# Everything Else > Arts & Entertainment >  Making a Murderer

## Eric

Anybody watch this series on Netflix yet. Thoughts?

Pretty fascinating in my opinion.

----------


## sooner88

Scary to see the power the police have in that county. I thought it was very fascinating and extremely frustrating.

----------


## AP

I started watching recently. Haven't finished yet, but I think it is very fascinating.

----------


## okatty

^Same here.   Have watched thru episode 7.   They sure end each one with a "gotcha" to make you wanna keep the binge watch going!  ha

----------


## Eric

Hopefully I won't give anything away., but by far the most shocking thing is the actions taken by the Dassey boy's attorney Len Kachinsky. How he was allowed to practice law after that is beyond me. This guy really had me thinking that there was no way that this could be real. It had to be scripted. But alas, it apparently is real. Edited or not, the things he pulled were incontrovertible and incomprehensible.

----------


## okatty

^he was a complete and total moron.    We should have been tipped off when they said he drew the case after finishing in 3rd place in the local judicial race.

----------


## cferguson

Such a great documentary. I couldnt stop watching. And yes, Kachinksy really was ridiculous. The whole thing is fascinating. It just makes you realize that if you aren't very intelligent and/or don't have a lot of money (for a good lawyer) you are definitely at a disadvantage from day one in this system. Glad I dont live in Manitowoc county.

----------


## TU 'cane

Talk about a coincidence... I just saw this series mentioned via a user comment on a cop related story about a family who had coordinated a super secret high level hydroponic... tomato operation (that started out as a school project) and were SWAT raided. Judge granted the warrant and all. 

All over suspected use of a harmless plant. 

Story I was referencing (although the user comment was via another website): 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/.../?tid=pm_pop_b

Folks, this should greatly disturb you. What am I speaking of? The power, corruption, and influence of the police forces across this country.

----------


## OKCRT

Kinda scary what law enforcement and the courts can get away with. If they are out to get you there's not much you can do to stop them. 

The DA needs to be brought up on charges for the role he played in this. The judge also for allowing all the flawed evidence into the court room to be used against these defendants. It also appears that the jury has been brainwashed by the DA because there is so much reasonable doubt there is no way a jury should be able to convict someone in a serious matter like this. This is like a bad movie but it is real life. This could happen to someone you know esp. in a smaller town setting.

And how do they get away with treating a 16 year old child like they did. A 16 year old with an IQ just above mental retardation. So he truly is a child but was grilled like he was a harden criminal with no adult or lawyer present. Not once not twice but many times.

A higher power needs to get involved in this. To me,from the evidence it is really obvious that the DA did not prove his case. And it's not even close IMO.

----------


## okatty

Who knows if this is legit at all...but interesting 

After Netflix documentary released, hacker group steps up to help free Steven Avery, Brendan Dassey | FOX6Now.com

----------


## AP

I had some commentary on this series on FB, but I'll post it here too.

I think the best part of this documentary, so far, is that it opens a lot of people's eyes to how the system is so stacked against the blue collar, working poor. A lot of middle/upper class hear about this stuff and might even discuss it often but never actually have known or seen any family like the Averys in real life. This family reminds me of countless families that I know in Tahlequah and Muskogee that this type of stuff happens to.

----------


## OKCRT

> Who knows if this is legit at all...but interesting 
> 
> After Netflix documentary released, hacker group steps up to help free Steven Avery, Brendan Dassey | FOX6Now.com


Someone deleted texts and messages from the Halbach girls phone. I assume that the defense lawyers couldn't find out who or what was deleted because I don't think it came up in court. One would think that those messages could have contained critical evidence to this case. 

I am thinking one of Averys relatives might have committed the murder and planted some of the evidence to link it to Steven Avery. I also don't think that law enforcement had quite enough evidence so Link or Lenk whatever his name is might have planted the car key and the DNA to bolster the case evidence against Avery. We have to remember that when Steven Avery was released for wrongful conviction of rape after serving 18 years that the county law officials looked pretty bad. They were def. out to get Steven Avery. This whole thing just reeks of a setup.

----------


## okatty

The entire concept of this is so infuriating because it is such outrageous abuse of power.  Authority run wild and out of control.

----------


## kevinpate

Gonna just lay this down right here, on the off chance someone might decide to take a look.
RIP Ron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_In...n_a_Small_Town

----------


## Pete

Just started watching and got through the first episode...

One thing to keep in mind is that filmmakers are often very guilty of what they are accusing lawmakers and our justice system here:  Presenting only part of the information and with a predetermined bias.

You can bet they started this project with the idea that Avery was innocent and was being abused by the system.  How is that any different than when lawmakers started with the bias he was guilty?

Also, filmmakers need a compelling storyline to get people to watch.


I don't know where this series is leading because I'm purposely avoiding reading objective information until I've seen it through.

But, I've seen many, many 'documentaries' that were in fact very biased and present lots of things as fact that simply were not.

One of the most glaring came out about 10 years ago called Capturing the Freidmans.  It was even nominated for an academy award and watching it you would swear that the father and son convicted of molesting dozens of kids were almost certainly innocent.

The film left out an incredible amount of information -- such as the son confessed in great detail on Geraldo -- because the filmmaker grew to believe in his innocence and angled the film in that direction.  The filmmaker actually used proceed to fund the son's appeal (which failed miserably).

Many more examples and I"m not sure this series is the same, but I'm not watching this just assuming everything put forth is true or at least the whole truth.  Pretty easy to decide those things on your own through Internet research than just take a filmmaker's perspective.

----------


## BBatesokc

Watched the series - then did my homework. Many transcripts etc. are available. The producers of the series certainly had a bias and they forwarded that bias. Regardless, my concern was less about his guilt or innocence, and more about what the system was willing to do to get the verdict they desired.

I'd personally rather see dozens of guilty people walk because prosecutors simply couldn't make a strong enough case, than to risk a single innocent person being incarcerated.

----------


## Pete

It's certainly scary how much power is concentrated in the hands of so few people; always a recipe for abuse.

This is one of many, many ways in which the world is a better place now than ever before:  Lots more eyes watching, lots more access to info, etc.

----------


## Urbanized

^^^^^^
And yet very often the mob gets it wrong, too.

----------


## Pete

True, but then you'd expect them to.

I still have much more faith in our legal system than most, although there is no doubt the poor and disadvantaged are not treated the same as someone who can afford a great defense.

This was one of the most fascinating documentaries on this subject I've ever seen; details how the justice system often bullies people into accepting plea deals:

The Plea | FRONTLINE | PBS

----------


## BBatesokc

After you watch the series, then look at all the discussions/articles online regarding some pretty critical stuff that was left out of the series.

----------


## Pete

> After you watch the series, then look at all the discussions/articles online regarding some pretty critical stuff that was left out of the series.


This has become the norm now in 'documentaries'.  Almost all are agenda-driven.

I took some classes at UCLA film school and I remember the instructor -- who was a successful Hollywood producer -- said the first thing any documentarian should do is enlist someone with an opposite point of view and give them equal power.  Only way to ensure balance, but of course almost no one does that these days.

----------


## LocoAko

> After you watch the series, then look at all the discussions/articles online regarding some pretty critical stuff that was left out of the series.


Yeah. I started this two nights ago and was immediately obsessed and marathoned the rest of it. Some of the additional information is definitely suspicious, some of which wasn't allowed in court... and while it paints Avery in a less savory light, none of it still seems to be too damning or convince beyond some character assumptions. At the very least neither of them were given fair treatment by the authorities and especially Brendan Dassey deserves a new trial. Seeing how the family's reputation and socioeconomic status played into this was just icing on the cake. Very depressing and frustrating series, but fantastically done. Actually was kept up late last night thinking about it all.

I especially liked the lack of narration and just raw footage. It was of course edited but still allowed you to think it all through yourself at least.

----------


## OKCRT

> After you watch the series, then look at all the discussions/articles online regarding some pretty critical stuff that was left out of the series.


There's just so much evidence in the doc. that creates enough reasonable doubt I just don't see how a jury could render a guilty verdict if they follow instructions. Wouldn't you agree?

And how could a judge let the DA submit so much tainted evidence?

----------


## BBatesokc

> There's just so much evidence in the doc. that creates enough reasonable doubt I just don't see how a jury could render a guilty verdict if they follow instructions. Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> And how could a judge let the DA submit so much tainted evidence?


I'm so jaded though, I witness many a court case where I don't feel prosecutors proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, reasonable doubt is not as universally understood/agreed upon as some people think it is. I certainly see why some people opt for a non-jury trial.

Even closing in on a month later, I'm still completely annoyed with the whole Holtzclaw verdict.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Steven Avery: Petitions calling for pardon of Making a Murderer documentary subject break 100,000 signatures | Americas | News | The Independent

----------


## krisb

> After you watch the series, then look at all the discussions/articles online regarding some pretty critical stuff that was left out of the series.


Like what? I haven't seen anything that would have been considered substantial or admissible. The statements from other inmates about him wanting to torture women were not admissible even at the time of the trial. The phone records? *67 is used apparently used for call forwarding in that state, not call blocking. Also there were two fairly long phone calls placed after Steven Avery's on the call log. Not saying that makes him innocent but everything in its totality should at least cast a reasonable doubt on the suspect and the judicial process.

----------


## krisb

> This has become the norm now in 'documentaries'.  Almost all are agenda-driven.
> 
> I took some classes at UCLA film school and I remember the instructor -- who was a successful Hollywood producer -- said the first thing any documentarian should do is enlist someone with an opposite point of view and give them equal power.  Only way to ensure balance, but of course almost no one does that these days.


It's hard to avoid bias but I think the documentary makes that point very clear. The filmmakers assert that they did not have an agenda going into the project and tried to include as much information from the trial for and against as possible. With so much raw footage and hard evidence it leaves quite a bit less room for interpretation than other documentary pieces. Of course their end conclusion is to shed light on an obviously broken justice system. Regardless of whether or not the court got the verdict right the process was tainted. The first case for sure and likely the second one as well.

----------


## BBatesokc

> Like what? I haven't seen anything that would have been considered substantial or admissible. The statements from other inmates about him wanting to torture women were not admissible even at the time of the trial. The phone records? *67 is used apparently used for call forwarding in that state, not call blocking. Also there were two fairly long phone calls placed after Steven Avery's on the call log. Not saying that makes him innocent but everything in its totality should at least cast a reasonable doubt on the suspect and the judicial process.


I'd have to go back through links I found online to some reputable articles and more importantly transcripts.

NY Daily News lists several things I remember noting..... Evidence that's missing from ?Making a Murderer' - NY Daily News

I can't recall the non-blood DNA being on the Rav4 hood latch being presented in the series, but I do recall reading it in a transcript. Also Halbach's personal effects being in a separate burn barrel. I could be mistaken though. I've read so many transcripts and police reports that it gets a bit mixed up as to what I read and what I saw on TV.

I also recall when I read the transcript of Brendan Dassey's interrogation -  that while investigators certainly led him along (as they almost always do), it wasn't as blatant as its edited to look in the series. Was it very troubling? Yes. But the series certainly edited it in a way to accentuate that point.

Not sure where you're getting that *67 was for call forwarding and not call blocking. If that's true, I'd love to see a link as that's fairly significant IMO.

----------


## OKCRT

> I'd have to go back through links I found online to some reputable articles and more importantly transcripts.
> 
> NY Daily News lists several things I remember noting..... Evidence that's missing from ?Making a Murderer' - NY Daily News
> 
> I can't recall the non-blood DNA being on the Rav4 hood latch being presented in the series, but I do recall reading it in a transcript. Also Halbach's personal effects being in a separate burn barrel. I could be mistaken though. I've read so many transcripts and police reports that it gets a bit mixed up as to what I read and what I saw on TV.
> 
> I also recall when I read the transcript of Brendan Dassey's interrogation -  that while investigators certainly led him along (as they almost always do), it wasn't as blatant as its edited to look in the series. Was it very troubling? Yes. But the series certainly edited it in a way to accentuate that point.
> 
> Not sure where you're getting that *67 was for call forwarding and not call blocking. If that's true, I'd love to see a link as that's fairly significant IMO.


Bone fragments found in two different bone piles. What does that say?

----------


## White Peacock

What struck me the most was Colborn calling in the victim's plates two days before the vehicle was located on Avery's property, sans plates, and how his head appeared to be on the verge of exploding when the recording was played for him. That seems very damning to me, as does the mysteriously appearing key that nobody managed to find for a week of looking in the same small trailer. 

There was definitely a bias in the making of the film, but I think the bias was less in favor of Avery, and more in opposition to good ol' boy behavior in this power loving sheriff's department. It's worth pointing out that apparently a lot of the people that could have helped make the documentary more balanced refused to participate.

----------


## FighttheGoodFight

I enjoyed the doc and of course I went on the internet to see what was left out! 




> Remains of Halbach's camera and Palm Pilot found in Avery's burn barrel
> 
> Although the bits of the Brendan interview with his original attorney's investigator shown in the film make it seem like all of Brendan's confession is coerced and that he's just saying what he thinks the investigator wants to hear, the full transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwg...Kelly.pdf?dl=0)   blows this out of the water. It shows that he voluntarily goes into explicit detail about the killing and disposal of the body and these details did not come from leading questions.
> 
> In the same interview Brendan explains how he helped Avery move the RAV4 and that Avery lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. DNA was found UNDER the hood exactly where it would be if things happened the way Brendan described - this is NOT blood we're talking either, this is sweat/skin-cells. This is never mentioned at all in the show... even if you believe the blood was planted, how does his DNA get UNDER the hood where the battery terminal was if as Avery said he was never in the car...?
> 
> The "magic bullet" found in the garage with Halbach's DNA on it was also tested for ballistics... and was proved to have been fired by Avery's gun. A gun that was locked up in evidence since day one of the investigation.
> 
> Avery purchased handcuffs and leg irons exactly like the ones described by Brendan just two weeks before the murder


All in all I enjoyed The Jinx better.

----------


## TU 'cane

There is bias in everything. _Everything._ So, that should be understood when embarking on viewing any material via the television, paper, Internet, and even daily conversations. 
However, this did cross my mind: what aren't we being told? I only assumed that the creators thought that the fact that he was incarcerated and "lost" was evidence alone. Basically, they were already showing us the _other_ side of the story, at least before the Halbach incident. 

Nonetheless, the overarching theme (I haven't finished the series yet, so this is what I've noticed only up to the point I'm at) is beyond trying to showcase both sides fairly, and instead is trying to showcase small town politics and abuses of authority and power in general. 

