) is not guilty, B) was framed by the authorities, or C) both. I've seen the theories and speculation, but nobody has can seem to provide anything the constitutes proof or evidence.
And yes, I do have my mind made up. Why? because the evidence...eye witness accounts, physical evidence, DNA, etc. says he's guilty. So say I, and so said 12 of Steven Avery's peers. Yet, so many here and elsewhere, who were nowhere near the actual trial, after watching a TV show 10 years later, consider themselves qualified to say that at best there should be reasonable doubt, and at worst he is not guilty and was framed by law enforcement.
But hey, I'm on open minded guy. Point me to some actual evidence that supports the theories and speculation an obviously biased TV show presented, that seemingly intelligent and rational people have inexplicably chosen to buy into, and maybe I can be convinced.
Based on what you are saying, you are not an open-minded guy. Bear in mind, the job of the defense attorneys is not to provide evidence, but to present reasonable doubt. The burden of evidence does not lie on the defense. The burden of proving reasonable doubt does. As Dean Strang said in the trial, "All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence".
It is blatantly, painfully obvious that you are assuming guilt. You are not open-minded in this case, you are not allowing the defense to do their job of proving reasonable doubt. But if you want the case for reasonable doubt, here goes:
.
- Both Colborn and Lenk were deposed in Avery's lawsuit. Both men stood to lose their careers if Avery wins his suit. Remember, Colborn was the one who suppressed the outside jurisdictional call that would have exonerated Avery in 1995 and Lenk was the arresting officer in Avery's first case.
- Manitowoc very, very publicly declared that all investigations would be handled by Calumet County for the specific reason of . The comments from Manitowoc made it clear that they were effectively banning their own members from the Avery land.
- Lenk had access and knowledge of Avery's clearly tampered-with blood sample. The lab that ran tests on that blood clearly stated that the way the EDTA tube was accessed was not done by them. Someone else broke the seal on the evidence pack and took blood from the tube not for laboratory purposes. That much is clear, ask anyone who works in a lab (my wife is a medical laboratory tech). The only people with access were Manitowoc Sheriff's Department employees.
- Colborn had dispatch run Halbach's plates two days before it was located on the Avery property. The only reason he would do that was if he was looking at the as-yet-undiscovered vehicle.
- Lenk's initial visit to the Avery compound came in direct violation of Manitowoc's own edict. He lied about his arrival time (in one interview said around 6:00 or 7:00, later on the stand stated he arrived at 1:00 or 2:00). Based on the original arrival time he gave, he had to deliberately evade the Calumet check-in point. Why do that against his own department's wishes if his intent was honest?
- When Lenk and Colborn somehow got involved with the investigation, they neglected to mention their connection to the Avery lawsuit to the supervising officers from Calumet.
- Calumet spent 3 days searching Avery's bedroom before Lenk and Colborn, the two officers with the most to lose still on the job in Manitowoc had Avery won his case, miraculously found Halbach's key. Is Calumet that inept that they couldn't find the key for 3 days and these guys walk in and miraculously find it? Oh...and somehow, Avery's DNA is on the key but Halbach's isn't?
- The investigators never looked at Halbach's ex-boyfriend (who couldn't remember when he last saw her, despite knowing the exact day he last saw her) or her roommate (who didn't report her missing for three days). Any sane, diligent investigator would at least take a look at ex-lovers and roommates.
- Much of the conviction was based on Dassey's testimony that was clearly fed directly to him by police. The key details, like Halbach being shot in the head, were never mentioned by Brendan until after he was told by police that's what happened.
.
Again, bear in mind the job of the defense is not to provide proof, but only to create reasonable doubt. Lenk and Colborn had both motive and opportunity to frame Avery. Both stood to lose their careers and possibly go to prison for their involvement in his wrongful imprisonment the first time. Lenk had access to Avery's blood, the only piece of evidence found in a car that was apparently meticulously wiped down for prints but not for 6 separate blood stains. Colborn seemed to locate Halbach's car two days before it turned up on the Avery property. Manitowoc declared publicly they would not be involved in the investigation, but Lenk snuck onto the Avery premises, then both Lenk and Colborn managed to get involved in the search for evidence and found the most pertinent pieces of evidence while simultaneously withholding information about their own connections to Avery from the Authority Having Jurisdiction (Calumet). Meanwhile, no investigation of other suspects and Dassey was clearly fed his confession.
This is all about reasonable doubt. I'm not saying Avery didn't do it, but there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to indicate he was framed for the crime, whether guilty or not.
-
Based on what you are saying, you are not an open-minded guy. Bear in mind, the job of the defense attorneys is not to provide evidence, but to present reasonable doubt. The burden of evidence does not lie on the defense. The burden of proving reasonable doubt does. As Dean Strang said in the trial, "All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence".
It is blatantly, painfully obvious that you are assuming guilt. You are not open-minded in this case, you are not allowing the defense to do their job of proving reasonable doubt. But if you want the case for reasonable doubt, here goes:
.
- Both Colborn and Lenk were deposed in Avery's lawsuit. Both men stood to lose their careers if Avery wins his suit. Remember, Colborn was the one who suppressed the outside jurisdictional call that would have exonerated Avery in 1995 and Lenk was the arresting officer in Avery's first case.
- Manitowoc very, very publicly declared that all investigations would be handled by Calumet County for the specific reason of . The comments from Manitowoc made it clear that they were effectively banning their own members from the Avery land.
- Lenk had access and knowledge of Avery's clearly tampered-with blood sample. The lab that ran tests on that blood clearly stated that the way the EDTA tube was accessed was not done by them. Someone else broke the seal on the evidence pack and took blood from the tube not for laboratory purposes. That much is clear, ask anyone who works in a lab (my wife is a medical laboratory tech). The only people with access were Manitowoc Sheriff's Department employees.
- Colborn had dispatch run Halbach's plates two days before it was located on the Avery property. The only reason he would do that was if he was looking at the as-yet-undiscovered vehicle.
- Lenk's initial visit to the Avery compound came in direct violation of Manitowoc's own edict. He lied about his arrival time (in one interview said around 6:00 or 7:00, later on the stand stated he arrived at 1:00 or 2:00). Based on the original arrival time he gave, he had to deliberately evade the Calumet check-in point. Why do that against his own department's wishes if his intent was honest?
- When Lenk and Colborn somehow got involved with the investigation, they neglected to mention their connection to the Avery lawsuit to the supervising officers from Calumet.
- Calumet spent 3 days searching Avery's bedroom before Lenk and Colborn, the two officers with the most to lose still on the job in Manitowoc had Avery won his case, miraculously found Halbach's key. Is Calumet that inept that they couldn't find the key for 3 days and these guys walk in and miraculously find it? Oh...and somehow, Avery's DNA is on the key but Halbach's isn't?
- The investigators never looked at Halbach's ex-boyfriend (who couldn't remember when he last saw her, despite knowing the exact day he last saw her) or her roommate (who didn't report her missing for three days). Any sane, diligent investigator would at least take a look at ex-lovers and roommates.
- Much of the conviction was based on Dassey's testimony that was clearly fed directly to him by police. The key details, like Halbach being shot in the head, were never mentioned by Brendan until after he was told by police that's what happened.
.
Again, bear in mind the job of the defense is not to provide proof, but only to create reasonable doubt. Lenk and Colborn had both motive and opportunity to frame Avery. Both stood to lose their careers and possibly go to prison for their involvement in his wrongful imprisonment the first time. Lenk had access to Avery's blood, the only piece of evidence found in a car that was apparently meticulously wiped down for prints but not for 6 separate blood stains. Colborn seemed to locate Halbach's car two days before it turned up on the Avery property. Manitowoc declared publicly they would not be involved in the investigation, but Lenk snuck onto the Avery premises, then both Lenk and Colborn managed to get involved in the search for evidence and found the most pertinent pieces of evidence while simultaneously withholding information about their own connections to Avery from the Authority Having Jurisdiction (Calumet). Meanwhile, no investigation of other suspects and Dassey was clearly fed his confession.
This is all about reasonable doubt. I'm not saying Avery didn't do it, but there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to indicate he was framed for the crime, whether guilty or not.
well done!
-
Based on what you are saying, you are not an open-minded guy. Bear in mind, the job of the defense attorneys is not to provide evidence, but to present reasonable doubt. The burden of evidence does not lie on the defense. The burden of proving reasonable doubt does. As Dean Strang said in the trial, "All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence".
It is blatantly, painfully obvious that you are assuming guilt. You are not open-minded in this case, you are not allowing the defense to do their job of proving reasonable doubt. But if you want the case for reasonable doubt, here goes:
.
- Both Colborn and Lenk were deposed in Avery's lawsuit. Both men stood to lose their careers if Avery wins his suit. Remember, Colborn was the one who suppressed the outside jurisdictional call that would have exonerated Avery in 1995 and Lenk was the arresting officer in Avery's first case.
- Manitowoc very, very publicly declared that all investigations would be handled by Calumet County for the specific reason of . The comments from Manitowoc made it clear that they were effectively banning their own members from the Avery land.
- Lenk had access and knowledge of Avery's clearly tampered-with blood sample. The lab that ran tests on that blood clearly stated that the way the EDTA tube was accessed was not done by them. Someone else broke the seal on the evidence pack and took blood from the tube not for laboratory purposes. That much is clear, ask anyone who works in a lab (my wife is a medical laboratory tech). The only people with access were Manitowoc Sheriff's Department employees.
- Colborn had dispatch run Halbach's plates two days before it was located on the Avery property. The only reason he would do that was if he was looking at the as-yet-undiscovered vehicle.
- Lenk's initial visit to the Avery compound came in direct violation of Manitowoc's own edict. He lied about his arrival time (in one interview said around 6:00 or 7:00, later on the stand stated he arrived at 1:00 or 2:00). Based on the original arrival time he gave, he had to deliberately evade the Calumet check-in point. Why do that against his own department's wishes if his intent was honest?
- When Lenk and Colborn somehow got involved with the investigation, they neglected to mention their connection to the Avery lawsuit to the supervising officers from Calumet.
- Calumet spent 3 days searching Avery's bedroom before Lenk and Colborn, the two officers with the most to lose still on the job in Manitowoc had Avery won his case, miraculously found Halbach's key. Is Calumet that inept that they couldn't find the key for 3 days and these guys walk in and miraculously find it? Oh...and somehow, Avery's DNA is on the key but Halbach's isn't?
- The investigators never looked at Halbach's ex-boyfriend (who couldn't remember when he last saw her, despite knowing the exact day he last saw her) or her roommate (who didn't report her missing for three days). Any sane, diligent investigator would at least take a look at ex-lovers and roommates.
- Much of the conviction was based on Dassey's testimony that was clearly fed directly to him by police. The key details, like Halbach being shot in the head, were never mentioned by Brendan until after he was told by police that's what happened.
.
Again, bear in mind the job of the defense is not to provide proof, but only to create reasonable doubt. Lenk and Colborn had both motive and opportunity to frame Avery. Both stood to lose their careers and possibly go to prison for their involvement in his wrongful imprisonment the first time. Lenk had access to Avery's blood, the only piece of evidence found in a car that was apparently meticulously wiped down for prints but not for 6 separate blood stains. Colborn seemed to locate Halbach's car two days before it turned up on the Avery property. Manitowoc declared publicly they would not be involved in the investigation, but Lenk snuck onto the Avery premises, then both Lenk and Colborn managed to get involved in the search for evidence and found the most pertinent pieces of evidence while simultaneously withholding information about their own connections to Avery from the Authority Having Jurisdiction (Calumet). Meanwhile, no investigation of other suspects and Dassey was clearly fed his confession.
This is all about reasonable doubt. I'm not saying Avery didn't do it, but there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to indicate he was framed for the crime, whether guilty or not.
Thank you for taking the time to summarize all of these points as I was far too lazy to do so.
What Navin can't seem to or doesn't want to acknowledge is that even though some posters here, myself included, feel there is clearly reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean people are giddy at the thought of Avery being freed or that they even believe he is innocent.
-
Avery killed her. Cops and gov't employees in general are stupid and corrupt. The legal system is upsetting. Shocking all around, right?
Nonetheless, Avery killed this poor young woman and that's the reality.
-
Avery killed her. Cops and gov't employees in general are stupid and corrupt. The legal system is upsetting. Shocking all around, right?
Nonetheless, Avery killed this poor young woman and that's the reality.
Soooo... We just need to accept that and not try to learn anything from this case?
http://wkrn.com/2016/01/12/making-a-murderer-documentary-series-inspires-proposed-bill-in-tennessee/ (http://wkrn.com/2016/01/12/making-a-murderer-documentary-series-inspires-proposed-bill-in-tennessee/)
-
So I guess that means you don't have any evidence, huh?
Be honest, is your last name Kratz?
-
For those in the this documentary is crap and Avery is a rage monster camp (Navin, Lenny, JayBee, etc), do you think there were any issues with the way the case was handled? I'm not asking you to buy into a grand conspiracy or that Avery is innocent.
Simply, do you think there are no issues of either incompetence or malfeasance on the part of those investigating and/or prosecuting the Halbach murder?
-
For those in the this documentary is crap and Avery is a rage monster camp (Navin, Lenny, JayBee, etc), do you think there were any issues with the way the case was handled? I'm not asking you to buy into a grand conspiracy or that Avery is innocent.
Simply, do you think there are no issues of either incompetence or malfeasance on the part of those investigating and/or prosecuting the Halbach murder?
I would also like to know if those folks think that Brendan Dassey is guilty as well. After all, there is nothing to suggest (as far as I have seen) that, unlike Avery, he had run-ins with the law before this all happened, and there is literally no evidence to support he was involved other than his own highly questionable confession and his cousin's report to the police that he was acting strangely after Theresa's disappearance (which she recanted at trial).
-
I would also like to know if those folks think that Brendan Dassey is guilty as well. After all, there is nothing to suggest (as far as I have seen) that, unlike Avery, he had run-ins with the law before this all happened, and there is literally no evidence to support he was involved other than his own highly questionable confession and his cousin's report to the police that he was acting strangely after Theresa's disappearance (which she recanted at trial).
Excellent point.
-
I would also like to know if those folks think that Brendan Dassey is guilty as well. After all, there is nothing to suggest (as far as I have seen) that, unlike Avery, he had run-ins with the law before this all happened, and there is literally no evidence to support he was involved other than his own highly questionable confession and his cousin's report to the police that he was acting strangely after Theresa's disappearance (which she recanted at trial).
Don't forget the whole fact he's mentally challenged, per IQ.
-
For those in the this documentary is crap and Avery is a rage monster camp (Navin, Lenny, JayBee, etc), do you think there were any issues with the way the case was handled? I'm not asking you to buy into a grand conspiracy or that Avery is innocent.
Simply, do you think there are no issues of either incompetence or malfeasance on the part of those investigating and/or prosecuting the Halbach murder?
+1. There seems to be a prevailing notion that demanding accountability from law enforcement makes one a murder apologizst. Too bad Avery's guilt and the Sheriff department's ineptitude aren't mutually exclusive.
-
Don't forget the whole fact he's mentally challenged, per IQ.
I can't think of a reason that we shouldn't feel very bad, as a society, for how that young man was treated.
-
I would also like to know if those folks think that Brendan Dassey is guilty as well. After all, there is nothing to suggest (as far as I have seen) that, unlike Avery, he had run-ins with the law before this all happened, and there is literally no evidence to support he was involved other than his own highly questionable confession and his cousin's report to the police that he was acting strangely after Theresa's disappearance (which she recanted at trial).
and has no history of burning cats, burglary, assaulting women etc.
I agree that Avery likely is guilty, evidence likely was planted to insure a conviction but Dassey got screwed by the sheriffs and prosecutor who just wanted convictions whatever the cost
-
and has no history of burning cats, burglary, assaulting women etc.
I agree that Avery likely is guilty, evidence likely was planted to insure a conviction but Dassey got screwed by the sheriffs and prosecutor who just wanted convictions whatever the cost
Not to mention his first lawyer.
-
Not to mention his first lawyer.
For sure.
Ironically, I innocently asked a close friend last week if she knew any of the players. I did this because of where she resides with her family and both her and her husband's profession. The answer I received stunned me. Apart from the Averys themselves, she knows everyone involved. Victim's family. Prosecutors. Defense. She has a very strong opinion on all but hates to re-live any of this. While I'm pretty sure she or her husband aren't on scoop, I won't share any of her comments out of courtesy. I'll just give her a hug next time I see her.
I guess the lesson for me is that this is close to home for many folks. I'll try to remember that.
-
Don't forget the whole fact he's mentally challenged, per IQ.
Yep. One of the primary reasons I called it "questionable".
-
I would also like to know if those folks think that Brendan Dassey is guilty as well. After all, there is nothing to suggest (as far as I have seen) that, unlike Avery, he had run-ins with the law before this all happened, and there is literally no evidence to support he was involved other than his own highly questionable confession and his cousin's report to the police that he was acting strangely after Theresa's disappearance (which she recanted at trial).
100%!
Coupe key points/questions, I would like to see answered in return...
1) How much of the 5 or so hours of his interview have any of you seen?
(The jury saw several hours of it, and obviously concluded that it was not "clearly" coerced, or coerced at all, as the mocumentary suggests.)
2) Why did he confess - with excruciatingly accurate details, all caught on camera - to a crime he didn't commit (and that supposedly didn't occur)?
I know many in the tinfoil hat brigade won't bother to listen to this, but you should. You don't necessarily need to agree with every element, but At the very least, I hope all would agree that this guy has done a very good and thorough job of dissecting these episodes and providing additional context/counter points that the filmmakers intentionally left out, and has some credibility and knowledge of the case, having covered it at the time (and holding a law degree).
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-9-14278246/ (http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-9-14278246/)
-
100%!
Coupe key points/questions, I would like to see answered in return...
2) Why did he confess - with excruciatingly accurate details, all caught on camera - to a crime he didn't commit (and that supposedly didn't occur)?
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-9-14278246/ (http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-9-14278246/)
Get off the pipe, man.
Most of those "excruciatingly accurate details" were never corroborated by any other evidence, physical and otherwise, and they changed every time he told the story.
-
... but Dassey got screwed by the sheriffs and prosecutor who just wanted convictions whatever the cost
How exactly did that happen?
Maybe the specific charges should have been slightly different, I dont really know, or know that it matters (1st degree, second degree, etc), but he is guilty of raping and killing that girl, burning her body and attempting to get rid of the evidence. You can say he got screwed, but saying it doesn't make it true. How exactly was he screwed?
-
Get off the pipe, man.
Most of those "excruciatingly accurate details" were never corroborated by any other evidence, physical and otherwise, and they changed every time he told the story.
Interesting. I notice you didn't answer the first question. You know the above how? From watching the complete interview? Reading the entire transcript? What specifically is your source for making that statement?
I'll ask again, compared to the 3-4 hours the jury saw, how much of the interview did you see? I would think that's a pretty easy one to answer.
Given the time it took you to respond, you obviously didn't listen to the link I shared. I'd recommend it.
BTw, you didn't actually answer the second question either...why did he confess?
-
100%!
Coupe key points/questions, I would like to see answered in return...
1) How much of the 5 or so hours of his interview have any of you seen?
(The jury saw several hours of it, and obviously concluded that it was not "clearly" coerced, or coerced at all, as the mocumentary suggests.)
2) Why did he confess - with excruciatingly accurate details, all caught on camera - to a crime he didn't commit (and that supposedly didn't occur)?
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-9-14278246/ (http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-9-14278246/)
Honestly, not too much of it...but probably double what they showed in the documentary. And I read some of the transcript.
Honest question, along the lines of Chick's question: in what ways was his confession "excruciatingly accurate"? I'm not trolling or baiting...I'm genuinely interested. And how do they know? My impression -- admittedly from a documentary that I acknowledge was biased -- was that the way Dassey said it went down was extremely unlikely. There was literally no blood in the room. That's pretty hard to imagine if they killed her the way he said. And no blood in the garage either. And the bed didn't show any signs of someone being tied/chained to it. What parts of Dassey's confession were supported by other evidence in the case?
-
Honest question, along the lines of Chick's question: in what ways was his confession "excruciatingly accurate"? I'm not trolling or baiting...I'm genuinely interested. And how do they know?
He provided significant unsolicited details of what happened, that was corroborated by the physical evidence...items in the burn pit, cell phone, camera, tires, or where they put her in the car and how they disposed of the car under brush and a hood, etc.
I'm tellin you listen to the podcast I linked. You can hear it from the actual interview. The cop is of course asking him to provide details, but i don't see how anyone can conclude that he was being led or coerced in any way. Granted it also is a portion of the entire interview, but obviously provides a drastically different perspective vs what was hand picked by the show.
-
He provided significant unsolicited details of what happened, that was corroborated by the physical evidence...items in the burn pit, cell phone, camera, tires, or where they put her in the car and how they disposed of the car under brush and a hood, etc.
I'm tellin you listen to the podcast I linked. You can hear it from the actual interview. The cop is of course asking him to provide details, but i don't see how anyone can conclude that he was being led or coerced in any way. Granted it also is a portion of the entire interview, but obviously provides a drastically different perspective vs what was hand picked by the show.
I'm assuming from everything you've typed in the last couple of posts that you believe there was absolutely no issues with police or prosecutor actions in this case. Everything is 100% above board in your mind?
-
100%!
Coupe key points/questions, I would like to see answered in return...
1) How much of the 5 or so hours of his interview have any of you seen?
(The jury saw several hours of it, and obviously concluded that it was not "clearly" coerced, or coerced at all, as the mocumentary suggests.)
2) Why did he confess - with excruciatingly accurate details, all caught on camera - to a crime he didn't commit (and that supposedly didn't occur)?
I know many in the tinfoil hat brigade won't bother to listen to this, but you should. You don't necessarily need to agree with every element, but At the very least, I hope all would agree that this guy has done a very good and thorough job of dissecting these episodes and providing additional context/counter points that the filmmakers intentionally left out, and has some credibility and knowledge of the case, having covered it at the time (and holding a law degree).
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-9-14278246/ (http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-9-14278246/)
Pretty damaging to Dassey. I agree that he never read that book in question. I agree that the portion of the interview cited seems like solid police questioning. Clearly the documentary only showed the times interrogators 'lead him' during other segments.
Again, I have no doubt that the documentary was slanted. That said, huge portions of this still don't add up for me. I still believe that Lenk and Colburn are bad cops and that they may have supplemented evidence because they were going to 'make sure' Avery went away. But in the end I do believe Avery is guilty of the crime. Either way, as I said on p.2 of this thread, let's all remember that a documentary isn't subject to the rules of evidence and should not be taken as anything approaching a complete, unbiased account.
-
He provided significant unsolicited details of what happened, that was corroborated by the physical evidence...items in the burn pit, cell phone, camera, tires, or where they put her in the car and how they disposed of the car under brush and a hood, etc.