Now, to some other details I'm not excusing Avery, I don't even know the whole story and for all we know he did commit the second crime. But immediately in the third or fourth(?) episode, *potential spoiler ahead* I noticed that the Avery family wasn't allowed on their own property for _days_ after the vehicle was found. A LOT could have been set up and planted by only a couple hands and minds "in the know." And it was clear that they weren't going to let DNA be their downfall this time as I noticed the DA and other investigators made sure to throw in the term "DNA" whenever discussing the case. 

Just another observation. But, I think, without knowing too much of the current state, *potential spoiler ahead* we'll find out that whether Avery did it or not, perhaps one of the last themes of the series is to showcase how a traditionally non-violent man becomes so after being in our prison system for years. Hence another potential meaning behind "Making a Murderer."

----------


## BBatesokc

I can't hold keeping the family off their property against prosecutors. This would be considered very common practice. The reality of the size of the potential crime scene simply extended the process even longer.

I agree that this series is a lot more than guilt or innocence - its how the system reached that conclusion, regardless of the reality.

----------


## AP

> One thing to keep in mind is that filmmakers are often very guilty of what they are accusing lawmakers and our justice system here:  Presenting only part of the information and with a predetermined bias.
> 
> You can bet they started this project with the idea that Avery was innocent and was being abused by the system.  *How is that any different than when lawmakers started with the bias he was guilty?*


Uhhhhhhh.... hopefully you're taking the Devil's advocate position here.

----------


## checkthat

> Uhhhhhhh.... hopefully you're taking the Devil's advocate position here.


Agreed. There is a huge difference between private filmmaker's bias and the bias of the government's criminal justice system. The filmmaker did not take an oath of office for their job.

With regard to items left out of the documentary, were the shackles Avery purchased weeks prior found and admitted as evidence? Did they have her DNA on them? Was the blood under the hood admitted, too?

Something that does not seem to be discussed much is that the insurance would not pay out for Avery's suit because the County's policy does not cover gross neglect and malicious prosecution. The officers and county would be on the hook for the $36 mil if Avery won the suit. Seems like a pretty big motive to make something happen. These same officers are the ones volunteering to go to the scene and finding all of the evidence despite the department saying they would not be involved.

Another interesting thing is that everyone knew she was coming to take pictures that day. Avery made no secret of it and when officers came to investigate, he let them in and let them look at whatever they wanted. These seem like the actions of someone with nothing to hide.

----------


## Pete

I am now a little more than halfway through and can't wait to finish so I can research all the info and evidence independently.

The filmmakers clearly went into this thinking Avery was unjustly convicted....

Another thing I learned in film school:  Filmmakers have all types of subtle ways of manipulating the viewer's response to any scene.  For example, when the prosecution brought on a witness they producers obviously thought was dubious, they would play ominous tones and make sure to cut in the witness and the various attorneys to show certain expressions and reactions.

I can almost guarantee you a lot of that was out of sequence.  Like the prosecutor looking displeased or flustered...  Very likely they inserted that somewhere else to help cast the scene in a certain context.

And of course, just creative editing in general -- what you put in and what you cut out -- is massive.  Almost anything can be taken out of context and made to look a certain way.

Filmakers also use lighting, camera angles and many other little tricks to help create certain impressions, often without the viewer even being aware.  That's great for drama, not so much for 'factual' documentaries.


I will research this in depth when I finish all the episodes but it's very obvious there was an agenda here and I want to learn the facts myself rather than just taking the shows as presented.

----------


## Pete

One thing I really want to research is Brendan Dassey's attorney that was ultimately dismissed.

We was portrayed as almost an evil person, using an investigator to brow-beat Brendan into confessing to something he didn't do.  And all the while implying that was also to get at Avery.

I strongly suspect that was all very overblown and the clips they showed of the attorney were hand-picked to fit into this conspiracy narrative.


I use this example because it's very hard to believe that all these people -- including this particular attorney -- were/are such horrible people that they would do anything to get Avery.  It's all just so far-fetched with way too many people from the FBI to a bunch of people in the sheriff's office to the judge and the attorneys...

I'm not saying bias didn't enter in, just that the level of conspiracy by that many people in that many completely different organizations is incredibly hard to fathom, especially since so few of them had anything to gain and everything to lose.

----------


## Pete

Okay, I finished the series.

Was very compelling and interesting but I have little doubt Avery was in fact guilt of murder.


Just don't buy the elaborate conspiracy theories, especially because so many people would have had to been involved and most of them had little to no ax to grind with Avery and as the prosecutor pointed out in his closing statements, you would also have to believe the police killed this young woman then the FBI and everyone else who was involved were happy to go along.  It's just way, way too much to believe.

The most compelling part of the entire thing were the two defense attorneys.  Both super smart, compassionate and persuasive.  And of course, they were both presented in the most sympathetic and positive light by the documentarians.  So much so, they both now have huge fan clubs on Twitter and are now being considered sex symbols.


All this reminds me of the Jerry Seinfeld bit about watching shows about animals...  When the perspective is from that of the innocent antelope minding it's own business, you find yourself cheering with all your might for it to escape the evil and vicious lion.  But when it's shot from the lion's point of view, you are pulling for the lioness to pull down the anonymous and random antelope so she can feed her cute and cuddly cubs; to do what it was born to do.

In this series, Avery was the antelope and it was shot from his perspective.

----------


## Tundra

I literally just finished also, there is know doubts in my mind that the entire town hated and was embarrassed by this family, calling it a one branch family tree. I would agree with that statement, this one of the most f'd up families and down right ugly bunch of people I've ever seen. With all that being said, I feel as though Avery was set up, their are too many damning facts against the investigators and you have to go back to the 18 years of false imprisonment, because that's where it all started. I tend to look at everything from a conspiratorial POV, for whatever reason but it allows me to realistically ask myself can I see a police officer in a small town do something like this? Well I know for a fact it can, I had an uncle that was OHP in Greer county that committed some horrible crimes and was fired back in the 70s, a lot of it was covered up and made to go away....

----------


## Pete

This article pretty much mirrors my feelings:

Steven Avery Is Guilty As Hell




> I was convinced of many things watching the 10-part series: I was convinced the criminal justice system and Manitowoc County were likely corrupt, and that many people in that office wanted to see Avery end up back in jail. I was convinced that I was being manipulated by directors Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos (more on this later). I was definitely convinced that Avery was guilty of the murder. And, believe it or not, a viewer could believe all those things simultaneously.

----------


## Chadanth

I'll start by saying I think it's far more likely that Avery is guilty than not. 

That said, I have the following issues. 
1. No blood, DNA, or physical evidence in the Avery trailer. No way was the victim bound, raped and stabbed there. 
2. No evidence of shackles being used on the bed. These would have left some sort of marks. 
3. No blood from the victim in the garage. None. Anywhere. 
4. Except on one bullet, which was also tainted by the lab tech. Useless evidence IMO. 
5. No fingerprints from Avery on the victim vehicle. But blood all over the place
6. The bone fragments from places off the Avery property were not, as far as k can find, tested or proven to be from the victim. 
7. The deleted voicemails, could have been Avery, could have been anyone. 
8. No effort to look ant other subjects. 
9. The initial interrogation of Dassey. 
10. Dasseys lawyer and the awful, awful, job he did. 
11. Dasseys statements should have been inadmissible. 
12. The vial of blood with the needle hole. 
13. The deputy calling in the license plate at an odd time, with more information than expected at that point. 
14. The RAV4 key. 

It really does keep going. There's a lot of damning evidence, mostly circumstantial but powerful nonetheless to implicate Avery. But I really don't think they made their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

----------


## Pete

Conspiracy theories aside, there was all this evidence:

1. Avery's house was the last place she was seen alive
2. They found her car hidden on his property (Avery's sweat DNA was on the hood latch, something they left out of the film)
3. Found her car key in his house (with Avery's DNA, again from his sweat, not blood).
4. Her car had blood with Avery's DNA
5. Bullet found in garage matched ballistics for Avery's gun in his bedroom (left out of the film)
6. The found her Palm Pilot in Avery's burn barrel (also left out of the film)
7. Found her bone fragments in his burn pile and at two other locations on his property
8. Avery had bought shackles a few weeks before (again, left out of the film)
9. Avery lied when he said a conviction for animal cruelty was just "being young and dumb"; he had actually doused the poor cat in diesel fuel and thrown it into a fire (yes, left out of the film because it would make him appear to have a vicious cruel streak)
10. His nephew came home with bleach on his jeans and told his mother he had been helping Steven clean his garage floor (left out of the film, but they did state that bleach removes any DNA evidence)
11. Avery had called the victim many times at work and specifically requested her to come to his house on multiple occasions, including the day she was killed

He was incredibly guilty and not nearly the victim the filmmakers made him out to be.

Doesn't mean there weren't also some errors and misjudgments by law and legal professionals along the way.

----------


## LocoAko

> Conspiracy theories aside, there was all this evidence:
> 
> 1. Avery's house was the last place she was seen alive
> 2. They found her car hidden on his property (Avery's sweat DNA was on the hood latch, something they left out of the film)
> 3. Found her car key in his house (with Avery's DNA, again from his sweat, not blood).
> 4. Her car had blood with Avery's DNA
> 5. Bullet found in garage matched ballistics for Avery's gun in his bedroom (left out of the film)
> 6. The found her Palm Pilot in Avery's burn barrel (also left out of the film)
> 7. Found her bone fragments in his burn pile and at two other locations on his property
> ...


Out of curiosity, what do you make of Brendan Dassey and his entire trial now that you're done watching?

----------


## kevinpate

> ... 
> 8. No effort to look [at] other subjects. 
> ...


This is an overriding issue in many, many arrests and subsequent prosecutions.  

It doesn't take a top to bottom conspiracy to take someone down despite being innocent (not referring to Avery in particular, just defendants in general.)  

It only takes busy people who do not ask questions when some LEO says that's the guy, or the gal.

If the LEO making the announcement is less than honorable, and folks just don't really care, and they don't by and large, bad things can happen to good people.

----------


## Pete

> Out of curiosity, what do you make of Brendan Dassey and his entire trial now that you're done watching?


I think he was stone cold guilty as well.

The whole "they coerced him to confess so they could convict Avery" is a very weak argument because he never testified against Avery and I don't think they used his confession at all in Steven's trial and Brendan was prosecuted after Steven.

Not only did he confess, he told his mom on recorded telephone calls that he did it as well.  Why on earth would he do that if he wasn't involved?  And how would he know the details about her murder if he wasn't there?


The whole situation is sad and I have no doubt that our system can exploit those who are poor and slow (both Brendan and Steven had well below normal IQ's) but I have absolutely no doubt not only where they both guilty, that these were horrific crimes and if this story had been told a different way, both of them would be seen as monsters rather than victims.

If you they did this, they deserve the wrath of the public, not the sympathetic out-pouring that has been seen.

----------


## OKC_Chipper

&#39;Making a Murderer&#39; filmmakers: Original juror believes Steven Avery was framed - TODAY.com 
Found this very interesting, a juror essentially saying they were trading guilty votes, and feared for their own lives if they weren't able to reach a verdict.

----------


## Urbanized

I haven't watched it, but for what it's worth his guilt and a corrupt, over-aggressive grudge-bearing prosecution are NOT mutually exclusive.

----------


## Pete

The first 2-3 episodes are gripping but IMO it then devolves into one huge, massive conspiracy theory that just doesn't make any sense.

Fortunately, the legal system operates outside the legislative branch so when public sentiment is stirred up in this way by people who have a large audience and clear agenda, it can still operate independently and without interference by public sentiment, which is often misplaced.


I had mentioned a documentary called Capturing the Friedman's and this series seems to be the exact same vein and in the case of Jesse Freeman, they used proceeds from the film in an attempt to overturn his conviction.  As I learned more about the case, I became furious because this guy and his father had molested dozens of young boys and many were forced to testify all over again and dredge up their childhood horror in order to satisfy a new investigation.  In the end, the panel charged with reevaluation concluded Jesse (and his father, who had long ago killed himself in prison) was just stone cold guilty,and the film had purposely left out tons of very relevant info and evidence simply to stir up controversy and cast doubt on their guilt.

Great drama and compelling filmmaking, but fortunately our legal system is above all that.

----------


## White Peacock

> The whole situation is sad and I have not doubt that our system can exploit those who are poor and slow (both Brendan and Steven had well below normal IQ's) but I have absolutely no doubt not only where they both guilty, that these were horrific crimes and if this story had been told a different way, both of them would be seen as monsters rather than victims.


Since you believe Avery is guilty of the murder, are you OK with the obvious police tampering and planting of evidence as a method of ensuring the conviction of a confirmed perpetrator? That's kind of the point of the series, to illustrate a very obvious institutional bias against a person that led to him being falsely imprisoned for 18 years, and then sought to ensure he was put back in prison until he died. If he murdered the girl, the true evidence should have been left to stand on its own, the county -- which was supposed to have no involvement in the investigation because they had a real interest in smearing Avery -- ended up being responsible for finding most of the evidence on the property, long after other investigators failed to find it (the bullet, the key, etc.). 

The key is especially troublesome. It had Avery's DNA, but it didn't have the key owner's DNA on it (only Avery's DNA was found on the entire key/lanyard). And I don't know about you, but my car key is attached to a keychain with a number of other keys attached to it, but for some reason the victim was driving around with what appears to be a spare key? Not only that, but the key leaped from its very secure hiding place to a very obvious spot after, if I remember correctly, 8 days worth of searches and shakedowns, including that very book case/night stand being emptied and inspected, with no key found. 

The burden is on the prosecutors to prove guilt. If that process is tainted by unethical actions by the investigating parties, it throws the entire situation into question. Had Avery been convicted without their involvement, the case would still be just an obscure case of a guy who got a second chance after a wrongful conviction and screwed it up because he was a scumbag after all. Instead, we've got a guy that may or may not have done the murder, but the evidence pool was so f*cked up and questionable that the very unlikely manner in which the evidence was stumbled upon by Manitowoc County deputies actually created _more_ reasonable doubt than there likely was initially, and now the County authorities are the scumbags!

----------


## White Peacock

> Great drama and compelling filmmaking, but fortunately our legal system is above all that.


Is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist

----------


## Urbanized

Again, full disclosure: I haven't watched it. BUT, what troubles me is that an obviously agenda-driven documentary could rally so many to demand PRESIDENTIAL PARDON, etc. for someone who sounds awfully guilty regardless of what happened in the courtroom. If anything, police and prosecutorial misbehavior should get him another trial...NOT automatic freedom.

There are many, many people who are legitimately locked up despite being innocent. It DOES happen. If people want to make a difference there they should look into The Innocence Project, which doesn't take in cases until their legal experts are CONVINCED not only that a person MAYBE should have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that they are actually INNOCENT of the crime for which they've been convicted.

----------


## Pete

^

The defense attorneys didn't prove anything in terms of tampering.  All they did was make a bunch of unsubstantiated inferences.

For example, let's take a huge leap of faith and say the blood sample was tampered with...  They still found her car hidden on his property, found Avery's DNA (through sweat) on the latch hood, etc.

Absolutely nothing they questioned was ever proven to be true and if it had been, there was still a mountain of evidence against him, much of which was conveniently left out of the film.


The only reason this was the subject of a documentary was the sexy twist about Avery having been previously wrongly convicted than exonerated after 18 years.

Other than that, Avery was just another scumbag murderer who had a couple of charismatic defense attorneys who did their best to find something -- anything -- to cast reasonable doubt on his guilt, which was their job.  And who were given a big audience and sympathetic position by two filmmakers with a clear agenda.

And BTW, I don't think their agenda was they truly believed Avery was innocent.  It was more about creating drama and interest in their series, which clearly worked.

----------


## Pete

For those who believe Avery was innocent, I would like to hear how you think this woman came to be killed.

And do you also believe many members of two different police forces, the FBI, the prosecuters, investigators and judge were all in on it too?  Certainly seems like they would all have to be.

----------


## Urbanized

Just a note on my previous post: I just searched out and read a story which states that the Wisconsin Innocence Project - which helped clear Avery's prior, bogus rape conviction - was going to work with his attorneys to see if this merits a new trial. That's fair, if it is proven that there was juror misconduct, for instance, as has been alleged just this week. That is very different from outright exoneration/pardon, which is what so many watchers of this show seem to be looking for.

----------


## Pete

Avery's attorneys said that unless there is new evidence found, they have very little hope in any sort of appeal.

All this alleged misconduct was researched and brought up in court in Avery's trial and as I said, they couldn't prove anything.

----------


## White Peacock

> Just a note on my previous post: I just searched out and read a story which states that the Wisconsin Innocence Project - which helped clear Avery's prior, bogus rape conviction - was going to work with his attorneys to see if this merits a new trial. That's fair, if it is proven that there was juror misconduct, for instance, as has been alleged just this week. That is very different from outright exoneration/pardon, which is what so many watchers of this show seem to be looking for.


Calling for a pardon is extreme and ill-informed, which is typical of the type of person that puts in (or signs) petitions demanding unlikely things of the President. 

I'm not saying Avery is innocent, and if Avery's guilty, he deserves to be in prison. But there would be enough evidence for me as a juror to say there's reasonable doubt and submit a not guilty verdict due to the contamination of the investigation by the county, which I believe the defense did a good job of illustrating. Yes, it might allow a potential murderer to go free, but with what appears to be so much meddling with the evidence, there's too much doubt thrown into the mix to convict with confidence. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks...7s_formulation

----------


## Pete

But you don't have nearly the information or evidence the jury had.

This series was about 6 hours of running time and the huge majority was not Avery trial footage.

The Avery trial was 6 WEEKS.  And in the end, they reached a unanimous verdict, which is darn hard to do with 12 people.

----------


## BBatesokc

My gut - and a watching of the documentary and full reading of all available court documents - tells me Avery is no upstanding citizen and that he is most likely guilty of the murder. In my opinion the series didn't do anything to make me actually question his guilt. What it did do is highlight what I think happens more often than people like to admit -- police and prosecutors make up their minds early on who is guilty and then they often tailor their evidence to support that presumption of guilt instead of seeking truth and justice. In this case, prosecutors and police went even further and initially framed an innocent man (in the first trial) and then conspired on some level (most likely minimally) to plant evidence to ensure Avery was found guilty at the murder trial.

----------


## checkthat

> 3. No blood from the victim in the garage. None. Anywhere. 
> 4. *Except on one bullet*, which was also tainted by the lab tech. Useless evidence IMO.


The DNA on the bullet was non-blood DNA.

The DNA on the hood latch was also non-blood DNA. If Avery was bleeding enough that he got blood by the ignition and other parts of the interior of the car, why was his blood not on the hood latch or battery?

Pete-
What are you thoughts on the two County detectives volunteering to be on site, despite the department saying they would stay out of the investigation, and then being the only two to find the major pieces of evidence? Is that just creative film-making? 

Also, why did the FBI get involved for a state prosecution? The documentary shows the agent say that the FBI gets involved to ensure no public corruption but the request for the FBI made no mention of that of that reason. More selective editing?

----------


## Pete

> My gut - and a watching of the documentary and full reading of all available court documents - tells me Avery is no upstanding citizen and that he is most likely guilty of the murder. In my opinion the series didn't do anything to make me actually question his guilt. What it did do is highlight what I think happens more often than people like to admit -- police and prosecutors make up their minds early on who is guilty and then they often tailor their evidence to support that presumption of guilt instead of seeking truth and justice. In this case, prosecutors and police went even further and initially framed an innocent man (in the first trial) and then conspired on some level (most likely minimally) to plant evidence to ensure Avery was found guilty at the murder trial.


I think this is a fair assessment.

However, there was so much evidence against Avery I don't think they needed to plant anything and would have greatly risked his conviction by doing so.  Remember, their big embarrassment (if the documentary is to be believed) was that they falsely convicted him the first time.  So willfully planting evidence then being found out would have been much more devastating than failing to get a conviction.

I have no doubt that that sort of thing goes on but I suspect in this day and age with advanced forensics, cameras everywhere and the free flow of information, it happens much less.

----------


## kevinpate

Pete, with respect, getting 12 to agree on guilt is not that dang hard at all.

What's hard anymore is getting 12 in the box who will fairly consider the evidence from an initial presumption of innocence, rather than coming in with a mindset of the cops and prosecutors wouldn't be wasting their limited time if this wasn't the right person. 

Fortunately, every charge isn't a debacle. Lord, what a sad and fearful world we'd live in if that were the case.  But the shortcuts, they do get taken, and the blinders, they do get worn.  

And sometimes, you get evil led by a strong ego and you have quite a bit of falloutlike the Gilchrist mess a few years back.

----------


## Pete

I disagree that it's easy to get 12 people to be unanimous on a jury.

I've served on them and was the foreperson of a long trial and it amazed me that 12 people who sat and heard and say the exact same evidence and testimony had such wildly different opinions.

However, I've stated before I am a huge believer in the jury system.  Everyone loves to point out when there is a breakdown (like the OJ criminal trial) but those are extreme and rare exceptions IMO.

----------


## White Peacock

> But you don't have nearly the information or evidence the jury had.
> 
> This series was about 6 hours of running time and the huge majority was not Avery trial footage.
> 
> The Avery trial was 6 WEEKS.  And in the end, they reached a unanimous verdict, which is darn hard to do with 12 people.


I agree, the jury was privy to a lot more than the TV audience was. But the jury is another thing that I think could be problematic, with potential conflicts of interest that for some reason weren't considered important during jury selection. 

Avery jurors have industrial, retiree bent

Jurors have also recently come out and admitted to verdict trading, and fearing retaliation if they delivered a not-guilty verdict, since they were all residents of the same county.

----------


## White Peacock

> Remember, their big embarrassment (if the documentary is to be believed) was that they falsely convicted him the first time.


I don't think it was to save face from the embarrassment; I think it was to spare the county the possible loss of $36M, which was likely to happen had the murder case not come to pass.

----------


## Pete

So, add the jury to the long list of conspirators?

Let's take stock:

Two police forces, multiple officers in each
The DA's office and prosecutors of this particular case
The FBI
Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation
Dassey's attorney
Investigators used by Dassey's attorney
The various experts and lab technicians that testified
The judge
The jury

And not one bit of conclusive proof of wrong-doing by any of them, other than bad judgment by Dassey's attorney who was merely removed but as far as I can tell, was never disciplined.

BTW, the reason Dassey's attorney was not at the one interview of Dassey was that he was on Army reserve duty, not some nefarious plot.  He has admitted he should have rescheduled.

----------


## Pete

> I don't think it was to save face from the embarrassment; I think it was to spare the county the possible loss of $36M, which was likely to happen had the murder case not come to pass.


Except they ended up settling for $400K.

----------


## White Peacock

> Except they ended up settling for $400K.


Do you think the settlement terms would have been the same had he not been in jail awaiting trial for murder?

----------


## Pete

> Do you think the settlement terms would have been the same had he not been in jail awaiting trial for murder?


Really no way to know that but the lawsuit threat had already been completely removed before Avery even went to trial.

So, this constant drumbeat about being framed to remove the financial threat is a bit disingenuous.


Also, his lawsuit against the county, its former sheriff, Thomas Kocourek, and former district attorney, Denis Vogel.  Not against the FBI or anyone else implied to be in on this supposed conspiracy.

----------


## checkthat

> Really no way to know that but the lawsuit threat had already been completely removed before Avery even went to trial.
> 
> So, this constant drumbeat about being framed to remove the financial threat is a bit disingenuous.
> 
> 
> Also, his lawsuit against the county, its former sheriff, Thomas Kocourek, and former district attorney, Denis Vogel.  Not against the FBI or anyone else implied to be in on this supposed conspiracy.


So we should completely discount the fact that the insurance said it would not cover any judgement in the suit for gross neglect and malicious prosecution. The County and officers would be liable for any judgement. That seems like a pretty big motive. They also had plenty of opportunity.

How do you feel about the officers being deposed in the suit a few weeks before all of this happened and then not disclosing that to the lead investigator?

----------


## TU 'cane

> For those who believe Avery was innocent, I would like to hear how you think this woman came to be killed.
> 
> And do you also believe many members of two different police forces, the FBI, the prosecuters, investigators and judge were all in on it too?  Certainly seems like they would all have to be.


I don't think this side of the camp is looking for any challenge. I can only speak for myself, but for one, his first conviction was completely bogus and was all but proven to be driven by the personal motives of the Sheriff's department and subsequent relations, as we all know by now. So, history suggests collusion and framing has been done before, perhaps. Or, rather, a complete disregard for a proper investigation. 

Furthermore, I can only say for myself (again) that I'm more interested in how the "authorities" handled everything than determining his innocence. As I've said before, I don't know if he committed this second crime or not.

----------


## Pete

> So we should completely discount the fact that the insurance said it would not cover any judgement in the suit for gross neglect and malicious prosecution. The County and officers would be liable for any judgement. That seems like a pretty big motive. They also had plenty of opportunity.
> 
> How do you feel about the officers being deposed in the suit a few weeks before all of this happened and then not disclosing that to the lead investigator?


Not saying to discount anything, just trying to be realistic.

I don't think there was ever any real threat of Avery winning some huge settlement and even so, it was just the County and these two guys -- long since retired -- who were on the hook.  Suits like these frequently start at some absurd number then get negotiated down to a small fraction.

Would not begin to explain what these droves of other people would jeopardize their own careers, reputations and even possible jail time just to 'get' Avery, especially since they already had tons of condemning evidence.

----------


## Eric

> So, add the jury to the long list of conspirators?
> 
> Let's take stock:
> 
> Two police forces, multiple officers in each
> The DA's office and prosecutors of this particular case
> The FBI
> Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation
> Dassey's attorney
> ...


IF (a big if) there were a conspiracy, it wouldn't necessarily take all those people. Consider the confirmation bias that likely goes on in the groups that you mention.

To address your conspirators:
It wouldn't take an entire Sheriff's department. Only a few (which is more than possible) because what do the others do. They have each other's back. it's like your family. You defend them regardless of their stupidity.

DA had a vested interest financially as he could likely have been on the hook for a considerable amount of money.

FBI - now this one would be hard to believe, but would you believe the Sheriff's department or a potential murderer?

I don't understand how the Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation would have to be in on it.

Dassey's first attorney was colluding with the prosecuting attorneys. What motivates someone to do this?

The judge doesn't have to be in on it. Nor does the jury.

My biggest reason to believe the conspiracy, is the total lack of the victims blood on the premises. How can a man as big of a slob as that clean up every minuscule ounce of blood in a garage as messy as that where she was shot and her throat slit, yet leave his own DNA? And the rape location in the bedroom for that matter. Really...cleaning up that perfectly and forgetting to get rid of the key? Come on. He's no criminal mastermind. 

And my stupid comment of the week. My money was that it was the other Dassey brother and Avery's brother in law that were "hunting". I don't think the sheriff's office conspired to kill this woman so much as they conspired to make the financial disaster go away.

----------


## Eric

> Not saying to discount anything, just trying to be realistic.
> 
> I don't think there was ever any real threat of Avery winning some huge settlement and even so, it was just the County and these two guys -- long since retired -- who were on the hook.  Suits like these frequently start at some absurd number then get negotiated down to a small fraction.
> 
> Would not begin to explain what these droves of other people would jeopardize their own careers, reputations and even possible jail time just to 'get' Avery, especially since they already had tons of condemning evidence.


18 years of time has got to be worth far more than $400K. Even if they get down to a few million, you think the officers have those sort of resources? I'm just saying there is infinitely more motive for the sheriff's office to act inappropriately than for Avery & Dassey to have.

----------


## checkthat

> My biggest reason to believe the conspiracy, is the total lack of the victims blood on the premises. How can a man as big of a slob as that clean up every minuscule ounce of blood in a garage as messy as that where she was shot and her throat slit, yet leave his own DNA? And the rape location in the bedroom for that matter. Really...cleaning up that perfectly and forgetting to get rid of the key? Come on. He's no criminal mastermind.


The blood is a big one. How are we to believe that they were able to clean every trace of her blood and DNA from the trailer and garage, yet Avery leaves obvious blood stains in the car. Why aren't Avery's fingerprints anywhere in the car, including under the latch or on the hood? If he was wearing gloves, where did his blood come from? If he wasn't, where are the prints?

----------


## OKCRT

> I disagree that it's easy to get 12 people to be unanimous on a jury.
> 
> I've served on them and was the foreperson of a long trial and it amazed me that 12 people who sat and heard and say the exact same evidence and testimony had such wildly different opinions.
> 
> However, I've stated before I am a huge believer in the jury system.  Everyone loves to point out when there is a breakdown (like the OJ criminal trial) but those are extreme and rare exceptions IMO.



Kratz poisoned the jury pool before the trial ever started. He went on TV and declared that he had a confession and told everyone that Avery & the Child killed the Halbach girl by chaining her up to the bed and raping and then cutting her throat. He was very convincing if you watched his press conference. So IMO that jury went in to that trial already with that on their mind. I mean the DA told us that they had a confession. So I can see how even with very shady evidence presented by the DA that a jury could convict.