I'm tellin you listen to the podcast I linked. You can hear it from the actual interview. The cop is of course asking him to provide details, but i don't see how anyone can conclude that he was being led or coerced in any way. Granted it also is a portion of the entire interview, but obviously provides a drastically different perspective vs what was hand picked by the show.
He also said that she was shot 3 times in the head and 7 times in the stomach area as well as having her throat cut.
Do you know how much high velocity blood splatter there is from a head shot?
Do you know how much you bleed from gut wounds?
Note these are rhetorical questions meant to highlight that if either of those things happened, there is no possible way there is no DNA evidence in the bedroom. The absence of evidence is evidence it didn't go down the way Dassey said it did.
He very well may be guilty as well, but that's a tough sell.
-
For sure.
Ironically, I innocently asked a close friend last week if she knew any of the players. I did this because of where she resides with her family and both her and her husband's profession. The answer I received stunned me. Apart from the Averys themselves, she knows everyone involved. Victim's family. Prosecutors. Defense. She has a very strong opinion on all but hates to re-live any of this. While I'm pretty sure she or her husband aren't on scoop, I won't share any of her comments out of courtesy. I'll just give her a hug next time I see her.
I guess the lesson for me is that this is close to home for many folks. I'll try to remember that.
Glow
I would submit that this is close to home for all of us. A friend of mine is a Duke Law Grad who practiced in the South though now a member of Seattle's VC community. At the club we talked about this show and he commented from first-hand experience that the government prosecutorial machine is one of the most corrupt institutions in this country.
He opined that Avery is a worthy suspect but that the government's misconduct should have caused this to have been vacated. Unfortunately, for every citizen in this land, that isn't how these dialogues actually play out.
Curious if your friend thought Avery was guilty or her thoughts on the conduct of the investigation and trial?
-
He also said that she was shot 3 times in the head and 7 times in the stomach area as well as having her throat cut.
Do you know how much high velocity blood splatter there is from a head shot?
Do you know how much you bleed from gut wounds?
Note these are rhetorical questions meant to highlight that if either of those things happened, there is no possible way there is no DNA evidence in the bedroom. The absence of evidence is evidence it didn't go down the way Dassey said it did.
He very well may be guilty as well, but that's a tough sell.
I've previously speculated on how it might have gone down if Avery was not involved. My speculation -- and that's all it is -- if Dassey was involved, is that he got involved after Avery already killed her. That could explain why his details about how she was killed are so clearly contrary to the physical evidence (or lack of physical evidence, as the case may be). It seems to me that most of what Dassey's confession was right about was the post-murder details. The biggest problem with this theory, of course, is why he'd make up a story about being involved in the murder if he stumbled across the aftermath. Then again, that's not nearly as big of a question is why he'd make up that story if he had no involvement whatsoever.
-
I'm not convinced that the law enforcement would need to be involved in the murder if Avery didn't do it. If, for example, Avery's other nephew and the brother in law (or was he just the mother's boyfriend?) did it, it would not be unthinkable that the sheriff's department might believe with every fiber of their being that Avery did it. The body was found burned in a nearby quarry -- pretty damning evidence against the last person known to have seen her alive. The vehicle was found at some undisclosed, nearby location. If they were totally convinced that Avery did it, perhaps they would move bones to his fire pit, move the vehicle to his property, plant the key, the bullet and the DNA. I'm not saying this happened, but it's a possibility that is far short of actually killing an innocent woman to frame Avery. I also understand that this is wild speculation. I think the defense worked hard to suggest that one or two people could have done this without the involvement of everyone else in the department or prosecution.
This might be a little late, but my thoughts exactly.
-
Glow
I would submit that this is close to home for all of us. A friend of mine is a Duke Law Grad who practiced in the South though now a member of Seattle's VC community. At the club we talked about this show and he commented from first-hand experience that the government prosecutorial machine is one of the most corrupt institutions in this country.
He opined that Avery is a worthy suspect but that the government's misconduct should have caused this to have been vacated. Unfortunately, for every citizen in this land, that isn't how these dialogues actually play out.
Curious if your friend thought Avery was guilty or her thoughts on the conduct of the investigation and trial?
We didn't get there. I could tell that it was painful for her given her personal relationship with the Halbach family. She mostly offered her informed opinion on the various attorneys.
-
Slight tangent, but on topic. A little over a year ago I was summoned for jury duty in Cook County. While I was ultimately not selected for the jury, I was in the 40-person pool for a first-degree murder case. Despite mixed feelings at the time about not being selected (eager as I was to participate in the justice system for the first time, a capital murder case was definitely jumping in the deep end), I now wonder how serving on that jury would have affected my perspective on this case.
Anyone here served on a homicide jury?
-
How exactly did that happen?
Maybe the specific charges should have been slightly different, I dont really know, or know that it matters (1st degree, second degree, etc), but he is guilty of raping and killing that girl, burning her body and attempting to get rid of the evidence. You can say he got screwed, but saying it doesn't make it true. How exactly was he screwed?
other than 1 of his questionable confessions there is zero knowledge that Halbach was raped. If Dassey had bleach all over his pants from sanitizing the garage so well that none of Halbach's blood was found there, how was there deer blood splatters in the garage?
-
Slight tangent, but on topic. A little over a year ago I was summoned for jury duty in Cook County. While I was ultimately not selected for the jury, I was in the 40-person pool for a first-degree murder case. Despite mixed feelings at the time about not being selected (eager as I was to participate in the justice system for the first time, a capital murder case was definitely jumping in the deep end), I now wonder how serving on that jury would have affected my perspective on this case.
Anyone here served on a homicide jury?
Nope and never will. A very close relative of mine was kidnapped, beaten, raped, chained to a tree and murdered... not to mention, I'm a stubborn, cynical, know-it-all bastard who thinks logically, considers all possible permutations and has zero tolerance for attorneys who have high opinions of themselves.
In short, people like me are the reason that peremptory challenges exist.
-
Couple of random thoughts based on the last couple pages.
1) Biased =/= False
2) Dassey doesn't strike me as the reading type and to be sure, that book (Kiss the Girls) was made into a movie in 1997. I read a few weeks ago that cutting off a lock of the rape-victim's hair (which Dassey claimed to do) is not in the book, but is in the movie. Never seen the movie, but if his account matches the movie that could explain why he was able to so fluidly come up with a detailed story.
3) Regarding IQ, I think people put too much faith in the measure. Avery may have an IQ of 70, but that doesn't mean that he is mentally handicapped. He's not stupid enough to not clean up after himself. IQ scores are normalized at 100 with a standard deviation of 15. IQ being normally distributed, this would mean that Avery's IQ is in the bottom 5%, which is 1/20. Randomly select 20 people; one of those people has the same IQ as Avery. My point here is that he is probably "smarter" than you think he is (I bet he knows more about fixing cars than most on this board).
4) Question for the Avery-is-guilty clan: If God Himself came down and told you both:
a) Avery is in fact guilty of the murder
and
b) The Manitowoc Sheriff office planted boatload of evidence in order to ensure a conviction
EDIT: Do you still think Avery should remain behind bars?
I ask this because I think what may be at the center of these arguments is the dispute about the general principle of letting known murderers off based on police misconduct, legal technicalities, etc. Of course, if you have a personal connection to the victim (as glow mentioned) this question becomes infinitely harder to answer, well, for me anyway.
-
5) Also, while I'm thinking about this case, I wanted to mention that I don't think the 'stubborn juror' argument carries much weight. I mean, stubborn jurors are not particular to this case. I believe that the judge should have allowed the jury to have come from a different county, but he decided against it. I disagree with his decision, but I am no legal expert. And furthermore, it seems that all of the appellate courts in the state agreed with his decision. And they also seem to have agreed that there was no misconduct in Avery's case. It's hard for me to swallow that the entire state is out to get Avery. But, at the same time, it's also hard for me to swallow that there was not blatant police misconduct in this case, thereby tarnishing Avery's right to a fair trial.
6) As a similar 'appeal-to-authority'-type argument, I think there may be something fishy to the Dassey confession. The legal clinic at Northwestern law school would not have taken up Dassey's fight (before it was trendy to rally behind him) if they did not think that the confession was coerced.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-one-big-problem-crucial-220545816.html
OnMilwaukee.com reports that court papers from Avery’s appeal show prison nurse Marlene Kraintz was set to testify in Avery’s trial for the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach that she punctured a hole in the test tube of Avery’s blood, and in fact such holes are commonplace, because that’s often how the blood gets put in the tube in the first place.
-
Eldon,
To briefly respond to your questions I don't think Avery should be released assuming God tells us he did it. I'm more disappointed that it seems likely to me that some level of police malfeasance (or at least gross incompetence that could be reasonably interpreted that way) almost certainly took place. I still think the story line proffered doesn't match what exactly happened. I'm highly skeptical about the lack of blood in certain spots, for example. I'm also firmly of the opinion that the various reviews that took place afterward by independent parties (let's use the appellate court, for example) were legitimate and competent. No way the entire system is 'in the tank'. Lastly, filmmakers can and do masterfully get the reaction they want. Again, they present only what they want to present.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-one-big-problem-crucial-220545816.html
OnMilwaukee.com reports that court papers from Avery’s appeal show prison nurse Marlene Kraintz was set to testify in Avery’s trial for the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach that she punctured a hole in the test tube of Avery’s blood, and in fact such holes are commonplace, because that’s often how the blood gets put in the tube in the first place.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Wades, have you discussed this with your pops? I'd be interested in his take on it.
-
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.
-
I found her to be completely normal in a small town Wisconsin kind of way.
That's not a ringing endorsement...
-
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.
-
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. ;D
+1
-
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.
-
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. ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
Cripes almighty, it's not called "Making a Murder."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
But to me, it still suggests some sort of deal to come to unanimity.
Agree
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!!!
-
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.
-
Yeah I get that. But he seemed odd.
To be fair, everyone from Manitowoc seems odd in that doc.
Yeah?
-
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.
-
To be fair, everyone from Manitowoc seems odd in that doc.
Yeah?
Yeah. And that.
-
To be fair, everyone from Manitowoc seems odd in that doc.
Yeah?
OMG, those phone calls between Dassey and his mom.
Hello?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Ya see the news?
Yeah.
Well.
Yeah, ya know.
Yeah.
-
I don't know if this was mentioned in this thread but...
http://www.packers.com/team/staff/Mike-Halbach/bc32b029-52e7-4e07-b172-f9580ded39f3
-
To be fair, everyone from Manitowoc seems odd in that doc.
Yeah?
I grew up in a community not that unlike Manitowoc in northeast Wisconsin. While everyone might seem weird to someone from Chicago or Milwaukee, there is still very much a social hierarchy with insiders and outsiders and people who are respected members of the community and those on the fringes. The Averys were very much on the fringes, whether or not everyone else in Manitowoc is "odd" by our standards.
-
I don't know if this was mentioned in this thread but...
http://www.packers.com/team/staff/Mike-Halbach/bc32b029-52e7-4e07-b172-f9580ded39f3
Unless that's an old pic, the dude hasn't aged in 10 years.
-
Gonna step this one back.
-
Gonna step this one back.
Huh?
-
To be fair, everyone from Manitowoc seems odd in that doc.
Yeah?
And that's really a shame. We know tons of folks from Manty (MU grads and their friends), and they are, to a person, smart, wonderful people. But yeah, a lot of them still have that accent.
Anyone on this board been to Hammerfest, or remember the the Jagoff Blues Brothers band, the Blues Brothers tribute band that occasionally played in The Grill in the early '80's? Those guys are all from Manitowoc.
-
Huh?
Had a poor taste joke in there.
-
And that's really a shame. We know tons of folks from Manty (MU grads and their friends), and they are, to a person, smart, wonderful people. But yeah, a lot of them still have that accent.
Anyone on this board been to Hammerfest, or remember the the Jagoff Blues Brothers band, the Blues Brothers tribute band that occasionally played in The Grill in the early '80's? Those guys are all from Manitowoc.
I did go to Hammerfest and did know several band members. It was a good time.
-
And that's really a shame. We know tons of folks from Manty (MU grads and their friends), and they are, to a person, smart, wonderful people. But yeah, a lot of them still have that accent.
Everyone from WI has that accent.
When my wife came to visit me at Vance AFB in OK the guys in my class all thought she was from Canada.
-
I did go to Hammerfest and did know several band members. It was a good time.
In Manty or later when we moved it to MKE? HF ran for something like 23 consecutive years.
-
In Manty or later when we moved it to MKE? HF ran for something like 23 consecutive years.
In Manty, I believe 1984. It was after I graduated, and was visiting my parents in MKE and took a ride up.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/dna-specialist-testifies-in-avery-trial-b99643012z1-363819601.html
Looking at this it looks like the excused juror was excused before the trial even ended. So he didn't even have all of the evidence to form his opinion. And he wouldn't have been in deliberations. So where did the defense attorneys get that the original vote was 7 to 3 to 2 when they were meeting with the Averys after the trial? They wouldn't be allowed to talk with the jurors...
-
Wades, not certain about that--I'm only familiar with civil juries, but we frequently contact jurors AFTER the verdict. They are released from their oath.
No obligation to talk to anyone, but no prohibition either.
And as to the initial vote, it is of no importance. Wild swings happen often with jury votes.
-
Wades, not certain about that--I'm only familiar with civil juries, but we frequently contact jurors AFTER the verdict. They are released from their oath.
No obligation to talk to anyone, but no prohibition either.
And as to the initial vote, it is of no importance. Wild swings happen often with jury votes.
Gotcha. Interesting. I've (for obvious reasons) never sat on a jury, but have gone through the questioning phase of it, and I just know that the judge makes it a point to let you know that if anyone involved in the case approaches you you need to contact the judge or whatever. I would've thought it would not be okay for lawyers to talk with jurors even after the case is over.
I do agree that the initial vote is of no importance, as that is what deliberations are for. In a case like this you aren't going to have 12 people all immediately agree on guilt, so discussions occur.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/reporter-tom-kertscher-tweets-reactions-while-watching-steven-avery-series-making-a-murderer-b996460-364227561.html
Most of these Tweets in the link mirror my thoughts.
-
Wades, not certain about that--I'm only familiar with civil juries, but we frequently contact jurors AFTER the verdict. They are released from their oath.
No obligation to talk to anyone, but no prohibition either.
And as to the initial vote, it is of no importance. Wild swings happen often with jury votes.
That has been my experience as well, serving on a jury that actually went to trial.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/dna-specialist-testifies-in-avery-trial-b99643012z1-363819601.html
Looking at this it looks like the excused juror was excused before the trial even ended. So he didn't even have all of the evidence to form his opinion. And he wouldn't have been in deliberations. So where did the defense attorneys get that the original vote was 7 to 3 to 2 when they were meeting with the Averys after the trial? They wouldn't be allowed to talk with the jurors...
That excused juror was clearly not the same juror who was excused once deliberations started. The article said it was a 69 year old retiree. The guy in the documentary who was excused after deliberations had started was clearly in his 30s or mid 40s, at the oldest.
It does not surprise me that there was more than one excusal in a trial this long. If you read the JS article you linked, it appears there was a larger pool of jurors than 12, and then 12 were picked randomly for deliberations, and there were alternates ready who witnessed the trial for this very reason.
-
Everyone from WI has that accent.
When my wife came to visit me at Vance AFB in OK the guys in my class all thought she was from Canada.
Coming from Connecticut, I always thought the Wisconsin accent was Canada-lite.
-
Coming from Connecticut, I always thought the Wisconsin accent was Canada-lite.
Depends on what part of Wisconsin you're talking about. Anything north of Madison or Cudahy, yes. Southwestern Wisconsin is some sort of derived hillbilly speak.
Amazing to me was when I moved to the Chicago area in high school and had to take a field trip to deep sourthern Illinois. I thought I had transwarped to the woody part of Georgia their southern drawl was so prominent. No idea how that happens.
-
Coming from Connecticut, I always thought the Wisconsin accent was Canada-lite.
I forgot where I heard it, but our part of CT (where Fairfield and New Haven counties meet) is supposed to be one of only a very few places in the US without a discernable accent.
-
I forgot where I heard it, but our part of CT (where Fairfield and New Haven counties meet) is supposed to be one of only a very few places in the US without a discernable accent.
in your part of CT would be my bet because just about everyone thinks they have no accent ;D
-
I forgot where I heard it, but our part of CT (where Fairfield and New Haven counties meet) is supposed to be one of only a very few places in the US without a discernable accent.
I had always assumed that everyone in Connecticut sounded like the guy in the Pepperidge Fahm commercials.
-
I forgot where I heard it, but our part of CT (where Fairfield and New Haven counties meet) is supposed to be one of only a very few places in the US without a discernable accent.
There is no accent in CT until you here someone pronounce New Britain.
-
That excused juror was clearly not the same juror who was excused once deliberations started. The article said it was a 69 year old retiree. The guy in the documentary who was excused after deliberations had started was clearly in his 30s or mid 40s, at the oldest.
It does not surprise me that there was more than one excusal in a trial this long. If you read the JS article you linked, it appears there was a larger pool of jurors than 12, and then 12 were picked randomly for deliberations, and there were alternates ready who witnessed the trial for this very reason.
Yup you're right, good call.
-
I re-watched the Dassey trial episode (#9) last night....and the thing that astounds me the most is that they came to a guilty verdict in less than one day with a complete lack of DNA evidence.
Was DNA evidence not completely understood by the public in 2007? I don't understand how they could just completely disregard this and rely soley on a coerced confession by a learning disabled kid.
Like I said, I'm 50/50 on Avery's guilt (which means I would have voted not guilty...that whole burden of proof and reasonable doubt thing), but what happened to Dassey is a complete travesty.
-
I forgot where I heard it, but our part of CT (where Fairfield and New Haven counties meet) is supposed to be one of only a very few places in the US without a discernable accent.
When I was student, I often heard from others that they were surprised I had no accent coming from Connecticut. Everyone assumed New Englanders all spoke with a Boston accent.
Only word anyone saw a discernable accent on was length.
I had this theory that the New York & Boston accents cancelled each other out in Connecticut.
-
Only word anyone saw a discernable accent on was length.
Because you usually lower your head in shame as you stammer out that word??
-
I had always assumed that everyone in Connecticut sounded like the guy in the Pepperidge Fahm commercials.
The only thing you hear in CT, is everyone from who has to drive through it, cursing @ traffic on the 95 or on the Merritt.
-
I re-watched the Dassey trial episode (#9) last night....and the thing that astounds me the most is that they came to a guilty verdict in less than one day with a complete lack of DNA evidence.
Was DNA evidence not completely understood by the public in 2007? I don't understand how they could just completely disregard this and rely soley on a coerced confession by a learning disabled kid.
Like I said, I'm 50/50 on Avery's guilt (which means I would have voted not guilty...that whole burden of proof and reasonable doubt thing), but what happened to Dassey is a complete travesty.
Dassey was convicted almost completely on his admission. His legal representation was trash and it is a true travesty that the Wisconsin courts haven't acknowledged that.
-
Dassey was convicted almost completely on his admission. His legal representation was trash and it is a true travesty that the Wisconsin courts haven't acknowledged that.
That Kachinsky and that investigator still have licenses to do what they do is disturbing.
Looks like WI didn't like those film makers poking their noses into I'm really a badger fan Hey business...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/making-a-murderer-filmmakers-wisconsin-tried-to-shut-down-production/ar-BBowAJl?ocid=ansmsnent11
-
It mentions that "season one of Making a Murderer" is available on Netflix. Do they actually have a second season planned? Is there that much more to the story?
Maybe we'll actually get the 2nd side of the story.
-
It mentions that "season one of Making a Murderer" is available on Netflix. Do they actually have a second season planned? Is there that much more to the story?
Maybe we'll actually get the 2nd side of the story.
Cameras are still rolling. They have been for the past ten years, and they'll probably continue rolling for another ten.
-
So long as the nutties cry for Avery's exoneration, there's money to be made.
The truth is Avery is a sick, murdering pig. Keep him locked up.
-
So long as the nutties cry for Avery's exoneration, there's money to be made.
The truth is Avery is a sick, murdering pig. Keep him locked up.
As someone who feels so strongly about avery's guilt, what is your opinion on dassey?
I'm just curious because I am not by any means certain of avery's innocence, but I don't think there is any way dassey was involved.
My biggest issue with the whole case was dassey's treatment. Avery is a tougher call for me.
-
The show reminds me of a Wojo timeout.
People complain that he is just spouting cliches because that is all they see. What he says strategy-wise isn't shown.
Here we have a show that does the same thing and now people are all riled up.
I realize it wouldn't be riveting TV to show all of the trial, but opinions on guilt or innocence are useless without it.
-
The show reminds me of a Wojo timeout.
People complain that he is just spouting cliches because that is all they see. What he says strategy-wise isn't shown.
Here we have a show that does the same thing and now people are all riled up.
I realize it wouldn't be riveting TV to show all of the trial, but opinions on guilt or innocence are useless without it.
Yup.
-
The show reminds me of a Wojo timeout.
People complain that he is just spouting cliches because that is all they see. What he says strategy-wise isn't shown.
Here we have a show that does the same thing and now people are all riled up.
I realize it wouldn't be riveting TV to show all of the trial, but opinions on guilt or innocence are useless without it.
Well put. The interesting thing to me is, while pretty clearly intentional on the filmmakers part, the tinfoil hats are running around saying he should get a new trial or be freed, when in reality, the more likely outcome for these two scumbags at this point is probably the death penalty. Not predicting that is necessarily going to happen, but rapists are extremely "popular" in prison, and the profile of these two has obviously significantly increased as a result of this show. safe to say so have the odds of some inmate making a name for himself. (I don't really know about the prisons they're in, so I would guess odds of that happening are relatively low, but still likley much higher than they were a month ago.)
-
Well put. The interesting thing to me is, while pretty clearly intentional on the filmmakers part, the tinfoil hats are running around saying he should get a new trial or be freed, when in reality, the more likely outcome for these two scumbags at this point is probably the death penalty. Not predicting that is necessarily going to happen, but rapists are extremely "popular" in prison, and the profile of these two has obviously significantly increased as a result of this show. safe to say so have the odds of some inmate making a name for himself. (I don't really know about the prisons they're in, so I would guess odds of that happening are relatively low, but still likley much higher than they were a month ago.)
Dassey is in Green Bay and Avery is in Waupun, both Wisconsin state prisons.
-
Well put. The interesting thing to me is, while pretty clearly intentional on the filmmakers part, the tinfoil hats are running around saying he should get a new trial or be freed, when in reality, the more likely outcome for these two scumbags at this point is probably the death penalty. Not predicting that is necessarily going to happen, but rapists are extremely "popular" in prison, and the profile of these two has obviously significantly increased as a result of this show. safe to say so have the odds of some inmate making a name for himself. (I don't really know about the prisons they're in, so I would guess odds of that happening are relatively low, but still likley much higher than they were a month ago.)
This is sad.
-
Well put. The interesting thing to me is, while pretty clearly intentional on the filmmakers part, the tinfoil hats are running around saying he should get a new trial or be freed, when in reality, the more likely outcome for these two scumbags at this point is probably the death penalty. Not predicting that is necessarily going to happen, but rapists are extremely "popular" in prison, and the profile of these two has obviously significantly increased as a result of this show. safe to say so have the odds of some inmate making a name for himself. (I don't really know about the prisons they're in, so I would guess odds of that happening are relatively low, but still likley much higher than they were a month ago.)
I think Steven Avery is guilty and shouldn't get a new trial.
I think Dassey may be guilty of something, but should be given a new trial because he was poorly represented by his attorney. I think he was found guilty largely due to a coerced confession which IMO is extremely unjust.
-
This is sad.
While I don't believe they deserve to be killed, rapists being targets in prison does not make me sad...at all.
Raping and killing a young girl, now that's sad.
-
While I don't believe they deserve to be killed, rapists being targets in prison does not make me sad...at all.
Raping and killing a young girl, now that's sad.
Did you watch the documentary at all?
And I find your acceptance of prison violence and retribution to be pathetic.
-
Did you watch the documentary at all?
And I find your acceptance of prison violence and retribution to be pathetic.
If you haven't read the thread, Navin is basically Ken Kratz. Which I wouldn't rule out actually being true.
-
If you haven't read the thread, Navin is basically Ken Kratz. Which I wouldn't rule out actually being true.
Quite possible. Kratz is an MU Law School grad, so he could have already been a Scooper.
-
If you haven't read the thread, Navin is basically Ken Kratz. Which I wouldn't rule out actually being true.
Whatever helps you cling to your conspiracy theory, it's cool. You want them to get a new trial and/or be freed. We get it. Fortunately, the folks in charge of these things are/will base their decisions on more than some trumped up, one-sided documentary. I was simply pointing out the irony that this show, designed to paint these murduring rapists as innocent victims, will absolutely not get them released, but in fact, has probably increased the likelihood of them being harmed or killed in prison.
-
Dassey is in Green Bay and Avery is in Waupun, both Wisconsin state prisons.
Dassey was just moved from Green Bay to the Columbia Correctional Institution.
This is a helpful website if you are trying to determine the status of a convict in the Wisconsin correctional system:
http://offender.doc.state.wi.us/lop/home.do
-
Curious to hear those in the absolutely guilty camp's explanation as to how that call occurred, when I believe it was Colburn called in the license plate of Halbach's car 2 days before it was supposedly found?
I tend to agree that other things that could possibly seem planted could also just as easily in reality be from Avery himself.
The phone call though to dispatch calling in a license that "hadn't been found yet and wouldn't be found for another 2 days" is extremely strange.
-
Curious to hear those in the absolutely guilty camp's explanation as to how that call occurred, when I believe it was Colburn called in the license plate of Halbach's car 2 days before it was supposedly found?
I tend to agree that other things that could possibly seem planted could also just as easily in reality be from Avery himself.
The phone call though to dispatch calling in a license that "hadn't been found yet and wouldn't be found for another 2 days" is extremely strange.
Halbach's brother and ex boyfriend probably illegally trespassed onto Avery's property and found the car there, called the police, and Colburn probably went against protocol to go out to see for himself after receiving the call. Hence why he had to call in the car rather than radio it in (as he would've if he was just sitting in his police car looking at the car on the side of some road). This would explain why the ex boyfriend and the brother acted so weird at times in the documentary and why they would just coincidentally give out a single camera one time in the entire 3 day search, and it happened to be to the one person who found Halbach's car, which happened within 30 minutes of beginning to search the property. Just got lucky, or "God led her there." Or they knew exactly where the car was and who would find it, they just had to make it look coincidental because protocol had not been followed.
-
Curious to hear those in the absolutely guilty camp's explanation as to how that call occurred, when I believe it was Colburn called in the license plate of Halbach's car 2 days before it was supposedly found?
I tend to agree that other things that could possibly seem planted could also just as easily in reality be from Avery himself.
The phone call though to dispatch calling in a license that "hadn't been found yet and wouldn't be found for another 2 days" is extremely strange.
An officer calling in to confirm Information on a vehicle for which they have been told to be on the lookout...That's really that odd to you? Did you hear the entire call?
-
Whatever helps you cling to your conspiracy theory, it's cool. You want them to get a new trial and/or be freed. We get it. Fortunately, the folks in charge of these things are/will base their decisions on more than some trumped up, one-sided documentary. I was simply pointing out the irony that this show, designed to paint these murduring rapists as innocent victims, will absolutely not get them released, but in fact, has probably increased the likelihood of them being harmed or killed in prison.
Yeah.... you didn't watch the documentary at all, did you?
Honestly, at the half-way point through episode 10, I'm less convinced of Avery's innocence now than I was at any point, whether before or during the series, but I believe that Avery should (or will) receive a new trial. I don't recall who mentioned it in episode 9, but in all three cases, law enforcement and the prosecution was looking for a conviction, not the truth.
Regardless, I still think that more people should be in jail than Avery and Dassey... even if Avery did kill Halbach, Prosecution and law enforcement truly acted shamefully. I'm sure they think they were doing the right thing as much as I'm sure that the State has properly gained convictions in numerous cases with much less evidence and/or much more doubt.
I still can't understand the rationale for the judge not allowing Avery's defense to present any evidence of another killer... not sure this would have swayed the jury, but it seems awfully suspect given all the circumstantial evidence against Avery that could have been circumstantial against someone else.
An officer calling in to confirm Information on a vehicle for which they have been told to be on the lookout...That's really that odd to you? Did you hear the entire call?
If it's not that odd, why did he call it in rather than radio it in? If he was just confirming something, he could have done that over the radio, no? Heck, that way he could have done a favor for his entire squad and confirmed it everyone who was on their radio. But Colborn wanted to keep that information to himself, or at least off the police band. Why?
-
I'll admit its been a few weeks since watching it but as I recall things, Colburn ran the plates before Halbach was even reported missing by her platonic room mate
-
I'll admit its been a few weeks since watching it but as I recall things, Colburn ran the plates before Halbach was even reported missing by her platonic room mate
That isn't true. She had been reported as missing when he called it in.
-
Whatever helps you cling to your conspiracy theory, it's cool. You want them to get a new trial and/or be freed. We get it. Fortunately, the folks in charge of these things are/will base their decisions on more than some trumped up, one-sided documentary. I was simply pointing out the irony that this show, designed to paint these murduring rapists as innocent victims, will absolutely not get them released, but in fact, has probably increased the likelihood of them being harmed or killed in prison.
In my opinion the documentary authors had no intention of being one sided. Only one side offered to cooperate with them.
And don't you think this side should be heard, since everyone was being fed only the prosecution's side for 10+ years?
I grew up an hour from Manitowoc, and all I've ever heard was the prosecution's talking points, until this documentary.
-
Halbach's brother and ex girlfriend probably illegally trespassed onto Avery's property and found the car there, called the police, and Colburn probably went against protocol to go out to see for himself after receiving the call. Hence why he had to call in the car rather than radio it in (as he would've if he was just sitting in his police car looking at the car on the side of some road). This would explain why the ex boyfriend and the brother acted so weird at times in the documentary and why they would just coincidentally give out a single camera one time in the entire 3 day search, and it happened to be to the one person who found Halbach's car, which happened within 30 minutes of beginning to search the property. Just got lucky, or "God led her there." Or they knew exactly where the car was and who would find it, they just had to make it look coincidental because protocol had not been followed.
If true, this would be an illegal search and seizure, and the car would have to be excluded from evidence.
Even if you think Avery is guilty, you have to admit the investigation was so f*cked up, you need to acquit. You either believe in our constitution, or you don't. If you do, there's no way Steven Avery or Brendan Dassey should be behind bars.
-
If true, this would be an illegal search and seizure, and the car would have to be excluded from evidence.
Even if you think Avery is guilty, you have to admit the investigation was so f*cked up, you need to acquit. You either believe in our constitution, or you don't. If you do, there's no way Steven Avery or Brendan Dassey should be behind bars.
Or you believe you saw about 5% of the trial and it was a completely biased 5%.
-
Or you believe you saw about 5% of the trial and it was a completely biased 5%.
I'm not talking about anything else besides what you just said. Everything else is irrelevant. If that is how the car was found, it would have been illegally allowed as evidence. Quit trying to put up smokescreens.
-
Halbach's brother and ex girlfriend probably illegally trespassed onto Avery's property and found the car there, called the police, and Colburn probably went against protocol to go out to see for himself after receiving the call. Hence why he had to call in the car rather than radio it in (as he would've if he was just sitting in his police car looking at the car on the side of some road). This would explain why the ex boyfriend and the brother acted so weird at times in the documentary and why they would just coincidentally give out a single camera one time in the entire 3 day search, and it happened to be to the one person who found Halbach's car, which happened within 30 minutes of beginning to search the property. Just got lucky, or "God led her there." Or they knew exactly where the car was and who would find it, they just had to make it look coincidental because protocol had not been followed.
That is probably the best explanation of what happened there and one I had not thought of.
EDIT: I wonder if the key was in the car at that point and it was grabbed too.
-
Here's an interesting twist that actually might have some legs despite Cameron's disjointed connections and theories behind some of the most famous unsolved homicides over the past few decades.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-cop-believes-notorious-serial-190919339.html
Incidentally, the Yahoo article leaves out a very interesting piece in the linked story.
http://uproxx.com/tv/making-a-murderer-edward-wayne-edwards/2/
"Avery’s new lawyer Kathleen Zellner has already freed one of the men wrongfully convicted of a crime Cameron attributes to Ed Edwards – Ryan Ferguson spent nearly 10 years in jail for the death of Columbia Daily Tribune sports editor Kent Heith. That murder went down on Halloween night."
------
If you don't want to believe that the MCSD framed Avery - which is perfectly fine - you have to at least acknowledge that framing Avery would have been a cake walk for someone with minimal resources.
The question boils down to motivation, i.e. why would anyone want to kill an innocent woman for no reason at all? Though atypical, some murders fall into the "for sport" category rather than in one of the usual categories, e.g. rage, passion, revenge, witness-elimination, etc.
Consider this... you just saw Steven Avery on the news being released from prison a couple years ago, now you see he's going after the corrupt sheriff's dept. that wrongfully convicted him 20 years ago, and all of the sudden, your bloodlust starts to boil and spin the turbine in your head. So you track the guy for a couple weeks, learn the lay of his land, and then you wait for an opportunity to present itself. It might seem far-fetched to go to all this trouble when - if all you want is to kill - you could just as easily drive into any inner-city on a given night and pick up a prostitute... but if you have a fetish for both killing and framing, Steve Avery is something of a holy grail in your world - only in this case, it's easily within reach.
This is so far fetched that I'm sure many will have difficulty comprehending this as having even a 0.00000000000000000000001% chance of being true, but the odds - in reality - are so much greater than the average person would think. There are some sick, twisted people out there, and they thrive on the general public's inability (or outright refusal) to acknowledge that they exist.
-
I'm not talking about anything else besides what you just said. Everything else is irrelevant. If that is how the car was found, it would have been illegally allowed as evidence. Quit trying to put up smokescreens.
That was my guess. There is like a 0.01% chance that is actually what happened. Unless it can be proven that that's what happened, you can't rule out the car as evidence.
-
There are some sick, twisted people out there, and they thrive on the general public's inability (or outright refusal) to acknowledge that they exist.
On this point we completely agree, and I think it applies in this case (though the rape aspect also introduces lust, obsession, witness elimination, etc). More to the point, my first comment in this thread was as to people wanting to believe the conspiracy, and my inability to understand why. That wanting to believe is still going on, and I honestly think it's because folks would rather believe that, than to have to admit to themselves that there are people as purely evil as Steven Avery walking down the same streets as the rest of us.
I don't know why I keep sucking myself into this ridiculous thread, because I just don't care, so I will move on again (for the time being anyway). This s morning, I just thought it was interesting that if one of these guys ends up with a broomstick in his skull, it will likley be as a direct result of this TV show, that pretty clearly had a very different intent.
-
I don't know why I keep sucking myself into this ridiculous thread, because I just don't care, so I will move on again (for the time being anyway). This s morning, I just thought it was interesting that if one of these guys ends up with a broomstick in his skull, it will likley be as a direct result of this TV show, that pretty clearly had a very different intent.
Well... Dassey is certainly being housed in the right place for such an incident to occur.
Fortunately for Avery, his prison doesn't have a Netflix subscription, so he isn't the only one who won't see the series.
-
Well... Dassey is certainly being housed in the right place for such an incident to occur.
A reference to the Dahmer demise?
-
Well... Dassey is certainly being housed in the right place for such an incident to occur.
Just to prove I look at these things logically and with an open mind, in that case, I do not believe for one second those three monsters were left alone by accident. How it came to be, or who was behind it, I don't know. Nor do I recall what if anything ever came of it.
-
A couple of things:
-The rape thing only came into play because of the story Dassey told, there is no physical evidence to indicate she was raped. Not saying she wasn't but if Dassey hadn't said anything that wouldn't have been a thing
-Avery was acquitted on the mutilating a corpse charge, Dassey was found guilty. It either happened the way Dassey said or it didn't happen at all, it which case logic would dictate you can't have the two different outcomes. (I get that things happen at trial, but I'm talking from a pure logic standpoint)
Avery probably killed Halbach, but I would guess it was a straight up murder(without all the rape, imprisonment stuff) and the PD trumped up additional evidence and further sensationalized it with the Dassey "confession".
-
Just to prove I look at these things logically and with an open mind, in that case, I do not believe for one second those three monsters were left alone by accident. How it came to be, or who was behind it, I don't know. Nor do I recall what if anything ever came of it.
The guy who killed Dahmer and another that day was already serving a life sentence... he came out last year and said that the prison guards deliberately left him alone with Dahmer and another guy, though that seems a bit misleading. I don't think the guards were following every one of these inmates every second while the inmates are on cleaning duty, and of course, no cameras in the showers to tell what happened. I don't think there were any allegations of misconduct or negligence by the guards, though Dahmer wasn't exactly popular with the general population or the guards, so it stands to reason that the guards at least looked the other way.
Whether there was some sort of plan or conspiracy to his death, I don't know, but at least McCann (the DA who prosecuted Dahmer) immediately acknowledged the incident for what it was (a homicide) - even if it was the death of the most notorious serial killer in Wisconsin's history (that we know of), not to mention someone he put behind bars - and urged the public, media and victims not to hold it up as some sort of vindication or excusable action.
If Avery or Dassey happened to die in prison, I'm taking the under on how many days before Kratz is dancing on a grave.
-
An officer calling in to confirm Information on a vehicle for which they have been told to be on the lookout...That's really that odd to you? Did you hear the entire call?
This is the explanation he offers, and it makes sense. There is, of course, the alternate explanation that he was looking at the vehicle at the time he called it in. But even though I tend to think Colburn and Lenk were not completely on the up and up -- and I'm troubled by the sheer number of coincidences involving them (including this one) -- I think it's a viable explanation to say that he was checking to make sure he had accurate information on the vehicle he was supposed to be looking for.
-
The other inmate killed was none other than Jesse Anderson, who killed his wife in a TGi Fridays parking lot in an extremely high profile case at the time. Of all the prisoners in all the prisons, for those two notorious guys to be left alone to clean with that nut job is quite convenient (or inconvenient in their case).
-
The other inmate killed was none other than Jesse Anderson, who killed his wife in a TGi Fridays parking lot in an extremely high profile case at the time. Of all the prisoners in all the prisons, for those two notorious guys to be left alone to clean with that nut job is quite convenient (or inconvenient in their case).
So as long as its your crazy conspiracy it's an acceptable if not likely conspiracy?
-
Quite possible. Kratz is an MU Law School grad, so he could have already been a Scooper.
Finkle is Einhorn?...Einhorn is Finkle...Finkle is Einhorn...Einhorn is Finkle!
It all makes sense now
-
So as long as its your crazy conspiracy it's an acceptable if not likely conspiracy?
Based on the available information (or absence of) which I use to draw my own conclusions, yes. Not sure why you would imply there's some sort of inconsistency in that. Maybe it's a conspiracy! The difference of course is that I'm not suggesting a murdering rapist (or two) should be set free because I watched a TV show.
-
I just don't get 14 pages in this thread debating whether a guy is guilty or not based on a biased TV show.
Now, if someone wants to go over all the evidence and transcripts from the trial and then comes to a conclusion on guilt of innocence, more power to them and they have a valid point.
But a TV show that does not do that? I can't figure out how anyone can make a decision on guilt based on just this.
-
This is the explanation he offers, and it makes sense. There is, of course, the alternate explanation that he was looking at the vehicle at the time he called it in. But even though I tend to think Colburn and Lenk were not completely on the up and up -- and I'm troubled by the sheer number of coincidences involving them (including this one) -- I think it's a viable explanation to say that he was checking to make sure he had accurate information on the vehicle he was supposed to be looking for.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. When he was being cross-examined on the stand on this topic it seemed pretty clear to me that he was not being honest. I absolutely believe he was looking at the car in person a day or two before it was found on the Avery property.
-
So as long as its your crazy conspiracy it's an acceptable if not likely conspiracy?
Right?
-
On this point we completely agree, and I think it applies in this case (though the rape aspect also introduces lust, obsession, witness elimination, etc). More to the point, my first comment in this thread was as to people wanting to believe the conspiracy, and my inability to understand why. That wanting to believe is still going on, and I honestly think it's because folks would rather believe that, than to have to admit to themselves that there are people as purely evil as Steven Avery walking down the same streets as the rest of us.
I don't know why I keep sucking myself into this ridiculous thread, because I just don't care, so I will move on again (for the time being anyway). This s morning, I just thought it was interesting that if one of these guys ends up with a broomstick in his skull, it will likley be as a direct result of this TV show, that pretty clearly had a very different intent.
You did not watch the entire documentary, correct?
-
I just don't get 14 pages in this thread debating whether a guy is guilty or not based on a biased TV show.
Now, if someone wants to go over all the evidence and transcripts from the trial and then comes to a conclusion on guilt of innocence, more power to them and they have a valid point.
But a TV show that does not do that? I can't figure out how anyone can make a decision on guilt based on just this.
People ARE doing that. The entire trial transcripts are available online. All of the information anyone could ever want is linked on the Reddit forum. And the calls for exoneration are getting louder, not softer.
The documentary isn't just the sole source of information for people anymore. It merely brought this injustice to the mainstream.
-
I just don't get 14 pages in this thread debating whether a guy is guilty or not based on a biased TV show.
Now, if someone wants to go over all the evidence and transcripts from the trial and then comes to a conclusion on guilt of innocence, more power to them and they have a valid point.
But a TV show that does not do that? I can't figure out how anyone can make a decision on guilt based on just this.
To me it is not so much innocence or guilt as much as if reasonable doubt exists. I wonder how the results of the poll might change if it was phrased in regards to reasonable doubt instead innocence vs. guilt.
-
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. When he was being cross-examined on the stand on this topic it seemed pretty clear to me that he was not being honest.
So you saw the entire direct and cross examinations, right?
-
So you saw the entire direct and cross examinations, right?
Did you?
-
Based on the available information (or absence of) which I use to draw my own conclusions, yes. Not sure why you would imply there's some sort of inconsistency in that. Maybe it's a conspiracy! The difference of course is that I'm not suggesting a murdering rapist (or two) should be set free because I watched a TV show.
So you refuse to acknowledge inconsistencies in the Avery/Dassey case because you know they are guilty and anyone that believes there are issues is a crackpot because they saw it on tv.....however you are willing to speculate that prison guards facilitated murder on the premise that "well they were two bad guys and now they are dead, that can't be a coincidence"?
Makes sure you give the means a thumbs up as you fly by to your ends.
-
So you saw the entire direct and cross examinations, right?
I did not and it is just my opinion so I completely understand that people may disagree with my impression. He sure did not give the impression of telling the truth at that moment.
Did you?
Did you watch any or all of the documentary? You keep avoiding that question even though it has been asked many times.
-
Did you?
Nope. You know who did? The jurors. You'll forgive me if I put 100 times more stock in their opinions and decision as a data point, than I do someone who saw 10% of it in a TV show with a purpose.
-
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. When he was being cross-examined on the stand on this topic it seemed pretty clear to me that he was not being honest. I absolutely believe he was looking at the car in person a day or two before it was found on the Avery property.
I'm not sure why you think you're disagreeing with me. I offered no opinion on whether he was being honest or not. Someone seemed to suggest that there was no explanation for how he could have been calling in the plates if he wasn't looking at the car. I was merely acknowledging that there is an explanation, and that it even makes some sense. I didn't state my opinion on whether I believed him or not.
There are a lot of explanations offered for coincidences involving Colburn and Lenk. I am skeptical of many of them. But that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.
-
I just don't get 14 pages in this thread debating whether a guy is guilty or not based on a biased TV show.
Now, if someone wants to go over all the evidence and transcripts from the trial and then comes to a conclusion on guilt of innocence, more power to them and they have a valid point.
But a TV show that does not do that? I can't figure out how anyone can make a decision on guilt based on just this.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/ (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/)
This group believes there were actionable issues, and they've done all the research. They aren't going to waste time/reputation on something that doesn't have legal legitimacy.
Also, some folks like Navin need to recognize the distinction between people assessing guilt or innocence for Avery(I don't, but lean guilty) and people arguing that regardless of whether he did it or not the authorities overstepped their role/ethics. It highlights significant inequities in the justice system independent of the actual guilt or innocence of the party associated with it.
As an example, if I have video of a person committing a crime and I have a confession that police beat out of him, I think he's guilty but they better not use the confession because they overstepped the bounds of the justice system.
-
I'm not sure why you think you're disagreeing with me. I offered no opinion on whether he was being honest or not. Someone seemed to suggest that there was no explanation for how he could have been calling in the plates if he wasn't looking at the car. I was merely acknowledging that there is an explanation, and that it even makes some sense. I didn't state my opinion on whether I believed him or not.
There are a lot of explanations offered for coincidences involving Colburn and Lenk. I am skeptical of many of them. But that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.
Fair enough. I guess you think the other explanation is more viable than I do.
-
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/ (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/).
Also, some folks like Navin need to recognize the distinction between people assessing guilt or innocence for Avery(I don't, but lean guilty) and people arguing that regardless of whether he did it or not the authorities overstepped their role/ethics. It highlights significant inequities in the justice system independent of the actual guilt or innocence of the party associated with it.
As an example, if I have video of a person committing a crime and I have a confession that police beat out of him, I think he's guilty but they better not use the confession because they overstepped the bounds of the justice system.
This is the crux of everything.
Avery's guilt is important, but not the most important issue. The most important issue is an out of control police agency that coerced confessions, planted evidence, intimidated witnesses, and performed illegal searches. Avery might ultimately have still been guilty, but his constitutional rights were completely trampled in the course of getting that verdict.
Again, you either stand by our constitution or you don't.