----------


## OKCRT

> Do you think the settlement terms would have been the same had he not been in jail awaiting trial for murder?


He would have received millions. If I remember the reason he took the 400k was to have the funds to hire his lawyers for his murder charges. The scuttle but that was going around was that if Avery won a huge settlement that heads were gonna roll and many of the people involved in his false rape conviction were going to be fired.

----------


## OKCRT

> The blood is a big one. How are we to believe that they were able to clean every trace of her blood and DNA from the trailer and garage, yet Avery leaves obvious blood stains in the car. Why aren't Avery's fingerprints anywhere in the car, including under the latch or on the hood? If he was wearing gloves, where did his blood come from? If he wasn't, where are the prints?



It's impossible for them to have cleaned the blood if it happens the way the DA said it did. I mean impossible in the time frame. Plus,I am not even sure what the DA theory was on how she dies. First they said in the bedroom with throat slashing while she was in chains. Then they said she was killed in the garage. Either place there is no way they could clean all blood up before the police got there. There was so much stuff in the garage that would have had to be bleached down. Concrete floors ect. No way. Same goes for the bedroom.

----------


## Pete

> 18 years of time has got to be worth far more than $400K. Even if they get down to a few million, you think the officers have those sort of resources? I'm just saying there is infinitely more motive for the sheriff's office to act inappropriately than for Avery & Dassey to have.


The government offer was $25K TOTAL.

So, there is hardly the expectation that wrongfully convicted people are owed millions.

----------


## Pete

This is from the Innocence Project, the big advocacy group for the wrongfully convicted.

And they are recommending this clearly because payouts are usually way less.  In Avery's case, these guidelines -- which are not in place -- would result in a $900,000 payout plus some job training.

It's fair to assume typical payouts are much less, otherwise they wouldn't be advocating for this.





> The Innocence Project recommends that all states: 
> 
> Compensate exonerated people immediately after release with a fixed sum or a range of recovery for each year of wrongful incarceration. Congress and President Bush have recommended that this amount be set at $50,000 per year of wrongful incarceration.
> Provide immediate re-entry funds and access to job training, educational, health and legal services after an innocent person’s release.


Compensation for the Wrongly Convicted ? The Innocence Project

----------


## Eric

> This is from the Innocence Project, the big advocacy group for the wrongfully convicted.
> 
> And they are recommending this clearly because payouts are usually way less.  In Avery's case, these guidelines -- which are not in place -- would result in a $900,000 payout plus some job training.
> 
> It's fair to assume typical payouts are much less, otherwise they wouldn't be advocating for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for the Wrongly Convicted ? The Innocence Project


Did the $400K he received stem from his lawsuit, or was that from the state. He was suing the county & officials in their capacity. The show gives the impression it was a settlement. Or did he get arrested for the Halbach murder before the state compensation and then settle with the county? I'm a little off on my time line apparently. I was under the impression the county was concerned the state payment would make him far less likely to settle for a low amount. 

FWIW I believe the Innocence Project thinks the MINIMUM should be $50K a year. (which is still way to low in my opinion). The feds put the $50K cap in themselves. Is freedom worth that little?

Oklahoma Law:

A wrongfully convicted person is entitled to receive $175,000 for the entirety of his wrongful incarceration as long as he did not plead guilty and was imprisoned solely as a result of the wrongful conviction. Effective: 1978; Amended most recently: 2003. - See more at: Oklahoma ? The Innocence Project

Does federal law take precedent?

----------


## Pete

Avery settled with the County and the two others he was suing (former Sheriff and Prosecutor) after he had been arrested but before he had been tried.  The amount was $400K to dismiss all charges and not sue them again, but they admitted no wrong-doing.

Don't believe federal law had anything to do with the amount to be paid in this situation.  He was suing the County only and the documentary said they had offered to pay him $25K total before he decided to sue them, so clearly they were not being held to the federal standard.  I bet that's just for federal cases, which this was not.

----------


## Tundra

How big of a douche, did Kratz turnout to be?

----------


## mkjeeves

> This is from the Innocence Project, the big advocacy group for the wrongfully convicted.
> 
> And they are recommending this clearly because payouts are usually way less.  In Avery's case, these guidelines -- which are not in place -- would result in a $900,000 payout plus some job training.
> 
> It's fair to assume typical payouts are much less, otherwise they wouldn't be advocating for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for the Wrongly Convicted ? The Innocence Project


Half of what they were seeking was punitive because of the egregious nature of the actions of law enforcement to put him there and keep him there. That may have counted for something significant in front of a jury.

Not many truly good folk in the movie. I have some respect for some of the defense attorneys and some of the family. Overall, it makes me lose faith in humanity and want to go take a shower.

----------


## Eric

It's funny the subject we have been discussing for the most part revolves around Avery & Dassey's innocence (or guilt) but I think the main point of the documentary was to expose the power that (corrupt) officials CAN have over our lives. Call it slanted coverage, but that's not the point. The point was to expose corruption, which I think at this point it is safe to say the sheriff's department was not acting on the up and up at all times. Now, do I think all law enforcement is bad. No. But, I believe there are equally corrupt parts in law enforcement that there is in general society. It does and will continue to exist. What I think needs to be reiterate is what the focus should be. The focus should be the citizens. What I think was happening in this case was several groups (two sheriff's offices, FBI, DA, etc) all acting not in concert so much as acting in confirmation of what their "brothers" are doing, with little regard to the humans they are dealing with (all of them). They seemed at least on the surface to be concerned with the Holbach's, but what about the other side? Do they at some point become not responsible to the accused. Does even our law enforcement believe in "innocent until proven guilty"?

----------


## Pete

^

The point was to create controversy and suspicion to get people to watch the series, and that certainly worked.

Since everything portrayed happened years ago, there is nothing otherwise compelling about this murder.


People keep saying they exposed corruption but they didn't.  All they did was present a slanted viewpoint with cherry-picked evidence and carefully edited footage.

If there was any real, hard evidence of corruption, it wasn't in that film.  Just a lot of shot-gunning all types of conspiracy theories and innuendos.  And where has all this ultimately led other than some silly and useless on-line petition?

This is what defense attorneys do when representing someone who is completely guilty.  Otherwise, this case was a slam dunk...  And even after all their diversions, the jurors still didn't take very much time making up their minds simply because there was a mountain of evidence from professional law enforcement on one side, and a bunch completely unproven and disjointed conspiracy theories on the part of the defense.

----------


## TU 'cane

Good points in both of your posts.

----------


## checkthat

> ^
> 
> The point was to create controversy and suspicion to get people to watch the series, and that certainly worked.
> 
> Since everything portrayed happened years ago, there is nothing otherwise compelling about this murder.
> 
> 
> People keep saying they exposed corruption but they didn't.  All they did was present a slanted viewpoint with cherry-picked evidence and carefully edited footage.
> 
> ...




Can you explain exactly how the murder went down since it is so obvious?

----------


## Pete

> Half of what they were seeking was punitive because of the egregious nature of the actions of law enforcement to put him there and keep him there. That may have counted for something significant in front of a jury.


All such lawsuits add some huge sum for punitive damages, pain and suffering, etc.  Why not? Absolutely nothing to lose.

Anyone with $50 can file a lawsuit against anyone for any amount and means next to nothing.

Only the outcome matters and has any basis in reality.

----------


## Pete

> Can you explain exactly how the murder went down since it is so obvious?


No, because I didn't sit in on all six weeks of the trial.

But it's not too hard to sketch out a general idea what happened:  Avery raped and killed her, hid her car on his property, and burned her body and other evidence.

----------


## checkthat

> No, because I didn't sit in on all six weeks of the trial.
> 
> But it's not too hard to sketch out a general idea what happened:  Avery raped and killed her, hid her car on his property, and burned her body and other evidence.


They were able to spotlessly clean the garage and trailer of all of her blood and DNA, save the one bullet that was found four months later. Then, they leave her blood, hair, and Steven's blood in the car. Why would they not even attempt to clean the car if that is the case?

----------


## Eric

> All such lawsuits add some huge sum for punitive damages, pain and suffering, etc.  Why not? Absolutely nothing to lose.
> 
> Anyone with $50 can file a lawsuit against anyone for any amount and means next to nothing.
> 
> Only the outcome matters and has any basis in reality.


An outcome, need I remind you, is based solely on the OPINION of a dozen jurors. They didn't see it happen. I'm not sure this is 100% based in reality.

----------


## Pete

> An outcome, need I remind you, is based solely on the OPINION of a dozen jurors. They didn't see it happen. I'm not sure this is 100% based in reality.


Actually, in the settlement we are talking about it never went to a jury.

The two sides mutually agreed.

----------


## Pete

> They were able to spotlessly clean the garage and trailer of all of her blood and DNA, save the one bullet that was found four months later. Then, they leave her blood, hair, and Steven's blood in the car. Why would they not even attempt to clean the car if that is the case?


You are not dealing with criminal masterminds, here.  Both Avery and his nephew had IQ's below 80.

He burned the bedding (something I don't think was mentioned in the series) and Brendan came home with bleach on his jeans, something his mother questioned him about.  He told her he had been helping Steven clean his garage.


Bottom line, they cleaned some things up but left many, many bits of evidence all over his property which is why he was convicted.

----------


## AP

> No, because I didn't sit in on all six weeks of the trial.
> 
> But it's not too hard to sketch out a general idea what happened:  Avery raped and killed her, hid her car on his property, and burned her body and other evidence.


I think a good point brought up in the trial is, if he owns an auto salvage yard with a CAR CRUSHER, why would he not get rid of the car but would be smart/skillful enough to clean every record of her being on his property. I think your "general idea" is a little too simple for what may have actually happened. 

Also, he burned her body in his yard but for some reason moved her hip bone to the quarry miles away. Got it.

----------


## FighttheGoodFight

> I think a good point brought up in the trial is, if he owns an auto salvage yard with a CAR CRUSHER, why would he not get rid of the car but would be smart/skillful enough to clean every record of her being on his property. I think your "general idea" is a little too simple for what may have actually happened. 
> 
> Also, he burned her body in his yard but for some reason moved her hip bone to the quarry miles away. Got it.


You can also look at it from the other way. How would the cops frame this so well? The lengths they would have to go to is honestly astounding.

----------


## AP

I'm not sure I agree with that.

----------


## FighttheGoodFight

> I'm not sure I agree with that.


How so?

Killing a person, moving a car, planting blood on the key, car and under the hood, shoot a bullet from Avery's gun and put DNA on it, make Avery purchase handcuff and anklets described by the nephew, plant or doctor Avery phone calls to the lady at an obsessive rate.

I mean that is quite a bit of stuff to do.

I agree with Pete. I wasn't in the trial. I would also have found it difficult to find a jury that was unbiased in this case.

----------


## AP

I'm not saying they killed anyone. I'm saying they 100% planted evidence.

----------


## mkjeeves

My opinion, in short, Avery killed her. He had a bad start in life, followed by 18 years in the pen. Society is part to blame for the end result of making a murderer. She was probably not killed in the bedroom and probably not in the garage but that's kind of irrelevant. He/they may or may not have raped her. Brendon was in on some part of this, more of a victim than an accomplice, a really bad situation for him. Were I on the jury I'm not sure I could say that was beyond a reasonable doubt but I wasn't on the jury, I watched a TV show. Cops/prosecution/FBI/lab workers/Judges are for the most part, assholes, incompetent and some of them are outright criminals. I could have told you that before I watched it.

----------


## Pete

If you want to roll your eyes at any part of this case, try this one on for size:  Someone and likely multiple people in law enforcement killed an innocent 25 year-old woman and risked their careers, families and life in prison just to 'get' someone they didn't like.  Then tons more participated in the frame and cover up and risked all those same things.

You have to make that gigantic leap which is absolutely totally absurd.

Yet, at the same time people want to argue over tiny bits of evidence as being implausible.


The series was a massive manipulation by the filmmakers to make a compelling controversy and they were so good at it most people found themselves believing the tiny details of conspiracy without ever considering the utter ridiculousness of the fundamental premise.

----------


## Pete

> I'm not saying they killed anyone. I'm saying they 100% planted evidence.


Perhaps but I'm not sure why anyone would take that risk given the great evidence they already had.

Not only the personal risk but the risk of completely blowing the conviction.

----------


## Eric

> Perhaps but I'm not sure why anyone would take that risk given the great evidence they already had.
> 
> Not only the personal risk but the risk of completely blowing the conviction.


It didn't stop them before. Were the risks any less. They messed up on DNA evidence then. And then they ignored the corrected DNA evidence for a while. At no less cost then. But they did it anyway.

Has the fact that a well to do educated woman was not able to pick her accoster out of a lineup correctly not dawned on you? She actually saw the crime happen and still got it wrong. Yet you sit here and claim that there is no way these people (jury) who didn't see the crime, nor did anyone else who is investigating it, absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt got it right. How can you? You seem to be taking this so personally. Do you have friends/relatives in law enforcement?

----------


## Pete

> It didn't stop them before. Were the risks any less. They messed up on DNA evidence then. And then they ignored the corrected DNA evidence for a while. At no less cost then. But they did it anyway.
> 
> Has the fact that a well to do educated woman was not able to pick her accoster out of a lineup correctly not dawned on you? She actually saw the crime happen and still got it wrong. Yet you sit here and claim that there is no way these people (jury) who didn't see the crime, nor did anyone else who is investigating it, absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt got it right. How can you? You seem to be taking this so personally. Do you have friends/relatives in law enforcement?


Calm down and let's not make this personal.  I'm just expressing my opinion and if you don't agree, that's fine by me.  I enjoy a good debate.

No, absolutely no connection to law enforcement whatsoever and wouldn't even consider myself sympathetic to them in general; perhaps even shaded a bit the other way.

Not sure how the fallacy of an eyewitness -- who are always problematic in any case -- has anything to do with the jury in this situation.


I don't think anything less of those who believe some or all of the conspiracy theory, I just happen not to see it at all and have done my best to explain why.

----------


## Pete

> Yet you sit here and claim that there is no way these people (jury) who didn't see the crime, nor did anyone else who is investigating it, absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt got it right.


Never said any of this at all.

Merely said I trust that the jury that was privy to six weeks of testimony and evidence came to the correct conclusions and I don't see any concrete reason to believe otherwise.

----------


## AP

But what about the actual real life juror who said all of this: Steven Avery Juror Voted Guilty Because of Fear, Filmmakers Say : People.com

Do you believe People fabricated that or maybe the juror did to get attention?