-
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/ (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/)
Also, some folks like Navin need to recognize the distinction between people assessing guilt or innocence for Avery(I don't, but lean guilty) and people arguing that regardless of whether he did it or not the authorities overstepped their role/ethics. It highlights significant inequities in the justice system independent of the actual guilt or innocence of the party associated with it.
I recognize this. I'm saying I don't believe there is an issue in either instance. Our legal system is an imperfect system. It's more art than science. Every case is different and subject to interpretation. I haven't been sucked in by the bright shiny object. Due process was served, and these guys are going to die in prison.
-
Fair enough. I guess you think the other explanation is more viable than I do.
I simply think it's an explanation. Honestly, nothing more than that.
Someone had asked, "curious for the explanation of..." and Navin offered one. And I merely pointed out that it's the one that was offered by Colburn (not sure if Navin knew that since he hasn't watched the series). I never said it was true or a good explanation or a better explanation than that he was looking at the car. Only that it made sense in that it is possible. But we're really not disagreeing...so no sense in my beating this dead horse any further.
-
This is the crux of everything.
Avery's guilt is important, but not the most important issue. The most important issue is an out of control police agency that coerced confessions, planted evidence, intimidated witnesses, and performed illegal searches. Avery might ultimately have still been guilty, but his constitutional rights were completely trampled in the course of getting that verdict.
Again, you either stand by our constitution or you don't.
And the irony for me is that if they had stuck with the evidence and what I suspect is the most likely scenario of the crime they don't have to create this whole Dassey mess.
Avery killed her and disposed of the body and likely left circumstantial evidence. The police "enhanced" the evidence and/or had to cover for an illegal search (Halbach's brother and/or Colburn) and this whole thing got twisted into a mess. In that scenario you don't have to make any of the insane logical leaps required to believe the prosecutors two versions of how the crime occurred (ignoring the fact that the crime could only have happened one way)
-
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/ (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/)
This group believes there were actionable issues, and they've done all the research. They aren't going to waste time/reputation on something that doesn't have legal legitimacy.
Edited: NVM. I am truly dropping out of this thread...This time I mean it. I'm just bored with the whole thing.
-
I don't understand the point of the link. They tried to get him a new trial. So what? It's done every day, and it fails every day. Were the folks found guilty in all of those cases wrongly convicted?
Someone asked if people had seen all the evidence, the folks who work at that group have seen everything and thought there was cause to challenge some of the stuff that went on. They are unlikely to challenge on something where there isn't merit. Not saying they're right just pointing out that there are smart people who know the law who thought there was cause to challenge the conclusions.
-
People ARE doing that. The entire trial transcripts are available online. All of the information anyone could ever want is linked on the Reddit forum. And the calls for exoneration are getting louder, not softer.
The documentary isn't just the sole source of information for people anymore. It merely brought this injustice to the mainstream.
You misunderstood me (or I wasn't very clear).
My point was supposed to be that people who looked at transcripts ARE the ones who have an informed opinion. My criticism was of people who based their belief on a biased TV show.
-
You misunderstood me (or I wasn't very clear).
My point was supposed to be that people who looked at transcripts ARE the ones who have an informed opinion. My criticism was of people who based their belief on a biased TV show.
Alright, that makes sense.
-
Nope. You know who did? The jurors. You'll forgive me if I put 100 times more stock in their opinions and decision as a data point, than I do someone who saw 10% of it in a TV show with a purpose.
I'm of the belief that Avery did this and is where he belongs, and that we only saw 1 side to this story and it was biased in Avery's favor. But Colburn was clearly unprepared for that question and did not have an answer. He was 100% stumped and it was very clear he was not telling the truth. That question alone doesn't mean Avery is innocent.
-
Nope. You know who did? The jurors. You'll forgive me if I put 100 times more stock in their opinions and decision as a data point, than I do someone who saw 10% of it in a TV show with a purpose.
Would you be willing to put your life in the hands of people who thought you were guilty before the trial started or probably have low IQs?
I certainly would not.
The system needs professional jurors, not half wits from Mishicot.
-
Would you be willing to put your life in the hands of people who thought you were guilty before the trial started or probably have low IQs?
I certainly would not.
The system needs professional jurors, not half wits from Mishicot.
I would never want my life in the hands of any jury. I've served on a couple, and believe me, it's not a group of the best and the brightest.
-
Would you be willing to put your life in the hands of people who thought you were guilty before the trial started or probably have low IQs?
I certainly would not.
The system needs professional jurors, not half wits from Mishicot.
Likely unconstitutional.
-
Likely unconstitutional.
It is a flexible document for a reason.
-
Would you be willing to put your life in the hands of people who thought you were guilty before the trial started or probably have low IQs?
I certainly would not.
The system needs professional jurors, not half wits from Mishicot.
Yes, that's the solution. Hire professional jurors and let one more aspect of the justice system get politicized.
-
The judicial system is flawed beyond belief.
Avery is a murdering pig. Disgusting. Lock him up forever and let him burn in eternal hellfire!!!!!!!!!!
-
The guy who killed Dahmer and another that day was already serving a life sentence... he came out last year and said that the prison guards deliberately left him alone with Dahmer and another guy, though that seems a bit misleading. I don't think the guards were following every one of these inmates every second while the inmates are on cleaning duty, and of course, no cameras in the showers to tell what happened. I don't think there were any allegations of misconduct or negligence by the guards, though Dahmer wasn't exactly popular with the general population or the guards, so it stands to reason that the guards at least looked the other way.
Whether there was some sort of plan or conspiracy to his death, I don't know, but at least McCann (the DA who prosecuted Dahmer) immediately acknowledged the incident for what it was (a homicide) - even if it was the death of the most notorious serial killer in Wisconsin's history (that we know of), not to mention someone he put behind bars - and urged the public, media and victims not to hold it up as some sort of vindication or excusable action.
If Avery or Dassey happened to die in prison, I'm taking the under on how many days before Kratz is dancing on a grave.
I have a cousin that was a guard at Columbia, he said Dahmer was a model prisoner.
But someone definitely had to put those 3 together.
-
Dahmer seemed like a model citizen when I lived in his neighborhood, too. :( :(
-
Had an interesting conversation today with an attorney friend who knows Zellner professionally... basically, the gist of the conversation was that Avery is going to walk. Said Avery's guilt or innocence is essentially irrelevant at this point... the 2005 case was so poorly mishandled that not only is the verdict definitely going to get tossed, but Zellner might blow up so much of it that there will be nothing left to re-try the case. A few interesting comments, some of which are not news, some of which I hadn't heard before:
Said that forensics/ballistics on the .22 bullet (that supposedly killed Halbach) was royally botched... either a test to show if the bullet exited Halbach's skull was never performed (but should have been), or it was performed but the results were suppressed by investigators and/or the prosecution. Either way, this is going to blow a hole (pun intended) in the prosecution's case that Halbach was shot with Avery's .22. Said this would be enough to get the case tossed on its own, but also given the state of the remains found in the burn pit and the pit's proximity to the garage, temperatures would have had to be so high for so long that there would have at least been heat damage to Avery's garage, if it hadn't burnt it down completely. Said there's no way her remains were cremated there. Science is not on the State's side here.
Now for the real interesting one...
Kratz may have exceeded the bounds of his authority in conducting the pre-trial press conference to the point where he could lose immunity and be exposed personally should Avery bring a defamation suit against him. Also, depending on what he knew about the ballistics testing (or should have known) and the forensics that uncovered Avery's DNA in multiple places (the key, the car hood, etc.), there's an outside chance he might one day be sleeping in Avery's cell in Waupun.
He wasn't clear on who was financing Zellner, but made a point that she doesn't take cases pro bono unless she's going to win.
-
Had an interesting conversation today with an attorney friend who knows Zellner professionally... basically, the gist of the conversation was that Avery is going to walk. Said Avery's guilt or innocence is essentially irrelevant at this point... the 2005 case was so poorly mishandled that not only is the verdict definitely going to get tossed, but Zellner might blow up so much of it that there will be nothing left to re-try the case. A few interesting comments, some of which are not news, some of which I hadn't heard before:
Said that forensics/ballistics on the .22 bullet (that supposedly killed Halbach) was royally botched... either a test to show if the bullet exited Halbach's skull was never performed (but should have been), or it was performed but the results were suppressed by investigators and/or the prosecution. Either way, this is going to blow a hole (pun intended) in the prosecution's case that Halbach was shot with Avery's .22. Said this would be enough to get the case tossed on its own, but also given the state of the remains found in the burn pit and the pit's proximity to the garage, temperatures would have had to be so high for so long that there would have at least been heat damage to Avery's garage, if it hadn't burnt it down completely. Said there's no way her remains were cremated there. Science is not on the State's side here.
Now for the real interesting one...
Kratz may have exceeded the bounds of his authority in conducting the pre-trial press conference to the point where he could lose immunity and be exposed personally should Avery bring a defamation suit against him. Also, depending on what he knew about the ballistics testing (or should have known) and the forensics that uncovered Avery's DNA in multiple places (the key, the car hood, etc.), there's an outside chance he might one day be sleeping in Avery's cell in Waupun.
He wasn't clear on who was financing Zellner, but made a point that she doesn't take cases pro bono unless she's going to win.
I hope the 2005 case gets tossed.
This is no longer about Avery's guilt or innocence but, rather, about a judicial system run amok.
If a society is predicated on the rule of law, and that the system exists to protect the liberty of all its members, then what the system seems to have done to Avery is unconscionable.
Taking away a man's liberty is a huge decision for society to undertake. There is no room for foul play on such a significant decision.
America is about freedom. What those cops and lawyers did to Avery and Dassey is inexcusable.
-
I'll believe he even gets a new trial when I see it.
-
I'll believe he even gets a new trial when I see it.
That's cool. At least you acknowledge something when it's right in front of you... unlike Peterson and Kusche who can't even acknowledge to this day that Avery wasn't guilty of the 1985 attack.
-
The guy who killed Dahmer and another that day was already serving a life sentence... he came out last year and said that the prison guards deliberately left him alone with Dahmer and another guy, though that seems a bit misleading. I don't think the guards were following every one of these inmates every second while the inmates are on cleaning duty, and of course, no cameras in the showers to tell what happened. I don't think there were any allegations of misconduct or negligence by the guards, though Dahmer wasn't exactly popular with the general population or the guards, so it stands to reason that the guards at least looked the other way.
Whether there was some sort of plan or conspiracy to his death, I don't know, but at least McCann (the DA who prosecuted Dahmer) immediately acknowledged the incident for what it was (a homicide) - even if it was the death of the most notorious serial killer in Wisconsin's history (that we know of), not to mention someone he put behind bars - and urged the public, media and victims not to hold it up as some sort of vindication or excusable action.
If Avery or Dassey happened to die in prison, I'm taking the under on how many days before Kratz is dancing on a grave.
the other dude killed along with dahmer was jesse anderson. anderson killed his wife in the former northridge(brown deer) parking lot outside of TGIF's and initially claimed it was done by a black guy or guys. big manhunt ensued until they figured out he was lying-i'm sure the african-americans did not appreciate the notoriety as they had enough of their own to deal with
-
Dahmer should have been well protected. He shared openly his history and line of thinking - some of the interviews are extremely intriguing and helpful for the study of such minds. Unfortunate he was murdered.
Avery is a slime-ball killer. Keep him locked up forever.
-
Had an interesting conversation today with an attorney friend who knows Zellner professionally... basically, the gist of the conversation was that Avery is going to walk. Said Avery's guilt or innocence is essentially irrelevant at this point... the 2005 case was so poorly mishandled that not only is the verdict definitely going to get tossed, but Zellner might blow up so much of it that there will be nothing left to re-try the case. A few interesting comments, some of which are not news, some of which I hadn't heard before:
Said that forensics/ballistics on the .22 bullet (that supposedly killed Halbach) was royally botched... either a test to show if the bullet exited Halbach's skull was never performed (but should have been), or it was performed but the results were suppressed by investigators and/or the prosecution. Either way, this is going to blow a hole (pun intended) in the prosecution's case that Halbach was shot with Avery's .22. Said this would be enough to get the case tossed on its own, but also given the state of the remains found in the burn pit and the pit's proximity to the garage, temperatures would have had to be so high for so long that there would have at least been heat damage to Avery's garage, if it hadn't burnt it down completely. Said there's no way her remains were cremated there. Science is not on the State's side here.
Now for the real interesting one...
Kratz may have exceeded the bounds of his authority in conducting the pre-trial press conference to the point where he could lose immunity and be exposed personally should Avery bring a defamation suit against him. Also, depending on what he knew about the ballistics testing (or should have known) and the forensics that uncovered Avery's DNA in multiple places (the key, the car hood, etc.), there's an outside chance he might one day be sleeping in Avery's cell in Waupun.
He wasn't clear on who was financing Zellner, but made a point that she doesn't take cases pro bono unless she's going to win.
Wouldn't the bolded have more to do with the mutilation of a corpse charge than the murder charge? The one that Avery was found not guilty on?
-
Wouldn't the bolded have more to do with the mutilation of a corpse charge than the murder charge? The one that Avery was found not guilty on?
Brings reasonable doubt if the prosecutions theory of the crime (the whole "story") can be brought into question.
Side note, one thing that stuck with me from one of the last episodes was when the juror was dismissed. Maybe I've watched too much Law and Order but it sounded like Avery had 3 choices when the juror had to be dismissed: seat an alternate(what they did), stay at 11, or mistrial. The last one wasn't clear if he had that option, if he did, why wouldn't they go with the mistrial? Yes you have to retry the case but now you know the prosecutions case and all their tricks, doesn't it make sense to go at it again? Or are we to assume the defense lawyers thought they already had a winning case in hand?
This is more of a legal strategy question then anything having to do with the Avery crime specifically.
-
Pretty sure I've said several times that Zellner is going to blow this up, right?
The level of lawyering in this case is pretty poor and she's probably drooling at the publicity.
-
Pretty sure I've said several times that Zellner is going to blow this up, right?
The level of lawyering in this case is pretty poor and she's probably drooling at the publicity.
And I'm pretty sure I've said several times that Avery will never be a free man.
-
Brings reasonable doubt if the prosecutions theory of the crime (the whole "story") can be brought into question.
Side note, one thing that stuck with me from one of the last episodes was when the juror was dismissed. Maybe I've watched too much Law and Order but it sounded like Avery had 3 choices when the juror had to be dismissed: seat an alternate(what they did), stay at 11, or mistrial. The last one wasn't clear if he had that option, if he did, why wouldn't they go with the mistrial? Yes you have to retry the case but now you know the prosecutions case and all their tricks, doesn't it make sense to go at it again? Or are we to assume the defense lawyers thought they already had a winning case in hand?
This is more of a legal strategy question then anything having to do with the Avery crime specifically.
I'm guessing either Avery or his lawyers (or both) were so convinced of his innocence and the case they made for it, they were expecting a not guilty verdict.
-
Dahmer should have been well protected. He shared openly his history and line of thinking - some of the interviews are extremely intriguing and helpful for the study of such minds. Unfortunate he was murdered.
Avery is a slime-ball killer. Keep him locked up forever.
We all know how you feel about Avery. If you're going to keep chiming in like this, at least add something substantive, like Wades, who I disagree with but at least contributes to the conversation.
You still never answered my question about Dassey. I don't know how anyone, even someone convinced of Avery's guilt, could excuse what law enforcement, and his own court-appointed lawyer, who conspired with law enforcement against him, did to him.
-
And I'm pretty sure I've said several times that Avery will never be a free man.
She's freed convicted in worse situations than Avery, she's famous for it.
-
Brings reasonable doubt if the prosecutions theory of the crime (the whole "story") can be brought into question.
Exactly. Where the body was incinerated might be an immaterial difference per se, but to achieve that state/condition of the remains found in the burn pit, the bonfire would have had to have been so hot for so long that it would have damaged any nearby structures. The lack of any physical evidence of such damage would mean that the remains were cremated elsewhere and were moved to Avery's burn pit later.
So unless one believes that Avery burned Halbach's body somewhere else and, for some reason, then scattered a portion of her remains on his lot, it would be irrefutable that someone had planted evidence on Avery's property in order to build (or win) a case against him.
Again... this doesn't say that Avery is innocent; it merely substantiates reasonable doubt to the prosecution's case. At the very least, the case will be re-tried, but the prosecution has to come up with another theory for her death, which probably isn't the tough part... the tough part is likely going to be tying Avery's involvement into the new theory.
-
Had an interesting conversation today with an attorney friend who knows Zellner professionally... basically, the gist of the conversation was that Avery is going to walk. Said Avery's guilt or innocence is essentially irrelevant at this point... the 2005 case was so poorly mishandled that not only is the verdict definitely going to get tossed, but Zellner might blow up so much of it that there will be nothing left to re-try the case. A few interesting comments, some of which are not news, some of which I hadn't heard before:
Said that forensics/ballistics on the .22 bullet (that supposedly killed Halbach) was royally botched... either a test to show if the bullet exited Halbach's skull was never performed (but should have been), or it was performed but the results were suppressed by investigators and/or the prosecution. Either way, this is going to blow a hole (pun intended) in the prosecution's case that Halbach was shot with Avery's .22. Said this would be enough to get the case tossed on its own, but also given the state of the remains found in the burn pit and the pit's proximity to the garage, temperatures would have had to be so high for so long that there would have at least been heat damage to Avery's garage, if it hadn't burnt it down completely. Said there's no way her remains were cremated there. Science is not on the State's side here.
Now for the real interesting one...
Kratz may have exceeded the bounds of his authority in conducting the pre-trial press conference to the point where he could lose immunity and be exposed personally should Avery bring a defamation suit against him. Also, depending on what he knew about the ballistics testing (or should have known) and the forensics that uncovered Avery's DNA in multiple places (the key, the car hood, etc.), there's an outside chance he might one day be sleeping in Avery's cell in Waupun.
He wasn't clear on who was financing Zellner, but made a point that she doesn't take cases pro bono unless she's going to win.
Super interesting. Hadn't even realized Zellner was taking the case. That is huge. It looks like she is doing it pro bono as well.
-
Exactly. Where the body was incinerated might be an immaterial difference per se, but to achieve that state/condition of the remains found in the burn pit, the bonfire would have had to have been so hot for so long that it would have damaged any nearby structures. The lack of any physical evidence of such damage would mean that the remains were cremated elsewhere and were moved to Avery's burn pit later.
So unless one believes that Avery burned Halbach's body somewhere else and, for some reason, then scattered a portion of her remains on his lot, it would be irrefutable that someone had planted evidence on Avery's property in order to build (or win) a case against him.
Again... this doesn't say that Avery is innocent; it merely substantiates reasonable doubt to the prosecution's case. At the very least, the case will be re-tried, but the prosecution has to come up with another theory for her death, which probably isn't the tough part... the tough part is likely going to be tying Avery's involvement into the new theory.
If it is scientifically proven that the bonfire could not have cremated the remains, that completely destroys the case against Dassey as half of his "confession" is predicated on him saying he saw toes in a bonfire, which was originally specified by the female cousin who recanted during the trial. If the body in the bonfire didn't happen Dassey goes free at worst.
One thing to note, in fairness to the prosecution, they are always trying to create a narrative based on the evidence that fits their theory of the crime. So if they got the story wrong because there is new evidence that doesn't indicate malfeasance, just a lack of enough evidence to get it "right". However, IF this bonfire evidence is correct and IF Kratz had it, that is malfeasance and he should probably be prosecuted.
-
Kratz is writing a book now
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-is-writing-a-book-about-the-steven-avery-case-w162416
-
Kratz is writing a book now
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-is-writing-a-book-about-the-steven-avery-case-w162416
SMH. This guy's narcissism is going to bite him in the ass.
The appropriate way to respond would be to say something along the lines of "yes, we did follow up on those fingerprints, but the investigators found that they were not relevant to this case." End of story. Not "hey, jackhole, if you want to be famous, why don't you tell me your story, and I'll go out and get me a book deal."
-
Kratz is writing a book now
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-is-writing-a-book-about-the-steven-avery-case-w162416
Damn that guy's gross
-
Damn that guy's gross
His reaction to the reporter when the whole sexting scandal broke out gave me chills.
-
Damn that guy's gross
Marquette grad. Was he in NROTC?
-
Marquette grad. Was he in NROTC?
I said gross, not bad ass.....I know reading is phundemental for zoomies
-
I said gross, not bad ass.....I know reading is phundemental for zoomies
He went there for law school, not undergrad. You can look him up on LinkedIn if you want....
-
I can honestly say that at this point, I really don't care whether Avery is guilty or innocent... I am absolutely loving the show right now, and I'm not talking about the Netflix series.
https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/690991204159205377
This is about to get real good. Zellner isn't laying in wait... she's taking her own troll over to Kratz's bridge. Definitely worthy of the Benny B Seal-of-Approval.
-
Kratz is an idiot. But so is Zellner.
-
I can honestly say that at this point, I really don't care whether Avery is guilty or innocent... I am absolutely loving the show right now, and I'm not talking about the Netflix series.
https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/690991204159205377
This is about to get real good. Zellner isn't laying in wait... she's taking her own troll over to Kratz's bridge. Definitely worthy of the Benny B Seal-of-Approval.
Hilarious. Again, she's going to touch this thing.
-
Hilarious. Again, she's going to touch this thing.
She's certainly trying her best to make you think that. Some are apparently buying in.
-
She's certainly trying her best to make you think that. Some are apparently buying in.
She has a pretty good track record from what I understand, does she not?
-
She has a pretty good track record from what I understand, does she not?
Which is exactly why I'm pretty confident she doesn't have a whole lot to go on...yet.
For as moronic as Kratz is, do you really think there are even the lowliest of lawyers out there who would take to Twitter to detail the evidence they say is going to overturn a guilty murder 1 verdict before an appeal has even been heard? That would be beyond belief stupid, and I'm fairly confident that she isn't an idiot.
Not to mention, her doing it pro bono is not even worth mentioning. She is going to caaaaash iiiiinnnn on the publicity she's getting from simply saying, "I'll do my best for you and not even charge you! Look at what a great lawyer and person I am! Only worried about the good of others!" Heck, go to her law firm's website and literally the only thing you can see before you scroll is, "NOW REPRESENTING STEVEN AVERY." Look at her Twitter and it's a picture of her and her partne...wait, no, her and her associa...wait, no, her and Steven Avery. Her Twitter "signature" (I don't do Twitter so I don't know what it's really called) is a play on words from the title "Making a Murderer." She is going to milk the heck out of this thing and make baaaaank regardless of whether she makes a penny or a million dollars from Avery's camp, and she knows it. It's all about the business, it's not about a man who is "identical to the 17 others" because he "won't quit" or admit his guilt. If that's all it takes I'll find you jails and jails and jails full of "identical" men to the 17 men she has worked to get exonerated.
-
Zellner's "pro bono" work on criminal cases is a feeder to her civil lawsuits that bring in huge amounts of money.
Sounds like a good dead, but is akin to wining and dining potential clients, aina?
I'll tell you one thing for certain, though... Avery is a dirty murderer.