----------


## Pete

I think it should be investigated but as of now is just another unsubstantiated allegation.

----------


## Eric

> Calm down and let's not make this personal.  I'm just expressing my opinion and if you don't agree, that's fine by me.  I enjoy a good debate.
> 
> No, absolutely no connection to law enforcement whatsoever and wouldn't even consider myself sympathetic to them in general; perhaps even shaded a bit the other way.
> 
> Not sure how the fallacy of an eyewitness -- who are always problematic in any case -- has anything to do with the jury in this situation.
> 
> 
> I don't think anything less of those who believe some or all of the conspiracy theory, I just happen not to see it at all and have done my best to explain why.


I didn't mean to make it personal. I've just hardly noticed you being so passionate about a subject that is really not OKC centric. It just seemed strange. I apologize for confronting you like that. Something about the discussion with you reminded me of me having discussions with people about education when they have a sister that is a teacher. 

Maybe I should have assumed you have white trash relatives you wish would go away.  :Wink:  for a REALLY long time. But don't we all.  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## Pete

You may have missed my earlier posts about my experience with crime-related documentaries.

I'm a huge documentary fan in general, see a ton of them, and then enjoy researching the facts afterward.  And most the time, I discover them to be incredibly biased and withholding of info that doesn't not support their agenda, and carefully edited towards the same end.

I was absolutely furious after being sucked into Capturing the Friedmans, which is very, very similar to this documentary.  The filmmakers intentionally left the viewer with the impression the Friedman's were probably not guilty when in fact, they were guilty of some of the most horrific crimes you could imagine.


You have to understand that 1) these filmmakers start with a story they want to tell (otherwise they wouldn't be pursuing this particular issue); 2) they become very close to the victims and their families through the course of filming, usually over many years; 3) become sympathetic to their plight; and 4) want to help them.

And most importantly, they want to draw viewers to their work and that requires a compelling narrative.


If I have a bias it's from seeing so many of these types of 'documentaries' which are generally huge manipulations of the facts and circumstances.

And when you later learn they purposely left out lot of key details, then I become even more distrustful.


What's so interesting about this is that Avery is portrayed in the series as the protagonist and victim.  Hours of selectively edited film were dedicated to advancing this characterization.

Yet, almost zero time was given to Teresa Hallbach and her family who were the real victims here.

And to a lesser extent, the people accused of wrong-doing when nothing has been proven against any of them.

----------


## FighttheGoodFight

People forget that documentaries always have an angle. Most of them are furthering a point.

----------


## Pete

One other bias I will admit to...

I had a long-term relationship then friendship with a woman who was a clerk for a prominent federal judge in Los Angeles.  The title of clerk is misleading because she was actually a full-blown attorney and a damn good one, graduating Law Review at Stanford.

The clerks are the people who actually do all the work for a judge.  In any case, a motion is filed by one side or the other (nothing is every initiated by the judge) then there has to be a ruling.  In the Avery case, there were likely hundreds of motions from both sides.

A clerk is assigned to a case by the presiding judge (most federal judges have two clerks) and then that clerk does all the research on the motion (checking laws and precedents) then making a recommendation to the judge on how the court should rule.  I know in the case of my ex girlfriend, the judge almost always agreed, although sometimes after some spirited debate.

I learned a tremendous amount about how cases -- civil and criminal -- actually operate.  And she was someone who I trusted 100% to be honest about things.  Often she couldn't tell me things until after the fact but we discussed dozens of cases in great detail and I learned a lot.  I love intellectual discussion.

Also, I have been party to several court cases, on both sides.  Also served as a foreperson on a jury trial that lasted about 3 weeks.

So, I have a much, much greater respect for the court systems now as a result.  I didn't start at that place and if you would have told me I would have all these experiences personally and through others I know and trust...  I would have guessed I would emerge much less confident of the system, not more so.

 I have become particularly trustful of the jury system.   Simplistically it seems unimaginably flawed but in reality there are so many checks and balances and instructions and limitations that apart from a few cases that get a ton of pub precisely because bad jury verdicts are so rare, the system simply *works*.  And even my most cynical lawyer friends agree.

The fact it does work so well does not make compelling news or movies.  Think about all the movies you've seen about jury trials...  They are almost all about 98% complete fabrications and too many people -- like me, before I had the aforementioned experiences -- think it's a hit and miss system that often fails.  And that's why documentaries like this are so able to fan the flames of controversy.

----------


## OKCRT

> But what about the actual real life juror who said all of this: Steven Avery Juror Voted Guilty Because of Fear, Filmmakers Say : People.com
> 
> Do you believe People fabricated that or maybe the juror did to get attention?


The real question is did these guys get a fair trial. I say not a chance. They may very well be guilty but I would support a new trial out of the county and with an unbiased jury pool.

----------


## Eric

> But what about the actual real life juror who said all of this: Steven Avery Juror Voted Guilty Because of Fear, Filmmakers Say : People.com
> 
> Do you believe People fabricated that or maybe the juror did to get attention?


Really the case that concerned me the most when it comes to unjust treatment was the Dassey boy's. Even when presented with evidence that his representation was working against him, and the fact that verbal confessions have often (by no means a majority but often) shown to be unreliable, he got no benefit of the doubt. In addition to the fact that there is literally zero evidence outside his own confession that he had anything to do with this.

----------


## Tundra

How come the documentary didn't show that Avery *67  Teresa twice ,  then called her normal a third time ,leaving a message asking her why she didn't show up? Well it's probably because he was covering his tracks from what he did.....

----------


## BBatesokc

> How come the documentary didn't show that Avery *67  Teresa twice ,  then called her normal a third time ,leaving a message asking her why she didn't show up? Well it's probably because he was covering his tracks from what he did.....


Where are you getting that Avery left a message during the third unblocked call "asking her why she didn't show up"?

----------


## Tundra

> Where are you getting that Avery left a message during the third unblocked call "asking her why she didn't show up"?


Nancy Grace had a special on last night, I missed it but rewatched this morning.... She laid out a sh**load of evidence against Avery. That if it were shared by the film makers everyone would be singing a different tune.

----------


## C_M_25

I just finished this series, and I have done a little research regarding what was left out of the documentary. I'm very conflicted about Avery's case. On one hand, I feel like he did it. He showed a history of violence (throwing a diesel covered cat across a fire). He ran his cousin off of the road and threatened her with a gun. THere is a history there. Also, there are too many odd coincidences (phone calls, possession of the vehicle, last person to see her alive, etc) that make me feel like he did it. HOWEVER, the state made some bad mistakes. Why did the county sheriff insist on searching the property even though they had a prior conflict of interest with Steven? Why was the vial of blood pierced? Why did it take them 5 months to find shell casings and a bullet in the garage? Why did it take them 8, YES 8!!, tries to find evidence in that trailer home?? Why did the lead investigator tell the forensics expert to "put [the girl] in steven's home??"

I think they tried way too hard (illegally) to make sure they had enough evidence against Steven. There are so many questions left on the table. Why wouldn't Steven use the car compactor to smash up the toyota? Why didn't he burn her body in the smelter? Where was the rest of the body? HOW IN THE HELL could he have cleaned his garage and house enough to remove every shred of DNA? Makes no sense to me. My gut feeling tells me that I think he did it, but there was too much tampering of evidence and coercion from the police investigators to prove this case without a reasonable doubt.

The person I think who really got screwed was Brendan! That poor kid didn't have a chance from the start. His original lawyer never defended him. He seemed like a snake in the grass. He should have never been interrogated without a lawyer or his mom. The investigators gave him positive feedback (food/water) when he told them what they wanted to hear, and they ridiculed him when he told them what they didn't want them to hear. You put a very low IQ 16-17 year old in a room for 3 hours and do this, and you can get the answer you want out of him. His court case was also a joke. They never play the last part of the phone call with his mom saying the investigators got in his head. The defense never pushed the points that his testimony came from coercion from the investigators. I feel so sorry for that kid. I do NOT believe he was involved...

----------


## Throckmorton

> Nancy Grace


This explains so much.

----------


## Pete

One very important note about Brendan that the docuseries glossed over...

In his confession, he gave details of the rape and murder that completely matched forensics and things he couldn't have possibly known if had was not been at the crime scene.

He also came home with bleach on his jeans that day and told his mom he had been helping Steven clean his garage.

And keep in mind, the court ruled he was not coerced into making a confession AND he also confessed to his mom on a recorded phone call from prison.

He was totally guilty.

----------


## rezman

I finally got caught up on all 10 episodes and I have to say it was very interesting. Lots of great view points  being shared here by all as well and I've enjoyed reading every one of them.   Early on in the series I asked myself  "what are they not telling us?" 

I agree I wasn't there so this is just my take on it.   I don't think there was a great big conspiracy conducted by the many law enforcement officials involved, but rather only by a small handfull... Mainly Lenk and Colborn, and  there was much malpractice  going on by others afterwards. 

Though there wasn't much elaboration on Deputy Colborn's  running of  Teresa Halbach's tag other than his red faced admission while on the stand, it made me wonder if Colborn and Halbach crossed paths  after she had left Avery's place and something went horribly wrong and Lenk, his superior, helped him  cover it up.  This is just purely my speculation of course. 

The fact that they weren't even supposed to be on the property but showed up anyway to "help out" and were admitedly not in continuous view of the Calumet County Deputies like they where supposed to have been should have been a red flag.

The evidence box that contained Avery's blood had it's external and internal seals broken, not to mention the needle puncture  in the top of the vial should have been a red flag as well.

Avery's blood  spots themselves shown in the Rav 4  were of an odd shape.  They weren't smears and they weren't drops. What they showed actually looked like it was drawn on from the end of a syringe.  Again, just my take on it.

And while the defense didn't prove wrong doing, the points where there were obvious shenanigans going on were ignored by the judge. 

While I'm not saying Avery and Dassey are innocent, there was plenty of doubt to declare a mistrial, or a retrial.

----------


## BBatesokc

> Nancy Grace had a special on last night, I missed it but rewatched this morning.... She laid out a sh**load of evidence against Avery. That if it were shared by the film makers everyone would be singing a different tune.


So, was your answer to the question, "Nancy Grace said so"? Because, I haven't seen that in any document or transcript.

----------


## Pete

Evidence that's missing from ?Making a Murderer' - NY Daily News

Here’s the evidence missing from the show:

9. The animal cruelty story was worse than described

In a sympathetic portrayal, the show refers to misbehavior with a cat as it quickly highlights Avery’s criminal past.

However, in addition to a burglary charge,* a young Avery actually poured gasoline on a cat and then threw it into a bonfire*, according to The Associated Press.

8. Avery was violent to other women

The docuseries mentioned Avery once held his female cousin at gunpoint, but the list of violence apparently didn’t end there.

The now-53-year-old allegedly raped a young girl and threatened to kill her family if they spoke out, according to a story by the Appleton Post Crescent.

Another older woman told to keep quiet also accused Avery of rape, according to the paper.

And, during a bail hearing for Avery, *prosecutors said Avery had drawn up diagrams while in prison for a torture chamber to kill women.*

7. Avery once met Halbach wearing only a towel

Special prosecutor Ken Kratz, who helped land Avery in prison, has called out the documentary for its bias.

He recently recounted to People magazine evidence he believes the show glossed over to not “muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy movie.”

Kratz, who resigned from office in 2010 over a sexting scandal with one of his clients, claimed Avery once opened the door to Halbach “just wearing a towel.”

The 25-year-old photographer was allegedly “creeped out” and told a co-worker she wouldn’t work with Avery again.

The information was excluded not only from the documentary, but also from Avery’s trial, as the judge ruled the information about the incident was unclear, according to the AP.

6. Avery requested Halbach as his photographer

Prosecutors argued Avery knew Halbach was wary of him and used a different name when he called her job, specifically asking for Halbach.

*On the day of Halbach’s disappearance, Avery called to request “the photographer who had been out to the property previously,” according to testimony.

Halbach had already visited the Avery residence six times that year to document cars for Auto Trader magazine.

Avery used his sister’s name — who owned the car being photographed — when he made the photo appointment.*

5. Avery called Halbach three times on the day she went missing

*Prosecutors cited three phone calls Avery made to Halbach in their efforts to explain that Avery lured Halbach to his home.

For two of those phone calls, phone records indicated he used the star-67 feature, which is dialed to hide a caller’s identity.*

4. Avery had recently ordered leg irons and handcuffs

*Avery admitted to owning these restraining tools*, but claimed they were to use on his girlfriend Jodi, according to a 2006 story in Milwaukee Magazine.

The items match what Dassey described to police as being used to tie Halbach to Avery’s bed.

However, when tested, Halbach’s DNA wasn’t found.

3. Avery’s sweat was found in Halbach’s car

The documentary describes in lengths Avery’s blood in Halbach’s car and the possibility it was planted by police.

However, it barely mentions traces of his sweat that were also found.

*DNA from Avery’s sweat was found on the hood latch of the vehicle and on the car keys, according to testimony from the trial.*


2. Avery allegedly molested Dassey

*In a phone conversation shown in the docuseries, Dassey admits his role in Halbach’s murder to his mother — a statement he later denies.

However, the show cut out an important revelation in which Dassey said his uncle inappropriately touched him.

“I even told them about Steven touching me,” the then 16-year-old said, according to the transcript of the conversation.

He goes on to tell his shocked mother that he and his brothers were touched on occasions before the Halbach murder.*

1. The bullet matched Avery’s rifle
*
The bullet linked to Halbach’s DNA was forensically tied to Avery’s gun.*

In Dassey’s confusing interview with police, the teen also said his uncle used a gun that hung above his bed.


Despite the exclusion of evidence dissected across the internet, the films producers are standing by their work.

“The things I’ve heard listed as things we’ve left out seem much less convincing of guilt than Teresa’s DNA on a bullet or her remains in his backyard," filmmaker Moira Demos told The Wrap.

----------


## Pete

Steven Avery Prosecutor Ken Kratz Says Netflix Series Omitted Key Evidence : People.com

Kratz Claims Further Evidence Against Avery
*During his time in prison for a rape he was later cleared of, Kratz says Avery allegedly "told another inmate of his intent to build a 'torture chamber' so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released." Kratz adds, "He even drew a diagram."* 

*Kratz also claims that "another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to 'burn it.' " Halbach's bones were discovered in the fire pit behind Avery's house. He says "were 'intertwined' with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn," says Kratz, disputing the defense's allegation that Halbach was burned elsewhere and her bones were later moved.* 

*"Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere – never identified as Teresa's – were from this murder was never established," he adds.* 

According to Kratz, Avery's DNA, which he says was not taken from his blood, was also found under the hood of Halbach's car, a Toyota RAV4. "How did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car? Do the cops have a vial of Avery's sweat?" asks Kratz. Defense attorneys alleged that Avery's blood, which was found in Halbach's car, may have been planted, taken from a vial of Avery's blood that was 11 years old. 