-
Zellner's "pro bono" work on criminal cases is a feeder to her civil lawsuits that bring in huge amounts of money.
Sounds like a good dead, but is akin to wining and dining potential clients, right?
I'll tell you one thing for certain, though... Avery is a dirty murderer.
Exactly. I agree with all of this, although I do find the conversation and topic interesting to discuss, and there are some things in the case that raise eyebrows.
-
Which is exactly why I'm pretty confident she doesn't have a whole lot to go on...yet.
For as moronic as Kratz is, do you really think there are even the lowliest of lawyers out there who would take to Twitter to detail the evidence they say is going to overturn a guilty murder 1 verdict before an appeal has even been heard? That would be beyond belief stupid, and I'm fairly confident that she isn't an idiot.
Not to mention, her doing it pro bono is not even worth mentioning. She is going to caaaaash iiiiinnnn on the publicity she's getting from simply saying, "I'll do my best for you and not even charge you! Look at what a great lawyer and person I am! Only worried about the good of others!" Heck, go to her law firm's website and literally the only thing you can see before you scroll is, "NOW REPRESENTING STEVEN AVERY." Look at her Twitter and it's a picture of her and her partne...wait, no, her and her associa...wait, no, her and Steven Avery. Her Twitter "signature" (I don't do Twitter so I don't know what it's really called) is a play on words from the title "Making a Murderer." She is going to milk the heck out of this thing and make baaaaank regardless of whether she makes a penny or a million dollars from Avery's camp, and she knows it. It's all about the business, it's not about a man who is "identical to the 17 others" because he "won't quit" or admit his guilt. If that's all it takes I'll find you jails and jails and jails full of "identical" men to the 17 men she has worked to get exonerated.
I don't know of a single attorney who does pro bono work because they think it's the right thing to do. Most only do it because they're forced to do so (in order to keep their license in good standing), but a fair share do it for the promise (or hope) of future earning potential.
Zellner certainly isn't taking Avery's case because she thinks he's innocent... she's taking the case because she thinks she can get him exonerated. In other words, if she's doing this for the publicity and the money (as we both agree she is), why would she put her reputation on the line? Doesn't she stand to lose much more here by failing than she ever would succeeding?
-
I don't know of a single attorney who does pro bono work because they think it's the right thing to do. Most only do it because they're forced to do so (in order to keep their license in good standing), but a fair share do it for the promise (or hope) of future earning potential.
Zellner certainly isn't taking Avery's case because she thinks he's innocent... she's taking the case because she thinks she can get him exonerated. In other words, if she's doing this for the publicity and the money (as we both agree she is), why would she put her reputation on the line? Doesn't she stand to lose much more here by failing than she ever would succeeding?
Win or lose this case (which she has to get him a case first anyways) she knows she wins. Again, look at her website and her Twitter. She's not putting herself up with a picture of Steven Avery because she knows she's going to win the case. She's doing it because everyone and their mom is talking about the Netflix series and she now becomes a household name with Steven Avery across America. It doesn't matter if she never gets Steven Avery another case. She already has everything she came for, more publicity than she could've ever imagined. Her reputation is not going to take a hit if Avery never leaves a jail cell.
-
Win or lose this case (which she has to get him a case first anyways) she knows she wins. Again, look at her website and her Twitter. She's not putting herself up with a picture of Steven Avery because she knows she's going to win the case. She's doing it because everyone and their mom is talking about the Netflix series and she now becomes a household name with Steven Avery across America. It doesn't matter if she never gets Steven Avery another case. She already has everything she came for, more publicity than she could've ever imagined. Her reputation is not going to take a hit if Avery never leaves a jail cell.
Of course she's going to do that, who wouldn't?
It's part of the plan, she's going to continue to massively market this thing. She's been on 20/20 and Dateline over a dozen times, people that follow this genre of entertainment know who Zellner is. Zellner's last case was extremely close to home for me, and this is what she does.
However, I wonder if she may stir up too much in the Manitowoc area. I've been hearing people are already irritated the way social media is trashing their town, the accents, the people and the style. She's just going to bring more to town, it may work against her.
-
However, I wonder if she may stir up too much in the Manitowoc area. I've been hearing people are already irritated the way social media is trashing their town, the accents, the people and the style. She's just going to bring more to town, it may work against her.
Honestly, I wonder whether that will matter at all. Her first step with Avery will try to convince someone that there is new evidence that should be considered. I think all his "regular" appeals have been exhausted. This will be done through briefs, and should not be influenced by Manitowoc prejudice. Then, if she does manage to get a new trial, I would expect that the absolute first thing she will do is seek a new venue. I'd be very surprised if anyone from Manitowoc ever has anything to do with this case again -- aside from witnesses who are called to testify.
-
Honestly, I wonder whether that will matter at all. Her first step with Avery will try to convince someone that there is new evidence that should be considered. I think all his "regular" appeals have been exhausted. This will be done through briefs, and should not be influenced by Manitowoc prejudice. Then, if she does manage to get a new trial, I would expect that the absolute first thing she will do is seek a new venue. I'd be very surprised if anyone from Manitowoc ever has anything to do with this case again -- aside from witnesses who are called to testify.
True, she will try to get it moved to Milwaukee.
-
Of course she's going to do that, who wouldn't?
It's part of the plan, she's going to continue to massively market this thing. She's been on 20/20 and Dateline over a dozen times, people that follow this genre of entertainment know who Zellner is. Zellner's last case was extremely close to home for me, and this is what she does.
However, I wonder if she may stir up too much in the Manitowoc area. I've been hearing people are already irritated the way social media is trashing their town, the accents, the people and the style. She's just going to bring more to town, it may work against her.
That's why I think what she's doing in terms of the social media stuff is pretty dumb. Everyone is already all over this. The country is baffled at how Avery could possibly be found guilty because of the Netflix documentary they just watched. She doesn't need to convince people. Just sit back and watch this all blow up on the prosecution like it already was, and make your case for Avery.
-
That's why I think what she's doing in terms of the social media stuff is pretty dumb. Everyone is already all over this. The country is baffled at how Avery could possibly be found guilty because of the Netflix documentary they just watched. She doesn't need to convince people. Just sit back and watch this all blow up on the prosecution like it already was, and make your case for Avery.
Agree, especially because of the social media aspect. If there's a demographic being missed, it's not those on Twitter.
-
https://www.facebook.com/BethInShow/videos/986899561332468/
-
I don't know of a single attorney who does pro bono work because they think it's the right thing to do. Most only do it because they're forced to do so (in order to keep their license in good standing), but a fair share do it for the promise (or hope) of future earning potential.
I know attorneys who do pro bono work because they think it's the right thing to do. Many do.
-
https://www.facebook.com/BethInShow/videos/986899561332468/
Holy hell her impersonation of Barb is spot on!
She's actually from Manitowoc? There are very few women in Milwaukee who are that good looking, let alone Manitowoc.
-
I know attorneys who do pro bono work because they think it's the right thing to do. Many do.
I should clarify... no private attorney I know takes a case pro bono because they think it's the right thing to do.
Do these attorneys that you know work for the NRDC, PETA, or some other non-profit/NGO? Because I know these folks tend to call what they're doing "pro bono" because they're working for a non-profit (and/or being paid a fraction of what the average attorney makes), but a) they're still getting paid a salary or - at the very least - a stipend, and b) they're calling it "pro bono" so they can weasel out of doing real pro bono work to meet licensing requirements.
The implication I'm making is that a high powered attorney who has made millions - like Zellner - doesn't take a case like Steven Avery's strictly for altruistic purposes.
-
Holy hell her impersonation of Barb is spot on!
She's actually from Manitowoc? There are very few women in Milwaukee who are that good looking, let alone Manitowoc.
She is from Manitowac. I have known about her through the Michigan alumni network which ran a piece on her comedy routines. When I first heard her speak I knew immediately she was a cheesehead. She is really quite clever and does some great impersonations.
-
I should clarify... no private attorney I know takes a case pro bono because they think it's the right thing to do.
Do these attorneys that you know work for the NRDC, PETA, or some other non-profit/NGO? Because I know these folks tend to call what they're doing "pro bono" because they're working for a non-profit (and/or being paid a fraction of what the average attorney makes), but a) they're still getting paid a salary or - at the very least - a stipend, and b) they're calling it "pro bono" so they can weasel out of doing real pro bono work to meet licensing requirements.
The implication I'm making is that a high powered attorney who has made millions - like Zellner - doesn't take a case like Steven Avery's strictly for altruistic purposes.
I agree on Zellner and many others; however, I do many attorneys of different types - many criminal defense attorneys, who do free work because they feel it's a nice thing to do.
I think most of what anyone does has a selfish tint to it -- even those who volunteer at a soup kitchen are likely doing it because doing so pleases THEM in some way.. nonetheless, they are doing it because they want to help others.. and many attorneys do this.
-
I should clarify... no private attorney I know takes a case pro bono because they think it's the right thing to do.
As JayBee indicated, I too get what you are saying about Zellner. But you must not know many honorable private attorneys. There is no pro bono requirement in Wisconsin, although it is encouraged. Yet every attorney in my private practice does pro bono work of some nature, and does so with zero publicity or fanfare. It could be as simple as giving their parish administration an opinion on an employment issue, or as complicated as representing the victim of a underage sexual assault by a high school coach, all gratis, all done very quietly, and sometimes at a financial loss for the law firm.
-
Looks like Strang and Buting are trying to cash in on the fanfare:
http://pabsttheater.org/show/strangbuting
-
As JayBee indicated, I too get what you are saying about Zellner. But you must not know many honorable private attorneys. There is no pro bono requirement in Wisconsin, although it is encouraged. Yet every attorney in my private practice does pro bono work of some nature, and does so with zero publicity or fanfare. It could be as simple as giving their parish administration an opinion on an employment issue, or as complicated as representing the victim of a underage sexual assault by a high school coach, all gratis, all done very quietly, and sometimes at a financial loss for the law firm.
I'll add the same for Ohio. Many do nothing. Many do a lot. Some (e.g., Zellner) shout it from the rooftops and clearly intend to use it to develop their paying clients. Others do it in a very quiet and humble way, with a real commitment to service.
-
Looks like Strang and Buting are trying to cash in on the fanfare:
http://pabsttheater.org/show/strangbuting
Well, hell, if they were really good lawyers they would be charging at least $500 an hour and not $45.50!
-
https://www.facebook.com/BethInShow/videos/986899561332468/
Very funny. Love the 'Thanksgiving at the Averys' bit
-
I listened to the first 5 podcasts on the Rebuttal to Making a Murderer at work today. For as one sided as I think the Netflix series is, it is absolutely nothing compared to how one sided this podcast is. Horrible. I have no idea how I listened to roughly an hour of that. He defends the handling of the 1985 rape investigation by saying that the Manitowoc police department didn't have it out for Avery, that Penny Beernsten described a man who had "blonde hair and a beard," and that Avery and Allen looked almost identical. What a joke. I should've just stopped listening there. He talks about Coleburn and Lenk documenting the phone call from 5 or so? years before that Coleburn got regarding Allen telling the police that he committed a sexual assault on someone that they had someone else in jail for to just "putzy police having a moment of 'oh crap did we make a mistake?'" If Coleburn felt like the call was unimportant to the point of not needing to log it, I don't think it sticks around in his mind to the day that Avery is released years later. Heck, Coleburn even admits that he can understand how his phone call to the dispatcher asking for information on Halbach's car could be seen to some as him sitting looking at Halbach's car, while this guy essentially mocks the defense's point. This podcast is a joke. And I think everyone knows that I stand on the side of the podcast in terms of Avery's guilt or innocence.
-
As JayBee indicated, I too get what you are saying about Zellner. But you must not know many honorable private attorneys. There is no pro bono requirement in Wisconsin, although it is encouraged. Yet every attorney in my private practice does pro bono work of some nature, and does so with zero publicity or fanfare. It could be as simple as giving their parish administration an opinion on an employment issue, or as complicated as representing the victim of a underage sexual assault by a high school coach, all gratis, all done very quietly, and sometimes at a financial loss for the law firm.
That's a new one... taking a case on contingency is now considered pro bono, too?
As to the other example, of course giving the opinion is free... heck, I could go to just about any litigator in the country and get a free opinion, but when it comes time to actually litigate, the meter starts running. So the pusher trying to get grade school kids hooked on crack isn't giving them a free taste... he's just working pro bono.
-
It wasn't taken on contingency. It was handled pro bono. Free. Gratis. No fee. Expenses paid by the firm. Why is it so hard for you to understand that there are generous and kind people in all walks of life?
-
It wasn't taken on contingency. It was handled pro bono. Free. Gratis. No fee. Expenses paid by the firm. Why is it so hard for you to understand that there are generous and kind people in all walks of life?
Because "kind and generous" implies altruism, and you can't be watching out for the good and welfare of others when you have a fiduciary duty to your client, e.g. if you try representing both the interests of your client and the adversarial party equally, you'll eventually be fired or disbarred.
-
https://www.facebook.com/BethInShow/videos/986899561332468/
best part is that manitowoc will probably be really crime/murder free because no one wants to go to court there. classic-it's funny because there is an element of truth there? who the heck wants to face ken kratz? one of those kind of dudes ya can't look at with a straight face...like, sitting there thinking while he's questioning you- in your mind you are going-i wonder what this guy does when he goes home-oh schmit-NOOOOOO, get that out of my mind-lallalalalalalalalalalalalalala.....ummm what? you asked me how i knew steven avery?? then i go take a shower and another hit of meth and .......
i probably just should have lead off with this-don't ya'll think that ken kratz guy is kinda slimy?
-
best part is that manitowoc will probably be really crime/murder free because no one wants to go to court there. classic-it's funny because there is an element of truth there? who the heck wants to face ken kratz? one of those kind of dudes ya can't look at with a straight face...like, sitting there thinking while he's questioning you- in your mind you are going-i wonder what this guy does when he goes home-oh schmit-NOOOOOO, get that out of my mind-lallalalalalalalalalalalalalala.....ummm what? you asked me how i knew steven avery?? then i go take a shower and another hit of meth and .......
i probably just should have lead off with this-don't ya'll think that ken kratz guy is kinda slimy?
Considering Ken Kratz resigned from his position due to a sexting scandal with a client (and admitting to sex and drug addictions) 1) yes I think he's "kinda slimy" and 2) I don't think people in Manitowoc have to worry about facing him in court.
-
Considering Ken Kratz resigned from his position due to a sexting scandal with a client (and admitting to sex and drug addictions) 1) yes I think he's "kinda slimy" and 2) I don't think people in Manitowoc have to worry about facing him in court.
1) the sexting thing-exactly what i was referring to and yes i knew he resigned, but i just couldn't help getting one last dig in. appointed by tommy thompson? hmmmmmm
2)unless they get moved to calumet county? so the manitowoc co. sheriffs are taken off the case?
-
Considering Ken Kratz resigned from his position due to a sexting scandal with a client (and admitting to sex and drug addictions) 1) yes I think he's "kinda slimy" and 2) I don't think people in Manitowoc have to worry about facing him in court.
He also worked in Calumet County.
-
Residents of Manitowoc want everyone to know they aren't all like the folks in the documentary:
http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/01/27/kindness-coffee-await-avery-protesters-manitowoc/79421100/
-
best part is that manitowoc will probably be really crime/murder free because no one wants to go to court there.
For now, perhaps... at least until a convicted murderer walks on a technicality (assuming, of course, he moves back to Manitowoc County).
-
Well, at least manitowoc county sent the message-if you are going to rape and/or murder someone, don't do it here...whether you do or not, just don't look like someone who did ?-(
-
I listened to the first 5 podcasts on the Rebuttal to Making a Murderer at work today. For as one sided as I think the Netflix series is, it is absolutely nothing compared to how one sided this podcast is. Horrible. I have no idea how I listened to roughly an hour of that. He defends the handling of the 1985 rape investigation by saying that the Manitowoc police department didn't have it out for Avery, that Penny Beernsten described a man who had "blonde hair and a beard," and that Avery and Allen looked almost identical. What a joke. I should've just stopped listening there. He talks about Coleburn and Lenk documenting the phone call from 5 or so? years before that Coleburn got regarding Allen telling the police that he committed a sexual assault on someone that they had someone else in jail for to just "putzy police having a moment of 'oh crap did we make a mistake?'" If Coleburn felt like the call was unimportant to the point of not needing to log it, I don't think it sticks around in his mind to the day that Avery is released years later. Heck, Coleburn even admits that he can understand how his phone call to the dispatcher asking for information on Halbach's car could be seen to some as him sitting looking at Halbach's car, while this guy essentially mocks the defense's point. This podcast is a joke. And I think everyone knows that I stand on the side of the podcast in terms of Avery's guilt or innocence.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll skip it.
-
Residents of Manitowoc want everyone to know they aren't all like the folks in the documentary:
http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/01/27/kindness-coffee-await-avery-protesters-manitowoc/79421100/
Well, since they have allowed what passes for justice there to continue they are, in fact, complicit.
TJ wrote that the freedoms guaranteed by our Founding Fathers was to ensure justice and liberty and that the vigilant defense of those freedoms was the active responsibility of the citizenry.
I think that the case raised many serious issues about the criminal justice system in Manitowoc. The silence from that community is deafening.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_uJq-YqxlmA
Put in some headphones and turn the volume on fairly high. Pay attention right after the dispatcher says, "Belongs to Teresa Halbach." See if you can make out any kind of background noise.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_uJq-YqxlmA
Put in some headphones and turn the volume on fairly high. Pay attention right after the dispatcher says, "Belongs to Teresa Halbach." See if you can make out any kind of background noise.
I hear it, but can't make it out. Any ideas?
-
I hear it, but can't make it out. Any ideas?
Paul is dead?
-
I hear it, but can't make it out. Any ideas?
There's a different YouTube video (I didn't want to put an idea of what was said and wanted to see if it was as clear as I think it was or if it was clear because they were telling me what I should be hearing) that claims that someone yells, "The car is here!" right after she says "Belongs to Teresa Halbach." I don't have the link on hand but if you search "Colburn dispatch call explained?" or something you should be able to find it. They go on to claim it is the voice of the woman who found it 2 days later that yells it by comparing how she says, "car" when she calls the sheriff the day she officially found the car to the background noise. I think that's a stretch, but I do think that the background noise does sound like someone yelling, "The car is here!" Crazy if true. I also wanted to get the MaM scene because I didn't know if someone could easily digitally edit that to make the conspiracy, so I wanted the original call, which I think is the case with the video I linked in my last post.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_uJq-YqxlmA
Put in some headphones and turn the volume on fairly high. Pay attention right after the dispatcher says, "Belongs to Teresa Halbach." See if you can make out any kind of background noise.
Out of curiosity, I'm going to have to go home and see if I can replicate this on the Netflix stream (i.e. to prove this isn't a hoax).
But I can certainly hear a female voice saying (not yelling) something along the lines "____ car is here" in the background. Even if genuine, I'm sure the recording would have been closely scrutinized by the defense, and whatever it was (maybe another dispatcher) it was probably found to be innocuous.
However, let's keep in mind that the defense was under orders that they couldn't present evidence of someone having framed Avery... so I'm also wondering if Strang simply couldn't go any further than this because of the judge's order.
-
Out of curiosity, I'm going to have to go home and see if I can replicate this on the Netflix stream (i.e. to prove this isn't a hoax).
But I can certainly hear a female voice saying (not yelling) something along the lines "____ car is here" in the background. Even if genuine, I'm sure the recording would have been closely scrutinized by the defense, and whatever it was (maybe another dispatcher) it was probably found to be innocuous.
However, let's keep in mind that the defense was under orders that they couldn't present evidence of someone having framed Avery... so I'm also wondering if Strang simply couldn't go any further than this because of the judge's order.
Yeah that's why I tried to find the original Making a Murderer scene, because the entire video that I saw/will link below was about what is heard in the background, so I figured it could've easily just been edited to get a reaction. But assuming that what I linked was the actual scene from Making a Murderer, combined with how stumped Colburn was on the stand during cross, there was definitely something going on.
Here's the video on it (which goes on to compare how the witness who was the one that found the car during the search says "car" to the voice in the background of the call to dispatch...which I find to be a reach, but do hear what they are claiming is said in the background).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mf44OIm5JU
-
I hear it, but can't make it out. Any ideas?
I listened on my Bose Noise Cancelling Headphones. You can hear the Sheriff telling his team, "It's time to f#ck that sonuvabitch Avery..."
-
Paul is dead?
Suge shot me.
-
I listened on my Bose Noise Cancelling Headphones. You can hear the Sheriff telling his team, "It's time to f#ck that sonuvabitch Avery..."
Haha well played.
-
Funniest thing I have seen in a long time:
https://www.youtube.com/v/y_vDQjms_V4
-
Paul is dead?
good one!! now play it backwards
-
Funniest thing I have seen in a long time:
https://www.youtube.com/v/y_vDQjms_V4
excellant! man they could make a whole series with this one
-
good one!! now play it backwards
I played it backwards on a first pressing copy of Abbey Road and it says, "Avery is f@cked...Avery is f@cked..."
-
I am extremely late to this party, but Mrs. 82 and I finally finished watching the series and I didn't want to read anything here until we finished.
I found it extremely interesting. It also had more humor than I thought it would have -- much of it unintended. Hell, I kept cracking up every time either of Steven's parents spoke.
I'm the opposite of a conspiracy theorist in that I routinely make fun of conspiracy theorists. I am a voice-of-reason kind of guy who always looks for logical explanations to things.
I'm not going to go point by point with all that's been discussed so far ... and I'm sure everybody's grateful for that. But I will say that I was left with a TON of reasonable doubt.
I read the "rebuttals" to the first five episodes and found them quite shallow and unconvincing -- so much so that I decided not to waste more time by reading the next five. I was more intrigued by all the stuff the filmmakers left out, so I appreciate those links.
Quickly ...
I believe Avery is a scumbag and Brandon is a dolt. I believe Lenk and Colburn (and perhaps a few others from that department) are as dirty as hell. I believe that Brandon's PD should have gone to jail for impersonating an attorney and that Brandon should have received a new trial strictly because of the PD's incompetence and malfeasance. Oh, and I'm glad Kratz was found to have been a total perv, because he obviously is a douchebag.
I am flummoxed that despite officials believing Brandon's story of a horrific, bloody scene, they were not able to find a single drop of blood in that bedroom. But lo and behold, the key materialized out of nowhere. Days later. Found, of course, by Lenk. Who wasn't even supposed to have been there.
There were a bazillion other "coincidences," too. And several other potential suspects who should have at least have been considered.
Based on everything I know -- from the documentary, from the rebuttals, from the extra information the doc didn't show, from the stuff discussed here and in other threads I've checked out, from interviews I've read of impartial lawyers not connected to the case ... I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been able to return a guilty verdict against Steven and definitely not against Brandon.
And then there's my personal bias. I have two friends who were wrongly convicted of crimes. (Two separate cases years apart.) One was exonerated fairly quickly but the other served nearly two years in jail before DNA evidence cleared him. I guess he was lucky it wasn't 18 years. The cops and DA were convinced he was guilty and didn't even look for the real rapist, who never has been caught and probably has raped again. So I know all too well that this crap happens.
I guess I'm just a dopey conspiracy theorist now, too.
-
I am extremely late to this party, but Mrs. 82 and I finally finished watching the series and I didn't want to read anything here until we finished.
I found it extremely interesting. It also had more humor than I thought it would have -- much of it unintended. Hell, I kept cracking up every time either of Steven's parents spoke.
I'm the opposite of a conspiracy theorist in that I routinely make fun of conspiracy theorists. I am a voice-of-reason kind of guy who always looks for logical explanations to things.
I'm not going to go point by point with all that's been discussed so far ... and I'm sure everybody's grateful for that. But I will say that I was left with a TON of reasonable doubt.
I read the "rebuttals" to the first five episodes and found them quite shallow and unconvincing -- so much so that I decided not to waste more time by reading the next five. I was more intrigued by all the stuff the filmmakers left out, so I appreciate those links.
Quickly ...
I believe Avery is a scumbag and Brandon is a dolt. I believe Lenk and Colburn (and perhaps a few others from that department) are as dirty as hell. I believe that Brandon's PD should have gone to jail for impersonating an attorney and that Brandon should have received a new trial strictly because of the PD's incompetence and malfeasance. Oh, and I'm glad Kratz was found to have been a total perv, because he obviously is a douchebag.
I am flummoxed that despite officials believing Brandon's story of a horrific, bloody scene, they were not able to find a single drop of blood in that bedroom. But lo and behold, the key materialized out of nowhere. Days later. Found, of course, by Lenk. Who wasn't even supposed to have been there.
There were a bazillion other "coincidences," too. And several other potential suspects who should have at least have been considered.
Based on everything I know -- from the documentary, from the rebuttals, from the extra information the doc didn't show, from the stuff discussed here and in other threads I've checked out, from interviews I've read of impartial lawyers not connected to the case ... I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been able to return a guilty verdict against Steven and definitely not against Brandon.
And then there's my personal bias. I have two friends who were wrongly convicted of crimes. (Two separate cases years apart.) One was exonerated fairly quickly but the other served nearly two years in jail before DNA evidence cleared him. I guess he was lucky it wasn't 18 years. The cops and DA were convinced he was guilty and didn't even look for the real rapist, who never has been caught and probably has raped again. So I know all too well that this crap happens.
I guess I'm just a dopey conspiracy theorist now, too.
I guess I just find it hard to say whether or not I'd be able to come to a guilty verdict without having actually sat in the weeks long trial hearing all of the evidence being presented, not just some facts to show there is doubt and other facts to show that the doubt was just there because other facts were left out, etc. I think between the "facts" we heard from the biased documentary and the "facts" we heard by the biased opposition to the documentaries we probably heard about 10% of what was presented in the trial.
There were certainly things that were mishandled in the investigation but I think you'd need to listen to the 4 hour confession of Dassey's to even consider whether or not he may be innocent (which I started to do, and after about 20 minutes stopped because it was just plain boring). The more I read about the confession the more I am convinced that while there wasn't a brutal murder in the trailer, Avery murdered Halbach and Dassey at the very least helped with the "clean up."
-
I guess I just find it hard to say whether or not I'd be able to come to a guilty verdict without having actually sat in the weeks long trial hearing all of the evidence being presented, not just some facts to show there is doubt and other facts to show that the doubt was just there because other facts were left out, etc. I think between the "facts" we heard from the biased documentary and the "facts" we heard by the biased opposition to the documentaries we probably heard about 10% of what was presented in the trial.
Agreed.
That's why I said:
"Based on everything I know ... I'm pretty sure ... "
Because I'm not totally sure. And I realize we don't know everything.
It was a great idea for a documentary, and then the murder was a stroke of "luck" for the filmmakers. Even if one acknowledges they had an agenda, they still did a great job of making it compelling.
To make a great doc, a filmmaker needs some luck when it comes to the storyline. Hoop Dreams had that, with so many amazing twists and turns.
-
I found it extremely interesting. It also had more humor than I thought it would have -- much of it unintended. Hell, I kept cracking up every time either of Steven's parents spoke.
Keep in mind, this isn't some fabricated "reality show" like Duck Dynasty... these are real people being filmed in a real setting, i.e. they're not putting on a show for the comedic enjoyment of the audience. Probably not as funny when you consider that you don't get to pick your parents, and this could have been the family you were born into... which, incidentally, I think parallels the reason behind the popularity of the series: there's a very fine line between what one can and cannot control in his/her life, and despite a society based on the fundamentals of human rights and fairness, those with a greater power can not only deliver you the shaft - whether you deserve it or not - but in a manner such that your efforts to resist become an exercise in futility.
-
Keep in mind, this isn't some fabricated "reality show" like Duck Dynasty... these are real people being filmed in a real setting, i.e. they're not putting on a show for the comedic enjoyment of the audience. Probably not as funny when you consider that you don't get to pick your parents, and this could have been the family you were born into... which, incidentally, I think parallels the reason behind the popularity of the series: there's a very fine line between what one can and cannot control in his/her life, and despite a society based on the fundamentals of human rights and fairness, those with a greater power can not only deliver you the shaft - whether you deserve it or not - but in a manner such that your efforts to resist become an exercise in futility.
I think this is an excellent point and what I find most intriguing about the documentary(and something that seems totally lost in the he's a monster/he's totally innocent nonsense) is the meta commentary the doc invokes on two topics:
-Lack of control around the circumstances that one gets at birth
-How easy it is for those with power to use that power in ways that you can't fundamentally fight regardless of the luckiness/unluckiness of your birth.
There is no question that there was shady stuff going on with the powers that be, as an ordinary citizen how do you fight against that? Add in the circumstances of your birth and it's nearly impossible. The justice system is suppose to be blind but I think we see time and time again that it is not whether it's Steven Avery or some poor kid on the city streets of Chicago.
-
The justice system is suppose to be blind but I think we see time and time again that it is not whether it's Steven Avery or some poor kid on the city streets of Chicago.
Exactly. And while I believe it was alluded to earlier in this thread, one cannot back the cause of Black Lives Matter yet disregard the cause of Steven Avery (or vice versa). They are completely analogous to one another.... well, almost analogous if you happen to be a racist bigot or one of those social justice posers.
-
Keep in mind, this isn't some fabricated "reality show" like Duck Dynasty... these are real people being filmed in a real setting, i.e. they're not putting on a show for the comedic enjoyment of the audience. Probably not as funny when you consider that you don't get to pick your parents, and this could have been the family you were born into... which, incidentally, I think parallels the reason behind the popularity of the series: there's a very fine line between what one can and cannot control in his/her life, and despite a society based on the fundamentals of human rights and fairness, those with a greater power can not only deliver you the shaft - whether you deserve it or not - but in a manner such that your efforts to resist become an exercise in futility.
We are in agreement on the seriousness of the issue. During the course of the 10 parts, I had to put the Roku on pause numerous times so my wife and I could discuss how pissed off we were at some of the stuff we were seeing.
That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to find the dialogue and accents to be funny.
I live in North Carolina now and I find myself constantly chuckling.
-
Thankfully that disgusting murderer Avery remains imprisoned.
-
He even looks like a dirty murderer. He's lucky he's not hanging from an oak tree.
(http://images.ibsys.com/2003/1211/2699966.jpg)
-
He even looks like a dirty murderer. He's lucky he's not hanging from an oak tree.
(http://images.ibsys.com/2003/1211/2699966.jpg)
I assume you're joking in response to a few posts?
-
WISN TV 12.
That is the same logo they had back in the day.
When Howard and Rosemary Gernette ruled the airwaves.
(http://onmilwaukee.com/images/articles/mi/milwaukeetvhistory032609/milwaukeetvhistory032609_fullsize_story2.jpg?20090326123914)
-
So how long do these things take? If this attorney has such sure fire evidence that proves Avery is innocent like she's told anyone willing to listen she has, what is the process that has to happen for at least some kind of news to build up around it? Every once in a while there will be some new piece of information that comes out and is hot for a day, and then goes away again (no way the garage isn't on fire, paperwork has faulty dates, etc. etc. etc.).
In my opinion, he never even sees a courtroom. For those lawyers out there, if he does, how long will it be until he does?
-
So how long do these things take? If this attorney has such sure fire evidence that proves Avery is innocent like she's told anyone willing to listen she has, what is the process that has to happen for at least some kind of news to build up around it? Every once in a while there will be some new piece of information that comes out and is hot for a day, and then goes away again (no way the garage isn't on fire, paperwork has faulty dates, etc. etc. etc.).
In my opinion, he never even sees a courtroom. For those lawyers out there, if he does, how long will it be until he does?
Could be months, could be years. Unfortunately for Zellner, she's got the burden of proving him innocent at this point. Keep in mind, Avery has already had appeals denied, so it's quite possible the strategy here is to not simply to demonstrate his innocence, but to find the guilty party. And that takes time, especially when you consider she doesn't have the powers of law enforcement in her investigation.
Also, if it turns out that MCSD is complicit, then there's no rush to get him out... the longer he sits behind bars, the bigger the settlement.
-
Biggest issue is that he's a dirty murdering effer.
-
I'd be really surprised if he gets out or there is some 'new' evidence. Funny how this was the total rage 90 days ago and now it's largely forgotten. As has been said, he's totally out of appeals. In my mind this strongly suggests that scores of folks have looked at it and have reached the same conclusion. Again, I'm not swayed by a 'documentary'. That isn't how we dispense justice here in America. Now of course the courts aren't perfect. But they're still our most foolproof system.
-
I'd be really surprised if he gets out or there is some 'new' evidence. Funny how this was the total rage 90 days ago and now it's largely forgotten. As has been said, he's totally out of appeals. In my mind this strongly suggests that scores of folks have looked at it and have reached the same conclusion. Again, I'm not swayed by a 'documentary'. That isn't how we dispense justice here in America. Now of course the courts aren't perfect. But they're still our most foolproof system.
Steven Avery aside, the treatment of Brendan Dassey by every member of the criminal justice system he encountered, from the sheriff's deputies, to his trial judge, to his own godd@mned court-appointed lawyer and investigator who were actively working against him while supposedly representing him, proves the system is nowhere even remotely close to foolproof. What happened to Mr. Dassey, in an attempt to solidify the case against his uncle, who admittedly very well could have committed the crime, was a tragic miscarriage of justice.
-
Steven Avery aside, the treatment of Brendan Dassey by every member of the criminal justice system he encountered, from the sheriff's deputies, to his trial judge, to his own godd@mned court-appointed lawyer and investigator who were actively working against him while supposedly representing him, proves the system is nowhere even remotely close to foolproof. What happened to Mr. Dassey, in an attempt to solidify the case against his uncle, who admittedly very well could have committed the crime, was a tragic miscarriage of justice.
No disagreement.
-
Steven Avery aside, the treatment of Brendan Dassey by every member of the criminal justice system he encountered, from the sheriff's deputies, to his trial judge, to his own godd@mned court-appointed lawyer and investigator who were actively working against him while supposedly representing him, proves the system is nowhere even remotely close to foolproof. What happened to Mr. Dassey, in an attempt to solidify the case against his uncle, who admittedly very well could have committed the crime, was a tragic miscarriage of justice.
Well said. What happened to that kid by his own lawyer is unconscionable.
-
I don't really know what to think about Dassey. From what I've read, if you listen to the entire 4 (I think it was?) hour confession, he provides some pretty detailed information that he probably couldn't have just made up and ironically matched some of the evidence, and probably didn't come from whatever book he said he made the confession up off of. For example, he apparently said that Avery and him threw Halbach's body into the trunk of her Rav 4 because they were going to go throw the body into a pond, but when they got there the pond had dried up so they returned back to their property and made a fire. That explains why there seemed to be blood stains coming off of a head of hair in the back of her Rav 4. He also said that after they tried to do that, Avery ripped some kind of wiring from under the hood of the Rav 4, which would explain his DNA being under the hood of the car. Unless you believe that sometime before the confession the police put these ideas into Dassey's head, I don't think he could've just happened to have made these things up unless he had some idea as to what really what went on.
The more I read about his confession, the more I think he was probably at the very least involved in the clean up. And as far as I have heard, his confession was the entire case.
-
I don't really know what to think about Dassey. From what I've read, if you listen to the entire 4 (I think it was?) hour confession, he provides some pretty detailed information that he probably couldn't have just made up and ironically matched some of the evidence, and probably didn't come from whatever book he said he made the confession up off of. For example, he apparently said that Avery and him threw Halbach's body into the trunk of her Rav 4 because they were going to go throw the body into a pond, but when they got there the pond had dried up so they returned back to their property and made a fire. That explains why there seemed to be blood stains coming off of a head of hair in the back of her Rav 4. He also said that after they tried to do that, Avery ripped some kind of wiring from under the hood of the Rav 4, which would explain his DNA being under the hood of the car. Unless you believe that sometime before the confession the police put these ideas into Dassey's head, I don't think he could've just happened to have made these things up unless he had some idea as to what really what went on.
The more I read about his confession, the more I think he was probably at the very least involved in the clean up. And as far as I have heard, his confession was the entire case.
All that aside, he had a lawyer that was actively working against him.
On what planet should someone like that be convicted?
-
All that aside, he had a lawyer that was actively working against him.
On what planet should someone like that be convicted?
How that man feels good about himself is beyond me.
-
All that aside, he had a lawyer that was actively working against him.
On what planet should someone like that be convicted?
Who he fired.
-
Who he fired.
After he had already been duped by a private investigator, hired by said attorney into giving a completely made-up statement, which was allowed to be admitted into evidence during the trial.
Damage had been done.
-
Holy crap.
Breaking news that the Dassey conviction has been overturned by a federal judge.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2016/08/12/dassey-wins-ruling-teresa-halbach-murder/88632502/
-
Holy crap.
Breaking news that the Dassey conviction has been overturned by a federal judge.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2016/08/12/dassey-wins-ruling-teresa-halbach-murder/88632502/
How long until he is framed for murder?
-
Honestly, the Dassey conviction always bothered me. I'm not recalling all the details but that one didn't sit quite right.
-
Honestly, the Dassey conviction always bothered me. I'm not recalling all the details but that one didn't sit quite right.
The confession was borderline coerced and his defense attorney was a joke. This is a good decision. The State will definitely attempt to retry.
In the meantime, the state will likely appeal which means he stays in jail.
-
The confession was borderline coerced and his defense attorney was a joke. This is a good decision. The State will definitely attempt to retry.
In the meantime, the state will likely appeal which means he stays in jail.
As I mentioned early in this thread, I have a close personal friend who knows ALL the players well. Not a high opinion of the attorney mentioned at all.
-
As I mentioned early in this thread, I have a close personal friend who knows ALL the players well. Not a high opinion of the attorney mentioned at all.
The behavior of his attorney in the documentary was disgusting.
-
Justice finally made an appearance today
-
The behavior of his attorney in the documentary was disgusting.
His first public defender was particularly disturbing. The magistrate's ruling is essentially substantiates his incompetence; coupled with the high profile nature of this case, I'd say his career as a lawyer, let alone a judge, is nearly over.
-
The confession was borderline coerced and his defense attorney was a joke. This is a good decision. The State will definitely attempt to retry.
In the meantime, the state will likely appeal which means he stays in jail.
Good luck with that. State doesn't stand a chance, now. Dassey is soon to be a free man.
-
Good luck with that. State doesn't stand a chance, now. Dassey is soon to be a free man.
With the 'confession' probably out the window, I'd only be comfortable pursuing this further based on genuine hard evidence. My recollection is they really didn't have any and that the testimony didn't match the forensics. Separately, i don't think this really has anything to do with Avery's guilt or innocence.
-
With the 'confession' probably out the window, I'd only be comfortable pursuing this further based on genuine hard evidence. My recollection is they really didn't have any and that the testimony didn't match the forensics. Separately, i don't think this really has anything to do with Avery's guilt or innocence.
The testimony...that the biased documentary decided to include...did not match the forensics. There were some details that Dassey provided that the documentary conveniently found unimportant to include that only someone who at the very least assisted in the clean up would have known. Or if you want to believe the conspiracy, he was making things up and after the car was already in evidence they tampered with the car to fit Dassey's confession. Oh and the defense will have you believe that Dassey is too stupid to know what he's doing and too easily influenced...but read an elaborate adult 300 page novel and remembered intricate details about it.
-
I agree that the documentary was incredibly biased.
-
I agree that the documentary was incredibly biased.
The documentary is activist journalism without stating so, which makes it (in my mind) somewhat dangerous propaganda.
That said, having lived through that episode in my surrounding community, my personal belief is that this overruling is a good thing. Do I think Dassey is "guilty" in the sense that he was there? I do. But forgetting for a moment how woefully inadequate his legal counsel was, this case should have been tossed on procedural grounds in the first go around. There is the behavior of the prosecution when dealing with a minor, and there is Dassey's limited mental faculties.
This is the justice system working the way it should, many years too late
-
The testimony...that the biased documentary decided to include...did not match the forensics. There were some details that Dassey provided that the documentary conveniently found unimportant to include that only someone who at the very least assisted in the clean up would have known. Or if you want to believe the conspiracy, he was making things up and after the car was already in evidence they tampered with the car to fit Dassey's confession. Oh and the defense will have you believe that Dassey is too stupid to know what he's doing and too easily influenced...but read an elaborate adult 300 page novel and remembered intricate details about it.
Biased or not, there's absolutely no physical evidence connecting Dassey to the murder. If the decision isn't overturned on appeal, the Dassey will walk. There's no way the State will re-try, and if they do, there's no way they'll convince a jury without a confession or any meaningful evidence. Bank on it.
-
Biased or not, there's absolutely no physical evidence connecting Dassey to the murder. If the decision isn't overturned on appeal, the Dassey will walk. There's no way the State will re-try, and if they do, there's no way they'll convince a jury without a confession or any meaningful evidence. Bank on it.
I understand that Brendan will walk because of how the investigation was handled and his lawyer basically working against him. That doesn't mean that Dassey is innocent. He'd have to be pretty good at guessing in order to get the fact that Halbach was shot 3 times and that Avery had to open the hood of Hablach's Rav4 and that they threw her body in the back of her Rav4 (hence her blood consistent with her bleeding head leaving blood marks as if the blood was coming from long hair in the trunk of her Rav4) if he had nothing to do with any of this.
-
In the very little bit of Dassey's confession that they include in MAM, I believe he says that they slashed her throat inside Avery's trailer and then dragged her out to the garage and shot her. What about this theory...Avery gets Halbach into his trailer and attempts to rape her after she takes pictures of the van. She tries to fight Avery off and Avery ends up strangling her to the point that he believes that he has murdered her.
He wraps the body in a tarp or something that will act as a body bag with the plans of putting her into her car and dumping her in the pond that Dassey will eventually claim they drove to to dump her in. He has to move Halbach's car and her body into his garage in order for it to go unnoticed by family member neighbors. Whether he moves the car into the garage first or the wrapped up body first, not sure, but regardless, while moving the body he realizes she's still breathing.
If her body is wrapped up in some kind of tarp and Avery shot her through the tarp, would that contain blood splatter? My guess is not entirely but probably some, so maybe the blood splatter was contained enough that, while Avery did need to bleach his garage floor to make sure there was none left on it, it also was possible to completely wipe the garage floor of it. Avery could have then called Dassey to help him bleach his garage floor, leading to Dassey's jeans becoming bleach stained and would explain how it is possible that there was no blood found in the garage despite the bullet fragment being found in there, and thus not planted.
They then did throw her in the back of the Rav4, Avery collects all of Halbach's personal items that he can find, he can't find her phone so he calls her phone (hence the phone call to her phone, this time not using *67, because he knows that Halbach is dead, so why would he have to hide his number from her phone?) in order to hear the ring, blood trickles out of the tarp, the pond is dried up, they make a fire that night and throw her body and personal items in it, and that's where all the evidence ends up. Heck, maybe her phone is even in the cup holder that he left his blood in and he left his blood there while reaching for her phone.
-
I understand that Brendan will walk because of how the investigation was handled and his lawyer basically working against him. That doesn't mean that Dassey is innocent.
No way of knowing if he was innocent or guilty, but this was absolutely the right decision. Unbelievable incompetence by almost all of those in authority. The scary thing is that similar trials go on all the time.
If the state has evidence, re-try. Otherwise, drop it.
-
In the very little bit of Dassey's confession that they include in MAM, I believe he says that they slashed her throat inside Avery's trailer and then dragged her out to the garage and shot her. What about this theory...Avery gets Halbach into his trailer and attempts to rape her after she takes pictures of the van. She tries to fight Avery off and Avery ends up strangling her to the point that he believes that he has murdered her.
He wraps the body in a tarp or something that will act as a body bag with the plans of putting her into her car and dumping her in the pond that Dassey will eventually claim they drove to to dump her in. He has to move Halbach's car and her body into his garage in order for it to go unnoticed by family member neighbors. Whether he moves the car into the garage first or the wrapped up body first, not sure, but regardless, while moving the body he realizes she's still breathing.
If her body is wrapped up in some kind of tarp and Avery shot her through the tarp, would that contain blood splatter? My guess is not entirely but probably some, so maybe the blood splatter was contained enough that, while Avery did need to bleach his garage floor to make sure there was none left on it, it also was possible to completely wipe the garage floor of it. Avery could have then called Dassey to help him bleach his garage floor, leading to Dassey's jeans becoming bleach stained and would explain how it is possible that there was no blood found in the garage despite the bullet fragment being found in there, and thus not planted.
They then did throw her in the back of the Rav4, Avery collects all of Halbach's personal items that he can find, he can't find her phone so he calls her phone (hence the phone call to her phone, this time not using *67, because he knows that Halbach is dead, so why would he have to hide his number from her phone?) in order to hear the ring, blood trickles out of the tarp, the pond is dried up, they make a fire that night and throw her body and personal items in it, and that's where all the evidence ends up. Heck, maybe her phone is even in the cup holder that he left his blood in and he left his blood there while reaching for her phone.
Dude...seriously?
-
Avery is a disgusting murderer
-
In the very little bit of Dassey's confession that they include in MAM, I believe he says that they slashed her throat inside Avery's trailer and then dragged her out to the garage and shot her. What about this theory...Avery gets Halbach into his trailer and attempts to rape her after she takes pictures of the van. She tries to fight Avery off and Avery ends up strangling her to the point that he believes that he has murdered her.
He wraps the body in a tarp or something that will act as a body bag with the plans of putting her into her car and dumping her in the pond that Dassey will eventually claim they drove to to dump her in. He has to move Halbach's car and her body into his garage in order for it to go unnoticed by family member neighbors. Whether he moves the car into the garage first or the wrapped up body first, not sure, but regardless, while moving the body he realizes she's still breathing.