Kratz also claims that a bullet, recovered from Avery's garage, couldn't possibly have been planted by police, as the defense also alleged. "*Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery's rifle*, which was in a police evidence locker since Nov. 6, 2005," says Kratz. "If the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from [Avery's] gun? This rifle, hanging over Avery's bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa's DNA on it. The bullet had to be fired before Nov. 5."

----------


## BBatesokc

> 3. Avery’s sweat was found in Halbach’s car
> 
> The documentary describes in lengths Avery’s blood in Halbach’s car and the possibility it was planted by police.
> 
> However, it barely mentions traces of his sweat that were also found.
> 
> DNA from Avery’s sweat was found on the hood latch of the vehicle and on the car keys, according to testimony from the trial.


I find this a bit odd. We met with a DNA expert while preparing for the Holtzclaw trial and we were assured that you can only detect the origin of DNA (within a forensic lab) if the source is saliva, semen or blood. We were told skin cells containing DNA are a very common mode of transport for DNA. And, while you can assume the transfer happened from sweat on the skin, you can't prove it.  I think the term sweat was introduced by the prosecution to try and cast doubt on it being planted. In reality, my understanding - and I read several peer reviewed articles on DNA transfer - that this is nothing more than a case of touch DNA (if Avery actually touched the car and bullet) or secondary transfer (meaning Avery's DNA got onto those object without him ever touching them). Not to mention, we are supposed to believe he was doing all this sweating in October in Wisconsin. It was probably in the 30's or 40's temperature wise.


Example: In the Holtzclaw trial, prosecutor Geiger said the DNA on Holtzclaw's pants came from the accuser's v-aginal fluid. The defense contends it came from a secondary transfer after Holtzclaw patted down the accuser and searched her purse and then later touched his pants. The OCPD DNA expert testified there would be no way to tell by examining the DNA alone - and that's all they found (no public hairs, semen, etc.).

_*Disclosure: I still think Avery is guilty of the murder. I just firmly believe there were illegal and unprofessional shenanigans by investigators to insure Avery's conviction._

----------


## rezman

^^^ All of this sure offers up a different view  than just the documentary series alone  doesn't it?.

----------


## BBatesokc

> Kratz Claims Further Evidence Against Avery
> During his time in prison for a rape he was later cleared of, Kratz says Avery allegedly "told another inmate of his intent to build a 'torture chamber' so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released." Kratz adds, "He even drew a diagram." 
> 
> Kratz also claims that "another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to 'burn it.'


And yet, amazingly, as damning as this sounds..... I've yet to see presented this "diagram of a torture chamber."

Anyone with any real experience in our judicial system will admit, the worst evidence you have is the testimony of inmates. They will literally say anything about anyone if they think for a second it will help them.

I can't think of a single case I've been a part of where snitch testimony from an inmate made any difference in a case. 

Wire an inmate up and get them to make their target talk and then I'll take them seriously - otherwise, their motives are too bias.

----------


## Pete

^

I'm sure the prosecution didn't need it and thus didn't use those statements to gain the conviction but...

The filmmakers specifically kept it out of the series while happily including every unsubstantiated claim and innuendo of a massive conspiracy, none of which was proven at all nor has any of that resulted in any ruling, admonishment or anything else by a judge or court.

If they could prove the planting of evidence (or any of the even wilder claims) they would have done it and at least pursued a mistrial if not an acquittal.

Those two defense attorneys are sharp, well-paid dudes.  They were just shotgunning a whole lot of stuff without proving any of it in the only chance they had to create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one of the 12 jurors.  And none of the jurors bought any of it.

----------


## BBatesokc

> ^
> 
> I'm sure the prosecution didn't need it and thus didn't use those statements to gain the conviction but...
> 
> The filmmakers specifically kept it out of the series while happily including every unsubstantiated claim and innuendo of a massive conspiracy, none of which was proven at all nor has any of that resulted in any ruling, admonishment or anything else by a judge or court.
> 
> If they could prove the planting of evidence (or any of the even wilder claims) they would have done it and at least pursued a mistrial if not an acquittal.
> 
> Those two defense attorneys are sharp, well-paid dudes.  They were just shotgunning a whole lot of stuff without proving any of it in the only chance they had to create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one of the 12 jurors.  And none of the jurors bought any of it.


That's all well and good until reality hits and we're all reminded the defense couldn't prove the set-up in the first trial (at trial) - yet we know now it 100% happened.

You act like proving  the planting of evidence is as it plays out in an episode Boston Legal or Perry Mason and someone always just cracks on the stand.

Unless you can get a confession or witness, exactly how are you going to prove they planted evidence?

The examples of police/investigators planting evidence is not something of myth. We've had our own scandals in Oklahoma for that very thing.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, but it seems both sides are too often guilty of painting too simple of a picture when it comes to this case.

----------


## Pete

I disagree we know that the first trial (where he was later exonerated) proved Avery was set up.

He was wrongfully convicted and law enforcement did a bad job in some ways, but you also had the victim herself testify she was 100% sure it was Avery.

Yes, the investigation probably contributed to her making this claim, but a victim being 100% sure of who committed a crime against them is enough to get a conviction, and that's what happened in that first case.

Wrongful conviction is not the same thing as being set up.


Regarding the proving of planted evidence, my point is that just because someone claimed something or implied it during a court case, it is in no way an indication of whether it actually happened or not.

Defense attorneys do things like that all the time in aid of an acquittal, just like defendants and others lie all the time under oath.

But most importantly, if even one of the jurors thought that the prosecution claims had any validity, Avery would not have been convicted, at least in that particular trial.  So in the end, I'm not talking about someone cracking on the witness stand but that none of framing crap was proven to the satisfaction of the jury, or the judge for that matter.

I'm sure there were motions to dismiss by the defense (almost always are) and clearly they were all denied by the judge otherwise the case never would have gone to the jury.

----------


## Pete

BTW, that wrongful conviction of Avery was in 1985.

They didn't have DNA testing back then; heck, they didn't even have the Internet at that time, computerized records, etc.

Things have come a very long way since and to the extent that evidence was planted and there were other shenanigans by law enforcement in the past, I'm very sure it happens way, way less now and when Avery was first accused of this murder.

----------


## mkjeeves

> .... my point is that just because someone claimed something or implied it during a court case, it is in no way an indication of whether it actually happened or not.


Obviously, that works both ways. Which is why we have a jury to attempt to sort it all out.

----------


## Pete

> Obviously, that works both ways. Which is why we have a jury to attempt to sort it all out.


And judges, too.

They rule on what can be introduced as evidence, how witnesses can be questioned and ultimately what the jury should consider and what they shouldn't.

They also rule on dozens (if not hundreds) of motions filed by both sides before, during and after a trial.

----------


## mkjeeves

> And judges, too.
> 
> They rule on what can be introduced as evidence, how witnesses can be questioned and ultimately what the jury should consider and what they shouldn't.
> 
> They also rule on dozens (if not hundreds) of motions filed by both sides before, during and after a trial.


Exactly. And in this case the judge ruled those claims could be heard. Just like the ones made by the prosecution. Neither had more standing than the other, except as decided by the jury.

----------


## Pete

> Exactly. And in this case the judge ruled those claims could be heard. Just like the ones made by the prosecution. Neither had more standing than the other, except as decided by the jury.


He allowed questioning around the evidence but the defense never came out and made any overt claims.

We also don't know what he didn't allow, what he cut off and what the jury was told to disregard.

A huge amount of the allegations and insinuation actually took place in filming the defense lawyers and Avery sympathizers outside the courtroom and of course, the jury was never exposed to any of that.

----------


## rezman

Kind of an interesting exchange going on here. Along the lines of what I was thinking while watching the episodes yesterday.

https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurder...e_key_and_the/

----------


## kevinpate

> ...
> 
> I can't think of a single case I've been a part of where snitch testimony from an inmate made any difference in a case. 
> ...



I can not say the same. Some snitches are damned convincing.
Particularly if the snitch happened to be the actual guilty party, such as in the Ron Williamson case I alluded to earlier in the thread.

When anyone gets into the mindset of well, X knew things about the crime or crime scene only the actual killer would know, my mind instantly goes to translation mode.  

X knew things about the crime or crime scene that could be known if s/he were the killer, or if the information was given to him by the killer, or law enforcement, or someone else known by or introduced to X who had a reason to frame X. 

The bottom line is this can, and does, happen.  Not in every case, obviously.  But it happens, and to presume otherwise is simply a bad idea in my opinion.  Consider it, rule it out if possible and move on.  If not possible to easily rule out, it deserves a much closer look before diving headfirst into the only the killer would know pond.  That pond can be very shallow in places, with large rocks just below the surface.

----------


## krisb

> One very important note about Brendan that the docuseries glossed over...
> 
> In his confession, he gave details of the rape and murder that completely matched forensics and things he couldn't have possibly known if had was not been at the crime scene.
> 
> He also came home with bleach on his jeans that day and told his mom he had been helping Steven clean his garage.
> 
> And keep in mind, the court ruled he was not coerced into making a confession AND he also confessed to his mom on a recorded phone call from prison.
> 
> He was totally guilty.


This statement is grossly unsubstantiated.

----------


## C_M_25

> This statement is grossly unsubstantiated.


If they used bleach to clean the DNA from the house, don't you think there would be bleach stains all over everything?

----------


## Pete

> If they used bleach to clean the DNA from the house, don't you think there would be bleach stains all over everything?


Supposedly, it was used to clean the garage floor.

----------


## Pete

> This statement is grossly unsubstantiated.


If you care to dispute what I wrote with any detail, I'd be happy to provide the portions of the court testimony that directly pertain.

----------


## OKCRT

> Obviously, that works both ways. Which is why we have a jury to attempt to sort it all out.


And the judge should be fair and impartial. How in the world could a judge let DNA evidence in when it was contaminated and the defense is claiming that it was tampered with? The lady doing the test contaminated the DNA sample with hers and yet the judge let the DNA evidence in. I don't get it. I mean we have Averys DNA blood in a pkg. with a broken seal a needle puncture in the vial and cross contamination from the person testing DNA samples from the crime scene. 

Something just doesn't compute here.

And how in the world could this idiot Avery clean up all the blood if the murder happens like the DA claims? One looking at this with common sense would say that blood splatter would be everywhere. If you look in the garage where they say she was shot there is so much stuff in there it would have been impossible to clean in the time frame we are talking about. And then we have the bedroom where her throat was slashed but not one single droplet of blood was found anywhere.

So that means these idiots not only cleaned one murder area but two. Something just doesn't pass the common sense meter here.

He might be guilty but there was def. some shenanigans going on in this case. It seems to me that the Halbach girl was prob killed in her car by someone. They have her blood and hair in the rear part of the car. The murder could have been committed by Steven Avery or maybe some other family member. I just can not see how it could have been done like the DA claims.

----------


## rezman

Watching this story  quickly reminded me of a family I met back in the mid 80's, who lived on the next block over from me. I never met the mom, but I did meet the father, and there were two sons, an older daughter, and a cousin that I became  aquainted with for a short time.  These folks had the same heavy northern accent,  same looks, intelligence,  demeanor, and grunginess as the Avery's, as presented in the series.  They were erily similar.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

I'm on the 4th episode and not finished yet cause this nephew, Brendan, is just a dumbass!

----------


## BBatesokc

Regardless, I think there is often a fine line between set up, incompetent or too bias for their own good when it comes to prosecutors and investigators.

----------


## OKCRT

> I'm on the 4th episode and not finished yet cause this nephew, Brendan, is just a dumbass!


He has a very low IQ just above the mendoza line for being retarded. It pains me to see these police interrogate him with no adult or lawyer in there with him. Not once not twice but many times til they get the answers they want to hear.

----------


## BBatesokc

> He has a very low IQ just above the mendoza line for being retarded. It pains me to see these police interrogate him with no adult or lawyer in there with him. Not once not twice but many times til they get the answers they want to hear.


If you read the transcript - that's actually not how it went down. He gave them very specific answers that matched the forensics without any prompting several times.

----------


## OKCRT

> If you read the transcript - that's actually not how it went down. He gave them very specific answers that matched the forensics without any prompting several times.


They interrogated him several times with no lawyer or adult supervision. That is what's wrong IMO. I know they can legally do it but he was so overmatched they could get him to say anything they wanted. He was worried about getting back to school by 1:30 for a project he had. He had no clue they were getting ready to put him in jail.

----------


## checkthat

> One very important note about Brendan that the docuseries glossed over...
> 
> In his confession, he gave details of the rape and murder that completely matched forensics and things he couldn't have possibly known if had was not been at the crime scene.
> 
> He also came home with bleach on his jeans that day and told his mom he had been helping Steven clean his garage.
> 
> And keep in mind, the court ruled he was not coerced into making a confession AND he also confessed to his mom on a recorded phone call from prison.
> 
> He was totally guilty.


The type of bleach that stains cloths does not clean blood evidence enough that it is not detectable though forensic testing. Oxygen bleach can clean the blood, but it does not create a stain. 

From this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd..._about_bleach/




> Chlorine bleaches can remove a bloodstain to the naked eye but fortunately, forensics experts can use the application of substances such as luminol or phenolphthalein to show that haemoglobin is present. In fact, even if the shady criminal washed a bloodstained item of clothing 10 times, these chemicals could still reveal blood.
> 
>     With oxygen bleach, the bleach has an oxidising agent, which could be a substance such as hydrogen peroxide. In these instances, haemoglobin is completely removed and can't later be detected.


Detecting Evidence After Bleaching




> Oxygen bleach is color-safe and wont bleach white spots onto dyed fabrics as chlorine bleach will


https://household-tips.thefuntimesgu...gen_bleach.php

----------


## Pete

^

Testimony shows that Dassey told his mother and investigators he had bleach on his jeans because he was helping Steven clean his garage floor the day of the murder.

That's what is important.

----------


## BBatesokc

> They interrogated him several times with no lawyer or adult supervision. That is what's wrong IMO. I know they can legally do it but he was so overmatched they could get him to say anything they wanted. He was worried about getting back to school by 1:30 for a project he had. He had no clue they were getting ready to put him in jail.