If her body is wrapped up in some kind of tarp and Avery shot her through the tarp, would that contain blood splatter? My guess is not entirely but probably some, so maybe the blood splatter was contained enough that, while Avery did need to bleach his garage floor to make sure there was none left on it, it also was possible to completely wipe the garage floor of it. Avery could have then called Dassey to help him bleach his garage floor, leading to Dassey's jeans becoming bleach stained and would explain how it is possible that there was no blood found in the garage despite the bullet fragment being found in there, and thus not planted.
They then did throw her in the back of the Rav4, Avery collects all of Halbach's personal items that he can find, he can't find her phone so he calls her phone (hence the phone call to her phone, this time not using *67, because he knows that Halbach is dead, so why would he have to hide his number from her phone?) in order to hear the ring, blood trickles out of the tarp, the pond is dried up, they make a fire that night and throw her body and personal items in it, and that's where all the evidence ends up. Heck, maybe her phone is even in the cup holder that he left his blood in and he left his blood there while reaching for her phone.
I like it!
I look forward to this screenplay being adapted for Spike Lee's dramaticized version of the documentary (it could replace the one he was planning to do about Hoop Dreams but never did).
As for Dassey, I always felt he was totally screwed by the system and should have walked.
-
I understand that Brendan will walk because of how the investigation was handled and his lawyer basically working against him. That doesn't mean that Dassey is innocent. He'd have to be pretty good at guessing in order to get the fact that Halbach was shot 3 times and that Avery had to open the hood of Hablach's Rav4 and that they threw her body in the back of her Rav4 (hence her blood consistent with her bleeding head leaving blood marks as if the blood was coming from long hair in the trunk of her Rav4) if he had nothing to do with any of this.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. The prosecution and his own attorney unnatural carnal knowledgeed up. He should walk.
-
Avery is a disgusting murderer
Maybe. Maybe not.
But this recent news has almost nothing to do with him. Keep up.
-
Maybe. Maybe not.
But this recent news has almost nothing to do with him. Keep up.
He is a disgusting murderer. It bears repeating. Keep up.
PS - wish the topic of this thread wasn't "wrong"
-
The behavior of his attorney in the documentary was disgusting.
Shoulda probably stuck to his day job then, Eyn'a? Hopefully he wasn't a "warrior".
-
He is a disgusting murderer. It bears repeating. Keep up.
Chances are, he probably is. Which makes the D.A.'s and the County's behavior all the more disgusting... it's because of the Mad Kratzer's, Tweedle-Colborn's, and Tweedle-Wiegert's extreme incompetence / arrogance that the people of Manitowoc County are now faced with the extreme likelihood that not just one, but potentially two murders are going to be set free.... consider the following:
Let's assume for a moment that Dassey and Avery did do it. Moreover, let's say that everything happened exactly the way the prosecution presented it. If the State doesn't retry Dassey, one murderer walks. If the State does retry Dassey - and let's face facts, here... there's no way that even if an impartial jury can be found anywhere in Wisconsin is going to convict Dassey without the confession - Dassey is most likely going to be acquitted. And then, thanks to the Fifth Amendment, Dassey could come clean without fear of further prosecution and even testify that he acted alone (which is actually a popular theory in circulation), which means Stevie eventually walks, too.
As a result, it won't be long before two murderers go free.
So it bears repeating: two murderers may go free because of the extreme incompetence / arrogance of three men:
1. Ken Kratz
2. Andrew Colborn
3. Mark Wiegert
The anger, frustration, fear, sadness, and every other emotion that the Halbach family and residents of Manitowoc County will now have to relive rests not with Avery, Dassey, the producers or social media... it rests with these three men.
And inevitably, Dassey and Avery will write a book... which will be eventually be published c. 2032 after going through a dozen different proofreaders who died of exhaustion and/or multiple simultaneous aneurysms.
-
Chances are, he probably is. Which makes the D.A.'s and the County's behavior all the more disgusting... it's because of the Mad Kratzer's, Tweedle-Colborn's, and Tweedle-Wiegert's extreme incompetence / arrogance that the people of Manitowoc County are now faced with the extreme likelihood that not just one, but potentially two murders are going to be set free.... consider the following:
Let's assume for a moment that Dassey and Avery did do it. Moreover, let's say that everything happened exactly the way the prosecution presented it. If the State doesn't retry Dassey, one murderer walks. If the State does retry Dassey - and let's face facts, here... there's no way that even if an impartial jury can be found anywhere in Wisconsin is going to convict Dassey without the confession - Dassey is most likely going to be acquitted. And then, thanks to the Fifth Amendment, Dassey could come clean without fear of further prosecution and even testify that he acted alone (which is actually a popular theory in circulation), which means Stevie eventually walks, too.
As a result, it won't be long before two murderers go free.
So it bears repeating: two murderers may go free because of the extreme incompetence / arrogance of three men:
1. Ken Kratz
2. Andrew Colborn
3. Mark Wiegert
The anger, frustration, fear, sadness, and every other emotion that the Halbach family and residents of Manitowoc County will now have to relive rests not with Avery, Dassey, the producers or social media... it rests with these three men.
And inevitably, Dassey and Avery will write a book... which will be eventually be published c. 2032 after going through a dozen different proofreaders who died of exhaustion and/or multiple simultaneous aneurysms.
That's not how it would work. A confession from someone else would help but it wouldn't guarantee anything. And Dassey wouldn't be able to confess for years and years and even after everything was done with his case it'd be a bad decision for him to admit anything.
-
That's not how it would work. A confession from someone else would help but it wouldn't guarantee anything. And Dassey wouldn't be able to confess for years and years and even after everything was done with his case it'd be a bad decision for him to admit anything.
Why would it be "years and years"?
-
Why would it be "years and years"?
Because in order for him to be entirely free of any chance of being thrown in jail for the Halbach murder the case would need to be retried and he'd need to be acquitted. And if the state felt there was something there to the point of retrying him and he was acquitted then there would be appeals for a long time. And if Dassey decided to confess to murdering Halbach while appeals are still ongoing or possible...oops?
It's August of 2016 and we're still having appeals from the original case, which was in 2007. If Dassey was retried and acquitted the state would be going through appeals for years. These things move slowly.
-
A confession would be "new evidence." Therefore Dassey could be tried again without violating the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.
-
A confession would be "new evidence." Therefore Dassey could be tried again without violating the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.
That too.
Plus, even if somehow it wasn't new evidence and Dassey was clear of all criminal charges, he'd get murdered in civil court if he came out with a confession.
-
A confession would be "new evidence." Therefore Dassey could be tried again without violating the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.
This is absolutely not true. If the "new evidence" can be charged as a new crime, that's a different matter. But if Dassey confesses (again) after a re-trial, he can't be retried again.
-
This is absolutely not true. If the "new evidence" can be charged as a new crime, that's a different matter. But if Dassey confesses (again) after a re-trial, he can't be retried again.
Yes you are correct. My error.
-
This is absolutely not true. If the "new evidence" can be charged as a new crime, that's a different matter. But if Dassey confesses (again) after a re-trial, he can't be retried again.
You are right. It theoretically could go down that way. But the only way it could get to that point is with an acquittal of Dassey in a retrial, not just with being released from jail due to a mistrial as it is now. With the state knowing Dassey is being released on mistrial, they would also conclude that Dassey's original confession would be thrown out from any courtroom in a retrial and they would have nothing against him. They wouldn't retry him. And without retrying him there is no double jeopardy, so a confession from Dassey puts him right back in jail.
Even if it was possible (it isn't) that the state retries him and all the appeals occur, etc. etc. etc. in the next year and Dassey walks free (again, this process would take many years, but pretending it wouldn't...) and then admits to murdering Halbach himself, it would not lead to an acquittal for Steven Avery.
-
At this point, the Dassey stuff is not about guilt or innocence, it is about the justice system being broken. Charging authorities are incentivized to make convictions, not seek justice. The sooner we move past whether Avery and/or Dassey are guilty and actually look at how we arrived at the conclusion the faster we could actually fix something.
-
At this point, the Dassey stuff is not about guilt or innocence, it is about the justice system being broken. Charging authorities are incentivized to make convictions, not seek justice. The sooner we move past whether Avery and/or Dassey are guilty and actually look at how we arrived at the conclusion the faster we could actually fix something.
Agreed on Dassey. His case was mishandled by someone who was supposed to be working for and helping him. I'm not at all sure that's the case with Avery. If a person who was last seen at my house went missing and their charred bone fragments and personal belongings were found in my fire pit with a bullet hole in their head and the matching gun in my bedroom, their car found on my property with my DNA on it, etc., that's a pretty easy guilty conviction and life in prison for me. If it's proven that the evidence was planted then I have an argument. But that hasn't been proven. Apparently this new (well, no longer new anymore) lawyer has proof of this, or so we've been publicly told for a long time now. When we'll be shown said evidence? Anybody's guess. My guess? She has none.
-
Agreed on Dassey. His case was mishandled by someone who was supposed to be working for and helping him. I'm not at all sure that's the case with Avery. If a person who was last seen at my house went missing and their charred bone fragments and personal belongings were found in my fire pit with a bullet hole in their head and the matching gun in my bedroom, their car found on my property with my DNA on it, etc., that's a pretty easy guilty conviction and life in prison for me. If it's proven that the evidence was planted then I have an argument. But that hasn't been proven. Apparently this new (well, no longer new anymore) lawyer has proof of this, or so we've been publicly told for a long time now. When we'll be shown said evidence? Anybody's guess. My guess? She has none.
There was misconduct in both Dassey and Avery investigations/prosecutions. The degree of the misconduct varied but they were A) interrelated B) completely unnecessary if either party is guilty. We should have a zero tolerance policy for abuse of power independent of the guilt or innocence of the individual involved.
-
Attorneys behave badly quite often.
So does Avery
-
Attorneys behave badly quite often.
So does Avery
And neither should excuse the other. The individual should always have the benefit over the state....we've flipped that script in the last 40 years.
-
There was misconduct in both Dassey and Avery investigations/prosecutions. The degree of the misconduct varied but they were A) interrelated B) completely unnecessary if either party is guilty. We should have a zero tolerance policy for abuse of power independent of the guilt or innocence of the individual involved.
I think this degree question is relevant. And I want to be careful about the use of the word 'misconduct'. No investigation is every 100% perfect; mistakes happen. Certainly from my perspective the lengthy interrogation of a 'slow' youth without an attorney present would seem to be a miscarriage of justice. Note that I'm not speaking about its technical legality or changes that may have occurred in the law. I'm simply saying that doesn't pass the smell test.
But at the complete other end of the spectrum would be routine departures from formal written procedure that happen every day at every crime scene. I'll use Dennis Fung at the OJ trial. The defense made a huge deal about the handling of evidence 'outside' proper procedures. Yeah, okay. It wasn't perfect but I can see through that straw man argument and exercise reasonable judgment to know OJ did it. And I'm justified in doing that.
Now I can't remember all the supposed Avery framing that took place but the fact that a detective might have failed to sign the log doesn't mean he planted evidence. Doesn't mean he didn't but the totality needs to be weighed. I think I recall one theory that the cops actually killed Halbach just so they could frame Avery. Really? Better have some very strong evidence of that.
-
I think this degree question is relevant. And I want to be careful about the use of the word 'misconduct'. No investigation is every 100% perfect; mistakes happen. Certainly from my perspective the lengthy interrogation of a 'slow' youth without an attorney present would seem to be a miscarriage of justice. Note that I'm not speaking about its technical legality or changes that may have occurred in the law. I'm simply saying that doesn't pass the smell test.
But at the complete other end of the spectrum would be routine departures from formal written procedure that happen every day at every crime scene. I'll use Dennis Fung at the OJ trial. The defense made a huge deal about the handling of evidence 'outside' proper procedures. Yeah, okay. It wasn't perfect but I can see through that straw man argument and exercise reasonable judgment to know OJ did it. And I'm justified in doing that.
Now I can't remember all the supposed Avery framing that took place but the fact that a detective might have failed to sign the log doesn't mean he planted evidence. Doesn't mean he didn't but the totality needs to be weighed. I think I recall one theory that the cops actually killed Halbach just so they could frame Avery. Really? Better have some very strong evidence of that.
I don't disagree with you, the conspiracy stuff clouds the actual issues around investigatorial and prosecutorial conduct. There are mountains and there are mole hills and its a classic defense tactic to turn mole hills into mountains. My contention is that there were significant mountains in the Dassey case and there were at least hills in the Avery case. To me there is clear evidence that authorities, especially the sheriff's department wanted it to be Avery, irrespective of his actual guilt or innocence. I get that routine procedural issues occur, but there were some pretty blatant ones including, but not limited to, an officer being on-site and finding multiple pieces of key evidence despite his not supposed to be there at all. Additionally, it's some times what you don't do not just what you do. There was a lack of follow up on a number of pieces of evidence/testimony that may or may not have led to different theories of the crime.
It's fair to highlight the use of misconduct, what the various organizations did may not have been criminal in nature or rise to the absolute definition of misconduct but it certainly indicates to me a breaking of faith with the intent and spirit of the justice system.
-
At this point, the Dassey stuff is not about guilt or innocence, it is about the justice system being broken. Charging authorities are incentivized to make convictions, not seek justice. The sooner we move past whether Avery and/or Dassey are guilty and actually look at how we arrived at the conclusion the faster we could actually fix something.
Exactly. Unfortunately, it's going to take the release of a high-profile murderer* or two for people to wake up to this. Even more unfortunate, this may not be the case for that.
* O.J. doesn't count. That was merely a demonstration of a stellar defense team. I'm talking about a clear case where the prosecution and law enforcement crossed the line on multiple occasions leading to the acquittal of an actual murderer.
-
Attorneys behave badly quite often.
So does Avery
Yes, but Avery isn't an "officer of the court" or a "protector of the public."
The good guys aren't supposed to be the bad guys.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/08/26/avery-seeks-new-testing-evidence/89262098/
A boatload of money is about to be spent on a boatload of DNA testing.
If there's any truth to Zellner's speculation and more than one person was involved in framing Avery, there are at least a couple of cats in Manitowoc County who are going to be praying to Allah the next few weeks that the other guy(s) don't crack.
-
Thanks for this thread. Sorry I am very late to the game, but I am binge watching this over the weekend....superlative documentary!!!
I love that there is no narration...what a great production job to tell the entire story through interviews. Incredible drama
I will watch it all and then catch up/vote/weigh in
Again thanks for alerting me to this series...compelling TV
-
Thanks for this thread. Sorry I am very late to the game, but I am binge watching this over the weekend....superlative documentary!!!
I love that there is no narration...what a great production job to tell the entire story through interviews. Incredible drama
I will watch it all and then catch up/vote/weigh in
Again thanks for alerting me to this series...compelling TV
Make sure to ask Jay Bee what he thinks when you're done.
-
Yes, but Avery isn't an "officer of the court" or a "protector of the public."
The good guys aren't supposed to be the bad guys.
"Protector of the public" lol
Humans aren't supposed to murder innocents
-
"Protector of the public" lol
Humans aren't supposed to murder innocents
Of course.
I guess it's OK if you don't hold police officers to higher standards than the general population. I do. And I think most cops would say they do. But it's OK if you don't.
-
"Protector of the public" lol
Humans aren't supposed to murder innocents
Meat is murder. Tasty, tasty murder.
Oh wait... Is this the smoker thread?
-
Twitta Twacka
------
Kathleen Zellner @ZellnerLaw Sep 3
Crucial witnesses coming forward now-as they always do when new scientific testing sought. Science not spin will rule.
#MakingAMurderer
------
More often than not, these tweets are not so much reporting as they are predicting... at the very least Zellner is using the same tactic as law enforcement, i.e. "you might as well confess because the other guy told us everything" to motivate someone to come forward who's kept in the shadows or kept his/her story in the shadows until now.
This could be nothing more than a fishing expedition, but as I said from the very beginning, Zellner doesn't take high profile cases unless she's damn sure she can win. Obviously, Zellner seems to be buying large on the theory that there was some sort of collusion involved, whether Avery was framed or not.
Frankly, I still don't care if Avery is guilty or not, as soon as Zellner's appeal is granted, Netflix stock is almost assured a 15% jump on the demand prospects of Season 2 alone.
-
Twitta Twacka
------
Kathleen Zellner @ZellnerLaw Sep 3
Crucial witnesses coming forward now-as they always do when new scientific testing sought. Science not spin will rule.
#MakingAMurderer
------
More often than not, these tweets are not so much reporting as they are predicting... at the very least Zellner is using the same tactic as law enforcement, i.e. "you might as well confess because the other guy told us everything" to motivate someone to come forward who's kept in the shadows or kept his/her story in the shadows until now.
This could be nothing more than a fishing expedition, but as I said from the very beginning, Zellner doesn't take high profile cases unless she's damn sure she can win. Obviously, Zellner seems to be buying large on the theory that there was some sort of collusion involved, whether Avery was framed or not.
Frankly, I still don't care if Avery is guilty or not, as soon as Zellner's appeal is granted, Netflix stock is almost assured a 15% jump on the demand prospects of Season 2 alone.
Yeah, a lawyer who is as successful as she is isn't going to be sitting there Tweeting inside information on the case. Which is why she's Tweeting absolute nothings about this. She wouldn't be where she was making it public when new evidence was found. She's been doing this since the day she took the case, and yet we still haven't heard any actual evidence that will exonerate Avery, we haven't heard about an actual appeal, nothing. She's trying to keep this hype train rolling.
I still stand by my thought that her taking this case means absolutely nothing about whether she thinks she can get Avery out of jail. Just by taking his case she already won. There couldn't have possibly been more publicity for this story, and now everyone in America knows who Kathleen Zellner is. She already won, even if/when Avery remains locked up behind bars for the rest of his life.
Since the second she took this case all you see if you go to her Law Offices home page is "Now Representing STEVEN AVERY." It remains that way 8 months later or whatever it's been. She already got everything she needed out of this case.
-
Zellner is creepy. Smart, $ & power hungry gal
Avery is a dirty murderer
-
Zellner is creepy. Smart, $ & power hungry gal
Avery is a dirty murderer
I pretty much agree with all of this.
-
Zellner is creepy. Smart, $ & power hungry gal
Avery is a dirty murderer
Men are ambitious.
Women are power hungry.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2016/09/06/new-book-counters-making-murderer/89765210/
Griesbach, as mentioned way earlier in this thread, is the brother of Federal Judge William Griesbach and son of a deceased professor and member of Marquette's athletic board. Good guy, smart and respected prosecutor.
-
Hey! Stevo is a playa again-broke off his engagement to Sandra greenman just days after it was announced. Maybe she had bad breath or something, Eyn'a?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/02/making-murderer-subject-breaks-off-brief-engagement.html
-
Making a Murderer: Judge Orders New Testing of Steven Avery Evidence
Steven Avery, the subject of the Netflix series Making a Murderer, has something to give thanks for this Thanksgiving after a judge on Wednesday ordered new testing of evidence for his case.
Avery’s lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, said an agreement to start independent scientific testing on critical pieces of evidence was signed, according to CBS News.
...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/making-murderer-judge-orders-testing-054540303.html
In related news, Brendan Dassey (the nephew) was ordered to be released.
-
Making a Murderer: Judge Orders New Testing of Steven Avery Evidence
Steven Avery, the subject of the Netflix series Making a Murderer, has something to give thanks for this Thanksgiving after a judge on Wednesday ordered new testing of evidence for his case.
Avery’s lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, said an agreement to start independent scientific testing on critical pieces of evidence was signed, according to CBS News.
...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/making-murderer-judge-orders-testing-054540303.html
In related news, Brendan Dassey (the nephew) was ordered to be released.
That is old news. Besides, it was blocked on appeal. Even if the court rules in his favor, he might not be out for at least a year.
-
They should let that kid go. What the system did to that guy is unconscionable.
That f#cking idiot lawyer of his should be thrown in the slammer and have his bung reamed out. The fact that moron is still out there practicing law, in fact serving in some sort of magisterial role, is a disgrace.
-
Rumor on the street is that Zellner already knows who framed Avery and testing won't just exonerate Avery but is also going to put that person in jail for a long time. She isn't just going for the enchilada... she's aiming to serve up a whole platter of chimichangas. Which must be why (also rumored) Zellner is legitimately in fear that she might become a target herself, which is why she has more than Moira and Laura following and documenting her every move the second she crosses the border.
If I were a resident of Manitowoc County, I'd be moving the hell out of there pronto. Shiite gonna get turned upside down and the entire place is about to become a five-ring circus of media, court hearings, lawsuits, public uproar, international scrutiny, etc. for the next decade+ if it turns out any LE official had something to do with this.
Far fetched, but within the realm of possibility... because of the phenomenon this has already become internationally, imagine a guy like Putin or Assad actually showcasing this as an example of USA's corruption in an attempt to discredit their critics or distract from their next fiasco. Right or wrong, the international community would eat that up... "who cares that these guys just gassed a few thousand of their own citizens, the holier-than-thou USA put that innocent man we saw on the tele in jail twice." Whoever Trump appoints as SecState might consider getting their ass to Manitowoc for a preemptive visit.
Couldn't happen to a nicer community, IMO. "Bass ackwards" as the locals say. Who I do feel sorry for is Schimel... he had nothing to do with any of this and his career is going to become collateral damage just because he happens to be the soup du jour.
-
Rumor on the street is that Zellner already knows who framed Avery and testing won't just exonerate Avery but is also going to put that person in jail for a long time. She isn't just going for the enchilada... she's aiming to serve up a whole platter of chimichangas. Which must be why (also rumored) Zellner is legitimately in fear that she might become a target herself, which is why she has more than Moira and Laura following and documenting her every move the second she crosses the border.
If I were a resident of Manitowoc County, I'd be moving the hell out of there pronto. Shiite gonna get turned upside down and the entire place is about to become a five-ring circus of media, court hearings, lawsuits, public uproar, international scrutiny, etc. for the next decade+ if it turns out any LE official had something to do with this.
Far fetched, but within the realm of possibility... because of the phenomenon this has already become internationally, imagine a guy like Putin or Assad actually showcasing this as an example of USA's corruption in an attempt to discredit their critics or distract from their next fiasco. Right or wrong, the international community would eat that up... "who cares that these guys just gassed a few thousand of their own citizens, the holier-than-thou USA put that innocent man we saw on the tele in jail twice." Whoever Trump appoints as SecState might consider getting their ass to Manitowoc for a preemptive visit.
Couldn't happen to a nicer community, IMO. "Bass ackwards" as the locals say. Who I do feel sorry for is Schimel... he had nothing to do with any of this and his career is going to become collateral damage just because he happens to be the soup du jour.
I'm a skeptic. But we will see.
-
Couldn't happen to a nicer community, IMO. "Bass ackwards" as the locals say.
I know quite a number of folks from Manitowoc (almost all Marquette grads), and they are some of the finest people I know. Please don't paint with such a broad brush.
-
I know quite a number of folks from Manitowoc (almost all Marquette grads), and they are some of the finest people I know. Please don't paint with such a broad brush.