I get what you're saying. Regardless, he told them specific details that were not coached out of him and matched the forensics evidence. Parent or lawyer present or not, that doesn't change the fact he told them things that if innocent he shouldn't have known.

----------


## Pete

I believe Dassey was only interviewed the one time without his lawyer present and the judge specifically ruled (this was in the series) that he was not coerced in any way.

Remember, the series just shows some very carefully edited excerpts where the judge in this instance had access to the entire interview video and transcripts before making his ruling.

----------


## checkthat

> I get what you're saying. Regardless, he told them specific details that were not coached out of him and matched the forensics evidence. Parent or lawyer present or not, that doesn't change the fact he told them things that if innocent he shouldn't have known.


Are you able to provide some examples of the specific details that matched the forensics?

----------


## BBatesokc

> Are you able to provide some examples of the specific details that matched the forensics?


I don't have any special access to the transcripts than anyone else does. You're welcome to do what I did and spend the time to read them - its all there. Sounds like Pete may have done the same thing and drawn the same conclusion. Not speaking for him - as we disagree on some points - but that's what I got from his comments.

When you read the transcripts you will see Dassey's story change from interview to interview. That said, you will also see him offer details that are not spoon fed to him and match what prosecutors claim happened. You also read details that lead to more questions.

----------


## FighttheGoodFight

> I don't have any special access to the transcripts than anyone else does. You're welcome to do what I did and spend the time to read them - its all there. Sounds like Pete may have done the same thing and drawn the same conclusion. Not speaking for him - as we disagree on some points - but that's what I got from his comments.
> 
> When you read the transcripts you will see Dassey's story change from interview to interview. That said, you will also see him offer details that are not spoon fed to him and match what prosecutors claim happened. You also read details that lead to more questions.


Transcript of one.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwg...Kelly.pdf?dl=0

----------


## Pete

Prosecutors and investigators said Dassey shared details in his confession that were not known to the public at the time and turned out to be completely accurate.

In the courtroom, Dassy sadly tried to say he might have read such details in the book "Kiss the Girls" but it's been established that there were no parts of that novel that matched his description.

----------


## OKCRT

> ^
> 
> Testimony shows that Dassey told his mother and investigators he had bleach on his jeans because he was helping Steven clean his garage floor the day of the murder.
> 
> That's what is important.


I thought that was because of deer blood. That's what was mentioned by one of the lawyers in the doc. anyway. BTW,Dassey was interviewed several times by police. At his school,at a hotel and at the police station. I don't think there was ever a lawyer or adult with him for any of these.

----------


## Pete

This is an interesting article about Avery's case written after his arrest but before his conviction.

Blood Simple: Steven Avery


Couple very interesting things:

Both of Avery's brothers thought he was guilty.  Neither were interviewed in the docuseries and I don't remember them even being mentioned.




> Even Avery’s family turned against him. The stark and explicit nature of Dassey’s confession convinced his own siblings that Halbach met her end in Avery’s trailer.
> 
> “At first I had my doubts,” said his brother, Chuck, sitting in the salvage company’s office. “The way the evidence was coming in, it wasn’t adding up.”
> 
> “I got the same feelings,” said the younger brother, Earl. “Now… he’s no longer my brother. He can rot in hell.”


Also says that Avery parked Hallbach's SUV near the car crusher and planned to crush it "sooner rather than later".

Also says that Hallbach's key was found only after it dropped out of a pile of books in Avery's bedroom, which would explain why it had not been found previously.

----------


## OKCRT

> This is an interesting article about Avery's case written after his arrest but before his conviction.
> 
> Blood Simple: Steven Avery
> 
> 
> Couple very interesting things:
> 
> Both of Avery's brothers thought he was guilty.  Neither were interviewed in the docuseries and I don't remember them even being mentioned.
> 
> ...



Hard to believe it took them searching Avery's room 6 times before they found the key. And guess who the investigating officer was that found it?  I believe that would be Colburn, the same officer that held back info. from Avery's rape that could have set him free early on in his sentence. The investigator said he moved a bookshelf out and the key appeared on the floor. I find it hard to believe that this bookshelf and everything on it and in it wasn't already checked in one of the previous investigations. It Just all seems a little fishy to me.

----------


## OKCRT

Guilty or not, what's mind-blowing is the way the local authorities handled the situation and the case not being thrown out. Find a bullet 6 months later and not one drop of blood splatter found in the garage. The plates of the Rav-4 called in by Colburn before the car actually found. The contaminated blood sample. Why was James Lenk (or anyone from the sheriffs department) even allowed to search the Avery property? The case was supposedly turned over to Calumet county sheriff's department, but not so much. Seems like enough reasonable doubt to me but that's just me.

----------


## Pete

^

A lot of that was completely sensationalized.

In a case like this, there are hundreds of pieces of evidence and interviews.  The only hope for the defense is to try and build some massive conspiracy which they don't have to prove; just hope one of the jurors buys into reasonable doubt.


To demonstrate on how wildly they were flailing around trying to discredit virtually everyone in law enforcement or even that people that just provided testimony...

One of the defense attorneys openly stated that he didn't trust the FBI and fully expected them to tamper with test results that were ordered during trial.  Why on earth would anyone in the FBI do this?  They didn't even bother to explain because it was so silly.  Then, when they got the answer they didn't want, they just restated their distrust.

Then, they say they thought the lady and her daughter who found the car on Avery's lot were completely lying.  Why would they??  And all the testimony around that event completely lined up:  Volunteers organized the search party, distributed maps, were given a direct line to the sheriff if they found anything, etc.    They received no guidance on input from law enforcement whatsoever.  Yet the defense just wanted to think she was lying because her testimony was so condemning and they had no other way to dispute what she had to say.  In the end they offered absolutely no reason to explain why they thought she wasn't telling the truth.  She was just some random citizen that was part of the search.

They also imply Hallbach's former boyfriend had some nefarious role without giving any reason, and implied he should have been treated like a suspect.

On and on and on.  Most of it was completely ridiculous.


I rewatched most of this series and it almost makes me angry watching it and seeing how incredibly slanted it was and how the defense offered dozens and dozens of conspiracy theories from judges to law enforcement (from no less than 5 different and distinct agencies) to witnesses and anyone else who contributed to the mountain of evidence against their client.

Avery was stone cold guilty and so they were doing nothing but grasping at straws the whole time.

----------


## OKCRT

> ^
> 
> A lot of that was completely sensationalized.
> 
> In a case like this, there are hundreds of pieces of evidence and interviews.  The only hope for the defense is to try and build some massive conspiracy which they don't have to prove; just hope one of the jurors buys into reasonable doubt.
> 
> 
> To demonstrate on how wildly they were flailing around trying to discredit virtually everyone in law enforcement or even that people that just provided testimony...
> 
> ...


Check out James (Whitey) Bulger and the FBI. In fact that has an Ok. connection with the murder of Roger Wheeler. The FBI was in it up to their necks. Not saying I believe they had anything to do with the Avery case but they can def. be corrupted.

----------


## Pete

Anybody can be corrupt but in this day and age, to *expect* the FBI to be dishonest over something that didn't even really affect them...

To me that just demonstrates how out in the weeds they were with all this.

Same with attempting to discredit the woman who found the car.


Both those situations conclusively proved to me that everything else they put forward as conspiracy was generally fabricated.

----------


## krisb

The motive for the Sheriff (and two deputies specifically) to frame Steve Avery seems more plausible than any motive Steve had to murder a woman and leave evidence all over his property following 18 years of time in prison.

----------


## krisb

> One very important note about Brendan that the docuseries glossed over...
> 
> In his confession, he gave details of the rape and murder that completely matched forensics and things he couldn't have possibly known if had was not been at the crime scene.
> 
> He also came home with bleach on his jeans that day and told his mom he had been helping Steven clean his garage.
> 
> And keep in mind, the court ruled he was not coerced into making a confession AND he also confessed to his mom on a recorded phone call from prison.
> 
> He was totally guilty.


What details did he provide other than the ones the detectives were leading him with? He also said a lot of things that were entirely made up or unrelated to the crime scene because he couldn't figure out what they wanted him to say. The interrogation was botched and would never meet the standards of protocol based on what we know today about the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and suspects under duress.

Did the murder happen in the bedroom or the garage? It is unlikely that they could have cleaned up the entire mess in either or both places.

Just because the court ruled the confession as admissible does not make it more reliable, as the documentary well demonstrated. When he supposedly confessed to his mom on the phone he had just been manipulated into pleading guilty to get a lesser sentence and he only called his mother to tell her at the leading of the investigators.

Your last statement about him being "totally guilty" is the most troubling of all. The biggest thing I took from the documentary is that we need to approach justice from a place of humility and acknowledging that none of us really know what happened and that in the U.S. individuals are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

----------


## Eric

Discrediting Sturm isn't all the crazy. She was claiming God led her to it. I'm not saying that's not necessarily possibly, just not very plausible. 

The woman who found the Rav 4 is actually related to the Holback's (second cousin I believe). She is also some kind of investigator, which lends itself to her credibility. I'm guessing God (as in the one who led her to it) in this case was probably the x-boyfriend and his buddy, and Colburn. The two gentlemen "found" it on private property, called sheriff. Colburn responded,  called in the plates, and told them to get lost or they may blow the case. Then by the grace of God fed it to Ms. Sturm. Who then coincidentally is the only one who took a camera and a phone, and walked roughly 1,500 yards in 10 or 15 minutes and "found" the vehicle. It either took longer than she recalls or the two did not look at a single other vehicle along the way to have made it there so quickly. 

And in regards to the blood evidence found in the Rav 4 and the DNA bullet:

Thoughts, Life Lessons, Irony, Logic, and Love: Some Clarity to Some of the Evidence in "Making a Murderer"

In short, the author was perplexed that either was admitted in court as in his opinion they both inconclusive at best.

----------


## Eric

> Your last statement about him being "totally guilty" is the most troubling of all. The biggest thing I took from the documentary is that we need to approach justice from a place of humility and acknowledging that none of us really know what happened and that in the U.S. individuals are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


What I was expecting to read more of and haven't really seen all that much of is this:

The DA/county acted totally unethical. That's a fact jack.

But I haven't really seen that, and the unusual thing of it is, I think that was the jist of the entire show. I don't think the focus was intended to be Avery necessarily. He just fit perfectly in that he has potentially been convicted of a serious crime twice while being innocent (hypothetically, 1 for a fact). I'm sure that scenario hasn't happened often.

----------


## Pete

> Your last statement about him being "totally guilty" is the most troubling of all. The biggest thing I took from the documentary is that we need to approach justice from a place of humility and acknowledging that none of us really know what happened and that in the U.S. individuals are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


You're 'troubled' by the fact I trust the jury and legal system to render the proper verdict?

Both men WERE found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Silly, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories by defense attorneys and slanted and biased films by people with an agenda are far more troubling, especially when it motivates large groups of people to overturn completely valid convictions of two men who committed horrific crimes.

----------


## Pete

> The DA/county acted totally unethical. That's a fact jack.


You realize the special prosecutor and lead investigators were not from Maintowoc County, right?

Nor were the FBI and several other agencies involved.

And the volunteers were now part of a conspiracy theory?


But of course, they were all out to get Steven Avery too, even though they had absolutely zero motive and tons of risk to their reputations and careers.

That is surely more plausible than all the evidence against both of these guys and that they were just stone cold guilty.

----------


## AP

> Both men WERE found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


So this isn't true then? Steven Avery Juror Voted Guilty Because of Fear, Filmmakers Say : People.com

----------


## Pete

^

Don't know if it's true or not and have said before that should be investigated.

As things stand now, nothing has changed.

----------


## checkthat

> You realize the special prosecutor and lead investigators were not from Maintowoc County, right?
> 
> Nor were the FBI and several other agencies involved.
> 
> And the volunteers were now part of a conspiracy theory?
> 
> 
> But of course, they were all out to get Steven Avery too, even though they had absolutely zero motive and tons of risk to their reputations and careers.
> 
> That is surely more plausible than all the evidence against both of these guys and that they were just stone cold guilty.



Not everyone has to be involved in the conspiracy. Some folks could be persuaded by those involved. Others could just be incorrect in their interpretation of the evidence. For example, the FBI was incorrect on forensic analysis for decades:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...310_story.html




> The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.
> 
> Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratorys microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the countrys largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

----------


## Pete

> Not everyone has to be involved in the conspiracy. Some folks could be persuaded by those involved. Others could just be incorrect in their interpretation of the evidence. For example, the FBI was incorrect on forensic analysis for decades:


And who were these master persuaders who influenced scores people across many different government agencies, all with absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose?


You guys watch too much TV and too many movies.  I'm not saying there isn't occasional corruption or mistakes made, but we also have a legal system to ferret that stuff out.  It's not like any of these claims went unaddressed.   The info on both sides was presented and the jury decided -- unanimously.

The only time any of this matters is after a trial and NEW evidence not previously considered is submitted.

And that is not at all what is happening here.  The filmmakers are trying to use things already vetted at trial to create controversy and promote their docuseries.  It clearly worked.

----------


## Goon

I don't post often here, but figured I would weigh in due to this being "up my alley" because of my job in law enforcement.

I think people get wrapped up in the "is he guilty" or "is he innocent" trope so much that they forget that our criminal justice system is predicated on the idea that all it takes for a not guilty verdict is the establishment of reasonable doubt.

I know a lot of people here realize what that means, but often juries find that concept vague at best. It's why highly successful attorneys like Mark Garragos swear that trials are won and lost at jury selection; the facts, evidence, etc are only as important as those 12 people say it is. 

Personally, I think what the prosecutor said in his closing statements is pretty spot on: for the jury to find Avery not guilty, they would have to lend credibility to the idea that the police either (A) killed the victim, or (B) knew about her murder and planted evidence to implicate Avery. That's a pretty steep hill to climb. 

Despite the statement above, If I was a juror, I would have voted not guilty. Not because I think Avery is innocent, but because I understand that "innocent" and "not guilty" (to me) are not exactly the same thing. In the legal sense, being not guilty simply means that reasonable doubt was established. This could be due to the fact that you are innocent, but not always. IOW, all innocent people may be not guilty, but not all findings of not guilty mean the person was innocent. So, I would have voted not guilty with the knowledge that it is very likely  IMO that he did it or had a hand in it, but that the prosecutor/police did not do their job to convince me beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. 

Doesn't mean he isn't responsible in some way for her death, only that the actions of both sides in total result in a finding of not guilty.

----------


## Pete

I think it's presumptuous to say how you'd vote if you had been on the jury unless you sat through the full 6 weeks of trial and then sat in a deliberation room with 11 others who did the same.