Of course they are.. because when you run the riff-raff out of town and/or throw them in jail for no reason, all that's left are the finest people.
That said... I agree there are many truly good people in Manitowoc Co. And while the broad brush was very much tongue in cheek, my recommendation to move is much more genuine (although rhetorical)... because the good people of the County are the ones who will bear the greatest burden in all of this.
-
Avery is a dirty murderer. The idea of him being free is awful.
-
Avery is a dirty murderer. The idea of him being free is awful.
Wonder if these independent testers will be in on the "frame job" as well.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36HobZnwWM
http://"https://www.youtube.com/embed/d36HobZnwWM"
-
Does anybody with a better understanding of the legal system and/or DNA testing have any idea how long the process may take to get all this new evidence tested? I assume that they have started the testing. Any idea on when some results may be coming and/or when a decision on the filed appeal may be reached?
I assume that they have the cameras rolling on all of this for a second season.
-
Does anybody with a better understanding of the legal system and/or DNA testing have any idea how long the process may take to get all this new evidence tested? I assume that they have started the testing. Any idea on when some results may be coming and/or when a decision on the filed appeal may be reached?
I assume that they have the cameras rolling on all of this for a second season.
It's not so much the testing, but Zellner needs a new narrative to push.
She effected a case very close to me, and set a somewhat guilty man free.
-
It's not so much the testing, but Zellner needs a new narrative to push.
She effected a case very close to me, and set a somewhat guilty man free.
In our legal system, you're either guilty, or you aren't. If the prosecution doesn't meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be set free.
-
Couldn't happen to a nicer community, IMO. "Bass ackwards" as the locals say.
The handful of us forward moving, law-abiding professionals from Manitowoc can hardly wait for what we are so deserving of living in our "nice community". Dickhead.
-
The handful of us forward moving, law-abiding professionals from Manitowoc can hardly wait for what we are so deserving of living in our "nice community". Dickhead.
This doesn't make any sense.
-
In our legal system, you're either guilty, or you aren't. If the prosecution doesn't meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be set free.
Somewhat was a bad choice. He was guilty, he was convicted under the wrong charges as the SA went for a home run.
Zellner got 20/20, which briefly featured Mrs. PTM, to buy and push a false narrative. It's sad, but she won.
-
This doesn't make any sense.
It's hilarious, he's got his wording "Bass ackwards"
-
Somewhat was a bad choice. He was guilty, he was convicted under the wrong charges as the SA went for a home run.
Zellner got 20/20, which briefly featured Mrs. PTM, to buy and push a false narrative. It's sad, but she won.
That makes a bit more sense than how your first post sounded. Sorry for whatever happened to you.
-
She effected a case very close to me, and set a somewhat guilty man free.
That you refer to someone as "somewhat" guilty is precisely why that person shouldn't be in prison.
-
That makes a bit more sense than how your first post sounded. Sorry for whatever happened to you.
Nah, it's cool, I needed a better explanation.
-
Not really new news but hasn't been discussed here. Have seen Season 2 will come out by the end of the year. I also see Ken Kratz is in the headlines doing interviews with his book scheduled to be released soon. I will not be putting money in that guy's pocket by purchasing that one.
-
Steven Avery's attorney has filed a 1,272-page notice for post conviction relief in Manitowoc County, Action 2 News has learned.
Kathleen Zellner appeared in person to file the document Wednesday rather than providing an electronic filing. Read the first 220 pages of the document on Kathleen Zellner's web site.
http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Making-A-Murderer-Averys-attorney-files-1000-page-post-conviction-notice-427053043.html?cid=twitter_WBAY
Local news for the win!
-
Steven Avery's attorney has filed a 1,272-page notice for post conviction relief in Manitowoc County, Action 2 News has learned.
Kathleen Zellner appeared in person to file the document Wednesday rather than providing an electronic filing. Read the first 220 pages of the document on Kathleen Zellner's web site.
http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Making-A-Murderer-Averys-attorney-files-1000-page-post-conviction-notice-427053043.html?cid=twitter_WBAY
Local news for the win!
Throw it all and see what sticks.
-
Throw it all and see what sticks.
Yup.
-
Gotta break out crazy, wasteful tactics like this when you're trying to fee an awful murderer, ainul?
-
Gotta break out crazy, wasteful tactics like this when you're trying to fee an awful murderer, ainul?
Also yup.
-
Gotta break out crazy, wasteful tactics like this when you're trying to fee an awful murderer, ainul?
It's what she does.
-
'As of the filing of this petition, Mr. Avery has been locked up for 10,909 days for crimes
he did not commit. Mr. Avery has been alive for 20,058 days, so over 54% of his life has been
spent behind bars. Ms. Halbach's entire life spanned just 9,355 days. Of the 4,238 days that have
passed since Ms. Halbach's murder, only 9 short days were devoted by law enforcement to
identifying the alleged murderer, much less time than the average vacation time allocated in
2005 to the law enforcement personnel involved in the 9-day effort leading to the arrest of Mr.
Avery.'
Helluva legal argument there Kathy.
-
'As of the filing of this petition, Mr. Avery has been locked up for 10,909 days for crimes
he did not commit. Mr. Avery has been alive for 20,058 days, so over 54% of his life has been
spent behind bars. Ms. Halbach's entire life spanned just 9,355 days. Of the 4,238 days that have
passed since Ms. Halbach's murder, only 9 short days were devoted by law enforcement to
identifying the alleged murderer, much less time than the average vacation time allocated in
2005 to the law enforcement personnel involved in the 9-day effort leading to the arrest of Mr.
Avery.'
Helluva legal argument there Kathy.
lies, damn lies, and statistics.
-
lies, damn lies, and statistics.
It's literally how her brief starts. Can you imagine what a waste of time the rest much be? I feel for the poor judge that has to keep reading because that's his job. Sorry, I have zero patience for bullcrap.
-
This morning she also tweeted that the recent examination of the bullet that supposedly was fired through her head was found to have actually had wood and paint residue not skin/bone etc.
-
This morning she also tweeted that the recent examination of the bullet that supposedly was fired through her head was found to have actually had wood and paint residue not skin/bone etc.
Lawyers for the innocent don't tweet their evidence, they present it. Tweeting (meaning only playing on public sympathy) is for the guilty.
-
People tweet these days, I assume she presented it in the brief she filed with the court this week.
Even the leader of the free world tweets.
-
People tweet these days, I assume she presented it in the brief she filed with the court this week.
Even the leader of the free world tweets.
Of course she presented it. Why do you think defense lawyers hold big press conferences?
-
Lawyers for the innocent don't tweet their evidence, they present it. Tweeting (meaning only playing on public sympathy) is for the guilty.
Right or wrong, I'm not sure the same rules apply to this case.
-
Even the leader of the free world tweets.
Actually, I don't think Angela Merkel has Twitter.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2017/06/22/key/419836001/?hootPostID=6c76b4b1281658f41b3054f688e5a74b
Appeals court affirms ruling overturning Dassey's conviction. I feel good about this.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2017/06/22/key/419836001/?hootPostID=6c76b4b1281658f41b3054f688e5a74b
Appeals court affirms ruling overturning Dassey's conviction. I feel good about this.
Ya know, if the Dassey stuff hadn't happened I'm pretty sure the Netflix series doesn't happen and nobody cares about this story. Whether that's good or bad from a justice standpoint I don't know (depends on if you think Avery did it or not).
Great example of a prosecutors reach exceeding their grasp
-
My apologies to my earlier mud-dragging of Manitowoc County. I was mistaken in assuming that the DOJ sh|tshow belonged to them.
If the state truly believes that Brendan Dassey did what they say he did, simply retry him. If they don't think they will win a conviction without his confession, they need to set him free pending appeal.
This is no longer about "who did it." It's about civil rights and due process. Even if Dassey is truly guilty, he needs to walk to set an example to the police, investigators, prosecutors, etc. in this state (and the US) that the rule of law applies to everyone at all times.
Failure to observe and respect the rule of law universally and without prejudice was nearly the death of this country once, and those who don't learn from history, blah, blah, blah.
-
Dassey’s confession sticks. Will continue to be locked up.
Avery is a dirty murderer
-
Supreme Court declines to take on Dassey appeal. Nice!
Avery is a dirty murderer
-
As opposed to Dexter, a clean murderer.
-
Supreme Court declines to take on Dassey appeal. Nice!
Avery is a dirty murderer
It's not over yet.
According to Kathleen Zellner, the Avery appeal is going back to the circuit court because the State finally disclosed evidence it failed to disclose for 12 years and the Court wants to know all about it.
-
It's not over yet.
According to Kathleen Zellner, the Avery appeal is going back to the circuit court because the State finally disclosed evidence it failed to disclose for 12 years and the Court wants to know all about it.
According to my defense lawyer buddy (who's more familiar with KZ than he'd care to be), the evidence on the CD - an examination of a computer in the Dassey house - is not likely to contain anything that's going to be explicitly exculpatory, which is basically Avery's last hope at this point. However, he also mentioned that Zellner is probably aware of the CD's irrelevance, and wouldn't waste her time on it unless it was strategic, i.e. on its own, it's worthless, but it could be a step in helping reveal or corroborate a greater theory.
He also said this has devolved into one big cluster that's going to soon be impossible for even seasoned professionals to follow, let alone judges and LEO's who typically go an entire career without seeing a case anywhere close to this.
That said, Netflix has essentially placed a big bet that isn't going to pay off unless Avery gets sprung (or at least if there isn't some sort of revelation that rises beyond yawn-worthy in Season 2). Not to mention the hit that Zellner's ego is going to take if she can't prevail (this case might be the end of Zellner's career, one way or the other).
I'm still in the camp that believes Avery's guilt/innocence is irrelevant since the legal system failed and therefore, he should be released. But I'm not optimistic given said downward spiral of complexity which is going to basically confuse people to the point where rule of law can only yield to conventional wisdom (i.e. he's guilty).
-
Brendan Dassey's sh!tbag lawyer arrested for stalking:
http://www.vulture.com/2018/07/former-making-a-murderer-lawyer-arrested-for-stalking.html
-
Brendan Dassey's sh!tbag lawyer arrested for stalking:
http://www.vulture.com/2018/07/former-making-a-murderer-lawyer-arrested-for-stalking.html
That guy was truly the worst.
-
Just finished the 2nd season (or "Part 2" as Netflix is calling it), and reflected on an earlier post:
According to my defense lawyer buddy (who's more familiar with KZ than he'd care to be), the evidence on the CD - an examination of a computer in the Dassey house - is not likely to contain anything that's going to be explicitly exculpatory, which is basically Avery's last hope at this point. However, he also mentioned that Zellner is probably aware of the CD's irrelevance, and wouldn't waste her time on it unless it was strategic, i.e. on its own, it's worthless, but it could be a step in helping reveal or corroborate a greater theory.
He also said this has devolved into one big cluster that's going to soon be impossible for even seasoned professionals to follow, let alone judges and LEO's who typically go an entire career without seeing a case anywhere close to this.
That said, Netflix has essentially placed a big bet that isn't going to pay off unless Avery gets sprung (or at least if there isn't some sort of revelation that rises beyond yawn-worthy in Season 2). Not to mention the hit that Zellner's ego is going to take if she can't prevail (this case might be the end of Zellner's career, one way or the other).
I'm still in the camp that believes Avery's guilt/innocence is irrelevant since the legal system failed and therefore, he should be released. But I'm not optimistic given said downward spiral of complexity which is going to basically confuse people to the point where rule of law can only yield to conventional wisdom (i.e. he's guilty).
Turns out my buddy was right on the CD... nothing exculpatory, but potentially valuable as a piece of a greater puzzle (or theory). Turns out that I was also right on Zellner's ego. Where I was wrong was the bet paying off for Netflix... Season 2 stands on its own and even sets the stage for the final part of the trilogy... which I'm guessing will be another year or two.
What I found most enlightening about Season 2 was that all these people who bashed the first season and rebutted everything and screamed that it was completely one-sided all declined to participate - or make their side of the story heard - in Season 2. Candidly, Season 2 was a lot less one-sided than Season 1 because of the media clips they included from Schimel, Kratz, etc. that did give the other side of the story (or at least bits of it). It's painfully clear that Moira and Laura wanted to present this as a more balanced documentary with examination and perspective from both sides, but I find it extremely curious that one side adamantly declined to participate.
Personally, I don't think anyone who lived in Wisconsin during the Halbach murder is capable of being objective. Kratz poisoned not just a juror pool but also the general public with that press conference he held, and from there, the entire system was rigged against Avery. Having grown up in semi-rural Wisconsin, I am well familiar with the concept of cities/counties having a "black sheep" or "troublemaker" family, and I am well familiar with how these people are thought of as an embarrassment to the community and the lengths that people might go to in order to run them out of town. The thought that law enforcement may have conspired with certain community members seems far-fetched on the surface, but it's also a theory that's extremely plausible given how LEO's - when faced with prison time themselves - will go to very extreme lengths to keep themselves out of trouble (hint: former cops who end up in prison usually don't fare too well).
That said, I'm still in the same camp where I think Avery's guilt/innocence is irrelevant... while the additional testing doesn't necessarily exonerate Avery, it does show that he was convicted on a prosecution theory that turns out to be complete bullshiite, and the State is taking this position that the end (i.e. the conviction) justifies the means. Which wouldn't necessarily be a horrible thing in utilitarian society if not for the existence of forensic evidence that completely refutes the prosecution's case.
Bottom line, take away conjecture that LEO conspired or the alternate killer speculation....if the State and Manitowoc County all want this to go away, they should confront the matter head-on and retry Avery instead of letting Zellner dismantle their entire case, piece by piece; because by allowing the latter to happen, not only does the Halbach family have to continue to relive this horrific tragedy, every day that goes by decreases the State's chance of prevailing in a retrial. Avery's conviction is going to be vacated as soon as the experimental testing that Zellner is doing becomes recognized and universally accepted by the courts.
Zellner says repeatedly that she won't quit until Avery goes free, but I will bet a year's supply of Arby's that she tucks tail and scatters the very second the gavel hits when the retrial rules in favor of the State.
-
Chick and I are about half way through Season 2. Zellner has a helluva ego but she sure seems good at what she does. Of course the entire film is her postulating about what might of happened and what the prosecution might have gotten wrong. Of course she isn't bound by anything in the film regarding rules of evidence and isn't subject to any cross. So the reality is that this is nothing more than an expensive, sophisticated version of defense counsel out on the courthouse steps proclaiming their client's innocence before the hungry news cameras.
I continue to feel sorry for the families involved. Portrayed of course are the Avery clan. Who doesn't feel sorry for the two mothers here? But the Halbachs are victims even more so. And after all these years there's likely nothing that could be new and fresh enough to overturn a lawful conviction.
Thar said, I still think that what they did to Dassey during the interrogation was unconscionable and I largely agree with what I know about that original order that threw out his conviction.
-
Chick and I are about half way through Season 2. Zellner has a helluva ego but she sure seems good at what she does. Of course the entire film is her postulating about what might of happened and what the prosecution might have gotten wrong. Of course she isn't bound by anything in the film regarding rules of evidence and isn't subject to any cross. So the reality is that this is nothing more than an expensive, sophisticated version of defense counsel out on the courthouse steps proclaiming their client's innocence before the hungry news cameras.
I continue to feel sorry for the families involved. Portrayed of course are the Avery clan. Who doesn't feel sorry for the two mothers here? But the Halbachs are victims even more so. And after all these years there's likely nothing that could be new and fresh enough to overturn a lawful conviction.
Thar said, I still think that what they did to Dassey during the interrogation was unconscionable and I largely agree with what I know about that original order that threw out his conviction.
Too bad that was reversed on appeal.
-
Too bad that was reversed on appeal.
He's still not out of prison, though.
-
Chick and I are about half way through Season 2. Zellner has a helluva ego but she sure seems good at what she does. Of course the entire film is her postulating about what might of happened and what the prosecution might have gotten wrong. Of course she isn't bound by anything in the film regarding rules of evidence and isn't subject to any cross. So the reality is that this is nothing more than an expensive, sophisticated version of defense counsel out on the courthouse steps proclaiming their client's innocence before the hungry news cameras.
This is what Zellner does with her cases, Avery is most famous. She also feeds true crime podcasts, 20/20 and the like crazy theories of her clients to question their convictions.
-
https://www.newsweek.com/making-murderer-steven-avery-wins-appeal-second-trial-1343442
-
https://www.newsweek.com/making-murderer-steven-avery-wins-appeal-second-trial-1343442
Non-issue, hey?
He's a dirty murderer. Don't see this going anywhere.
-
Non-issue, hey?
He's a dirty murderer. Don't see this going anywhere.
Oh, it’s going somewhere. Right to Netflix’s bottom line. Third installment of the series is going to be pure gold.
-
Not sure if I should park this here or in the "which smoker should I buy" thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1171103257059614720
-
Not sure if I should park this here or in the "which smoker should I buy" thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1171103257059614720
They're looking for the "real killer"? Are they suggesting that the same person(s) that killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman also killed Teresa Halbach? Wouldn't it be crazy if OJ finally solved this and claimed the reward? I hear he could use the money.
-
Not sure if I should park this here or in the "which smoker should I buy" thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1171103257059614720
Hasn't Zellner Tweeted out that they know who the "real killer" is at least once before? If they already know who the "real killer" is...why are you offering up a $100,000.00 reward to find the "real killer?"
-
Hasn't Zellner Tweeted out that they know who the "real killer" is at least once before? If they already know who the "real killer" is...why are you offering up a $100,000.00 reward to find the "real killer?"
Because $100K might influence someone enough to come forward and testify?
Maybe Zellner recently learned family of the "real killer" is in financial difficulties.
-
Not sure if I should park this here or in the "which smoker should I buy" thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1171103257059614720
Cue the Price is Right ‘wrong trombone’
-
Cue the Price is Right ‘wrong trombone’
https://www.youtube.com/v/9Jz1TjCphXE
-
Because $100K might influence someone enough to come forward and testify?
Maybe Zellner recently learned family of the "real killer" is in financial difficulties.
If you read between the lines, Zellner's working theory presumes both 1) Avery is innocent and 2) more than one person was involved in or has first-hand knowledge of, Halbach's murder. As I've said before, a crime where two or more persons are involved is exponentially more likely to be solved than if only one party acted alone.
From Day 1, Zellner has played the "our investigation is about to uncover new evidence" card... while this is likely a bluff (at least in the short term*), the intent (read: hope) is to get one of the parties to crack and perhaps turn on the other(s), whether motivated by leniency, guilt, or otherwise. In other words, if someone acted alone - e.g. the Dassey brother - in Halbach's murder, he's not going to crack under fear or threat of "new evidence" because he doesn't have to worry about someone else keeping their mouth shut... on the other hand, if the Dassey brother and stepfather were both involved (or one knows what the other did), either "new evidence" or $100,000 could be enough motivation to get one to crack.
* Zellner may also be playing the long-game, i.e. thinking that eventually the evidence will be found, even if it takes decades, but is bluffing now in the hopes of speeding things up.
Candidly, it's unlikely - given the facts and circumstances of the case - that one party acted alone, be that Avery or someone else. It's also the only hope Zellner has... which would make one of the more popular alternative theories, the "travelling serial killer," Zellner's (and Avery's) worst nightmare.
-
Maybe Zellner recently learned family of the "real killer" is in financial difficulties.
Teal perhaps; perhaps not.
Also possible - Zellner has narrowed in on the real killer(s), or at least the possibilities of who else may be involved, and the $100,000 may be a drop in the bucket compared to the likelihood of recovery in a civil case, i.e., whoever may be involved - either in the murder or the cover-up - can not only be sued, but any judgment against them is likely collectible. In other words, this could be a terrific investment... a no-risk call option.
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/notable-wisconsin-inmate-allegedly-confesses-making-murderer-killing-n1058061
Could be a hoax by a guy looking for some quick fame, but a very interesting development nonetheless
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/notable-wisconsin-inmate-allegedly-confesses-making-murderer-killing-n1058061
Could be a hoax by a guy looking for some quick fame, but a very interesting development nonetheless
It happened for Andy Dufrense so maybe it's happening once again?
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/notable-wisconsin-inmate-allegedly-confesses-making-murderer-killing-n1058061
Could be a hoax by a guy looking for some quick fame, but a very interesting development nonetheless
Meh... that would be too easy and isn't exactly inline with Zellner's narrative. She seems to have been baiting someone tangentially involved with something to lose, not a perp-confession from some schmo already in the clink.
Although, with that being said, if said schmo was one of multiple parties involved and it was actually his/her accomplices on the outside still roaming free who Zellner was attempting to bait, this would be a M Night Shyamalan kind of twist.
-
It happened for Andy Dufrense so maybe it's happening once again?
(http://media2.giphy.com/media/yyW0rMItw5eY8/giphy.gif)
-
Meh... that would be too easy and isn't exactly inline with Zellner's narrative. She seems to have been baiting someone tangentially involved with something to lose, not a perp-confession from some schmo already in the clink.
Although, with that being said, if said schmo was one of multiple parties involved and it was actually his/her accomplices on the outside still roaming free who Zellner was attempting to bait, this would be a M Night Shyamalan kind of twist.
Zellner followed a similar narrative to free a client for a murder of a classmate. I expect her to go as dirty as possible to win a PR battle over her reputation.
-
Zellner followed a similar narrative to free a client for a murder of a classmate. I expect her to go as dirty as possible to win a PR battle over her reputation.
When someone goes free, it typically means they weren’t guilty. That’s a good thing, no?
-
When someone goes free, it typically means they weren’t guilty. That’s a good thing, no?
I would certainly think so
-
When someone goes free, it typically means they weren’t guilty. That’s a good thing, no?
In most cases. However, there are other cases where there was prosecutorial misconduct, admission of impermissible evidence or some other issue that causes the verdict to be overturned and a mistrial declared, requiring a new trial.
-
In most cases. However, there are other cases where there was prosecutorial misconduct, admission of impermissible evidence or some other issue that causes the verdict to be overturned and a mistrial declared, requiring a new trial.
https://www.youtube.com/v/23kFiqFiOlA
-
In most cases. However, there are other cases where there was prosecutorial misconduct, admission of impermissible evidence or some other issue that causes the verdict to be overturned and a mistrial declared, requiring a new trial.
Exactly.
-
In most cases. However, there are other cases where there was prosecutorial misconduct, admission of impermissible evidence or some other issue that causes the verdict to be overturned and a mistrial declared, requiring a new trial.
In those cases, it is still a good thing that the person goes free. Prosecutorial misconduct, admission of impermissable evidence, etc. are objectively bad and should be discouraged/disincentivized in an extreme manner
-
State files its response:
https://www.wbay.com/content/news/MAKING-A-MURDERER-State-files-response-to-Steven-Averys-appeal-570829861.html
-
“Convicting a Murderer” docu-series coming soon! Shame on NetFlix & friends, once again!!
-
lololololol *deep breath* lololololol