We saw a very tiny sliver of what they saw and heard, and what was presented to the viewer was biased and carefully edited to forward the idea of reasonable doubt.

We also don't know what their instructions were, what testimony and evidence they were asked to consider and what they were told specifically not to consider.


Unless you've sat on a long jury trial you don't have an appreciation for how seriously jurors take their jobs, especially with someone's life literally on the line.

----------


## Eric

> You realize the special prosecutor and lead investigators were not from Maintowoc County, right?


Does not change my opinion that they acted unethically. And yes, I was aware. However, the Manitowoc sheriff's office assisted unethically as well.




> And the volunteers were now part of a conspiracy theory?


Officer Colburn had all the opportunity in the world to clear up what happened. But he didn't. And do I believe volunteers would have gone on to private property without asking if they thought it would help them find their loved ones, yes. And no, that is not a conspiracy at this point. It is concealing the truth, but not a conspiracy. Colburn probably really thinks that Avery did it. He knows that the process that just occurred might compromise the evidence. I'm not calling it malicious at this point, just wrong. The volunteers are certainly not in on it, they just defer to what they perceive is a moral authority on the subject.

----------


## Eric

> And who were these master persuaders who influenced scores people across many different government agencies, all with absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose?
> 
> 
> You guys watch too much TV and too many movies.  I'm not saying there isn't occasional corruption or mistakes made, but we also have a legal system to ferret that stuff out.  It's not like any of these claims went unaddressed.   The info on both sides was presented and the jury decided -- unanimously.
> 
> The only time any of this matters is after a trial and NEW evidence not previously considered is submitted.
> 
> And that is not at all what is happening here.  The filmmakers are trying to use things already vetted at trial to create controversy and promote their docuseries.  It clearly worked.


I don't think (or I am certainly not) contending that the conspiracy involves all these agencies. They are all acting (IMHO) according on their own. It's just that the justice system (which the documentary was attempting to point out) works to convict people of crimes, sometimes at the expense of those who didn't actually commit them.

----------


## Pete

What does Officer Colburn have to do with the woman and daughter who found the car??

Everyone involved in that search and the authorities themselves said they received zero guidance from law enforcement or anyone else.

The volunteers merely created maps with the sheriff's phone number on them, and asked people to cover certain areas and call in if they found anything, which is exactly what happened.


Again, the defense was just throwing out all these disjointed things and never came close to explaining how this grand conspiracy worked.  

They were just trying to discredit anyone they could because they had no other defense.

----------


## AP

I read this on reddit and thought you might have a good response to it.

"When Andrew Colburn called in the license plate number to dispatch, can you think of any other reasons in the world why he would have done so if he wasn't looking at the car? Just trying to come up with any scenario that would remotely make sense.
Maybe he was given the license plate number before calling dispatch and just wanted to verify it? Still doesn't make sense why he just wouldn't say that in court. And his reaction in court was definitely strange. He didn't have much of a response after SA's defense attorney played the recording twice. At least not from what the documentary showed."

Any thoughts?

----------


## Pete

^

First of all, all we saw was edited video from the trial.  We do not necessarily have the full evidence and testimony around this issue.

Secondly, what the heck does it have to do with anything?  For this issue to matter at all you would have then to take a series of huge leaps that the police actually had the car and planted on Avery's property, and why on earth would they do that??

You would then have to make the leap that they killed this woman, burned her bones then planted those too, planted the car key, etc., etc.

And they did zero to connect all these dots other than throw out a bunch of wild and disjointed conspiracy theories that generally went against all common sense.

----------


## FighttheGoodFight

> I read this on reddit and thought you might have a good response to it.
> 
> "When Andrew Colburn called in the license plate number to dispatch, can you think of any other reasons in the world why he would have done so if he wasn't looking at the car? Just trying to come up with any scenario that would remotely make sense.
> Maybe he was given the license plate number before calling dispatch and just wanted to verify it? Still doesn't make sense why he just wouldn't say that in court. And his reaction in court was definitely strange. He didn't have much of a response after SA's defense attorney played the recording twice. At least not from what the documentary showed."
> 
> Any thoughts?


Confirming the license plate number after an interview?

----------


## Pete

There are dozens of reasons he  could have made that call and it was incumbent on the defense to explain why this issue mattered to the case at all, which they certainly did not from what the series showed.

----------


## Eric

> There are dozens of reasons he  could have made that call and it was incumbent on the defense to explain why this issue mattered to the case at all, which they certainly did not from what the series showed.


Guilty until proven innocent. Right?

----------


## Pete

We're talking about evidence and a witness here, not the defendant.

Huge difference.

----------


## Eric

> There are dozens of reasons he  could have made that call and it was incumbent on the defense to explain why this issue mattered to the case at all, which they certainly did not from what the series showed.


Yet the state failed to show why he made the call.

----------


## Eric

I understand there is a lot of evidence that supports conviction. But nearly every piece independently can be proved to be compromised. The main pieces:

* The key - not found after several searches.
* The bullet - same, and no blood DNA on something that I assume would have been a hit considering she was to have been shot at point blank range.
* The car - no finger prints of the accused. It is believed to have been used to transport the body what I assume would be about 10 or 15 feet or so.
* Avery DNA under the hood - certainly does not indicate murder. In addition it was only collected 6 months after the crime occurred. And this I don't know, but I would expect to see others' DNA under there as well, specifically the people that examined it.
* Blood evidence in Rav 4 - the test was contaminated but admitted anyway. Completely at odds with the department guidelines. Sloppy but still admitted. 
* Restraints - I still have yet to see how this has any bearing on the case aside from Dassey saying she was restrained in a room and her throat slit, but no bleeding apparently.
* The Dassey confession(s) - since they all don't seem to match up, and they weren't even used in the Avery trial except to poison the pool.

And for giggles, this post elsewhere was a funny recap of the case:




> Lets recap the prosecution’s “airtight” case in a nutshell: A guy who is a month or two away from a $36 million dollar check gets impatient waiting for all that money and decides to rape and murder a woman that he telephonically arranges (which she seems un-frightened to see him in her voicemail) to come visit his property in the middle of a weekday in full view of various people coming and going from said property. Once he gets her inside his trailer and commences with said raping, he gets a knock on his door, and answering it, he sees his nephew with the mental capacity of a 9 year old. Rather than saying, “I’m busy”, he invites said nephew in to witness, participate in, and eventually confess about all the subsequent rapiness and other crimes that happen. Luckily for him, the nephew does not seem to possess any DNA, since none of it gets anywhere during the entire afternoon and evening. Later, after much raping, stabbing, cutting, slitting, etc, that happens without any blood loss, the woman is dragged to the garage where she is shot eleven times, again without any blood loss, and also without making any sound. Later that evening, they burn the woman’s body a few yards away from where several people live, without the horrifying and distinctive smell caused by a burning body. At some point during this time, the guy and his nephew drive the woman’s car (after first taking some of her bloody hair and drawing pictures with it in the back of the vehicle) to what they think is a perfect hiding spot behind 3 or 4 branches, which is located very close to a large and inconvenient car-crusher. They do this without leaving any fingerprints or the tiniest bit of DNA in the car, except for a lot of smeared blood in very obvious spots. Three days later the police come asking questions and want to look around inside the trailer. The guy lets them do it, knowing he is safe because all of the raping, stabbing, cutting, slitting, etc, that happened in his carpeted trailer happened without any blood loss. The very next day, this guy leaves for his family’s cabin 100 miles away, but decides not to bring the woman’s car key, bones, teeth, cell phone, camera, etc. to dispose of far away because he knows he’s loved by the Manitowoc police department and they will never suspect him and search his property.

----------


## OKCRT

> I read this on reddit and thought you might have a good response to it.
> 
> "When Andrew Colburn called in the license plate number to dispatch, can you think of any other reasons in the world why he would have done so if he wasn't looking at the car? Just trying to come up with any scenario that would remotely make sense.
> Maybe he was given the license plate number before calling dispatch and just wanted to verify it? Still doesn't make sense why he just wouldn't say that in court. And his reaction in court was definitely strange. He didn't have much of a response after SA's defense attorney played the recording twice. At least not from what the documentary showed."
> 
> Any thoughts?



If you listen to the recording to the dispatcher it sure sounded like Colburn was looking at the car and describing it while talking to her.

----------


## Eric

> If you listen to the recording to the dispatcher it sure sounded like Colburn was looking at the car and describing it while talking to her.


I will say the way he offered the year of the vehicle seemed strange, as though he was reading something, not necessarily looking at a vehicle. However, he had all the opportunity to explain that, but he didn't. If he was reading from a report or something or trying to confirm info from the family, why not just say that when questioned about it? It's the combination of the call and the waffling on the stand that make it suspicious.

----------


## Pete

> Yet the state failed to show why he made the call.


He was called by the defense, not the prosecution.

The defense was trying to imply there was something nefarious about all this, thus it was up to them to prove that, not for the prosecution to prove anything about this witness since they didn't need him to prove their case.

And AGAIN, the footage in this documentary was heavily edited and even shown out of sequence.  There is simply no way anyone watching all these episodes -- and I've watched them all twice now -- is any position to say what did and didn't happen.

There was maybe an hour of courtroom footage that was heavily edited...  The jury heard six WEEKS worth of testimony and evidence.

----------


## trousers

The only thing better than the truth is a good conspiracy.

----------


## Stew

I always find it interesting reasonable folks can look at the same set of facts and derive wildly differing and passionate conclusions. My take aways are this "documentary" is highly manipulative, I wouldn't want the Avery clan as my neighbors and I can't believe I watched the whole thing. As far as who done it? How would I know I wasn't there.

----------


## OKCRT

> The only thing better than the truth is a good conspiracy.


Well it only take 2 to make a conspiracy. In this case,that could have easily been achieved. Like I said,they may be guilty but there is enough reasonable doubt that I don't think I could have convicted either one. 

Colburn & Lenk sure clouded things IMO.

----------


## rezman

I did an aerial look of their property on my I phone and can plainly see Steven Avery's place,  and the burn pit behind the garage, the gravel pit where the other bones were found and the ridge where the car was found. The Google imaging  on my desktop looks like a later image. Many  cars have been cleared out of the back lots and Avery's place looks grown over.   I also  did a street view from the end of their road at the highway, and you can't see anything from the road  that even  resembles what you see from the air. .. It kind of left a pit in my stomach.

----------


## Easy180

What a fascinating documentary. Not surprised they both were convicted because proving a police conspiracy is crazy difficult to prove. They would have had a much better chance had the FBI not magically crafted a test to prove the blood wasn't from a test tube. 

With that said Avery would likely have to be a top 10 U.S. idiot to burn the body right outside his door and then "hide" the car on the outside row of the salvage yard with some branches over it. 

Let's just all count our blessings that we do not reside in Manitowoc county!

----------


## Tundra

I heard that Discovery is working on their own less biased version of this story..

----------


## Tundra

Convicted Killer and ?Making a Murderer? Subject Steven Avery Appeals Conviction ? and Here Are His Arguments | TheBlaze.com

----------


## Goon

> I think it's presumptuous to say how you'd vote if you had been on the jury unless you sat through the full 6 weeks of trial and then sat in a deliberation room with 11 others who did the same.
> 
> We saw a very tiny sliver of what they saw and heard, and what was presented to the viewer was biased and carefully edited to forward the idea of reasonable doubt.
> 
> We also don't know what their instructions were, what testimony and evidence they were asked to consider and what they were told specifically not to consider.
> 
> 
> Unless you've sat on a long jury trial you don't have an appreciation for how seriously jurors take their jobs, especially with someone's life literally on the line.


A. I have sat through a long jury trial for exactly the same thing avery was charged with. I am well aware we don't have all the information they did. 

B, for the sake of argument, i gave my opinion. I'm not an idiot...i realize a juror is more fully informed. surely you must realize the point of this documentary was to make jurors out of the viewer.

----------


## Pete

^

Meant no disrespect to you, just making general comments about this situation in general.

And it's fine to speculate not know all the facts, but we have hundreds of thousands of people signing petitions and getting behind the idea of a retrial.

----------


## hoya

Haven't watched it, but my girlfriend did and she fed me info and asked me my opinion.  Then I read about half this thread and got info from people's posts.  My opinion?

The guy is probably guilty.  I also wouldn't be surprised at all if someone in the police department decided to "help" the case along a little bit.  In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't.  Too much bad blood between him and local officials.

You don't need a massive conspiracy to frame someone.  You just need one guy who is willing to say he found evidence at a location, and for other people to believe him.  It's pretty common for law enforcement institutions (police, prosecutors, sometimes judges) to just assume they got the right guy, and proceed full speed ahead without looking at any other options.  If someone says "hey look I found this key" or "here are the guy's fingerprints I found on the car", no one on the prosecution is ever going to look at it twice.  That kind of evidence tampering is basically impossible to prove for a defense attorney.

I'm not suggesting that the police killed her.  But I don't trust the evidence they claim to have found either.  Especially small stuff.

The nephew's defense attorney sucks.  It's not uncommon to try and push a client into taking a plea agreement, especially if you think they're going to be convicted at trial.  Having your investigator look for evidence that corroborates your guy's confession might be useful in getting a better deal (even if he didn't testify against his uncle, the intent at the time would be for that to be an option).  But this guy not being present at a police interview with his retard client, as well as a few other things he did, is just pure incompetence.  Probably not something where he's going to get disbarred or sanctioned for it, but it's just a stupid thing to do.

----------


## BBatesokc

‘MAKING A MURDERER’ SUBJECT STEVEN AVERY FILES AN APPEAL, THROWS HIS OLD LAWYERS UNDER THE BUS (link)

----------


## kevinpate

> What could possibly be more popular on





> Netflix than _Making a Murderer_? Well, if Instantwatcher.coms metrics are to be believed, the popular docu-series is being trampled by an hour-long video of an oscillating fan. Thats right. More Netflix subscribers are excited about watching an oscillating fan than they are about the trials and tragedies of Steven Avery.




http://decider.com/2016/01/12/more-netflix-users-are-watching-this-oscillating-fan-than-making-a-murderer/

----------


## checkthat

Trial transcripts are now available online for anyone who wants to dig deeper:

Table 1: Jury Trial Transcripts ? Steven Avery Trial Transcripts and Documents

----------


## Pete

^

Thanks for posting that.

I'm not going to read all 6-weeks worth but I did read through one day that featured lead investigator Fassbender form the Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation and it was very eye-opening to how the flimmakers cut his testimony to really forward this James Lenk conflict of interest idea when Fassbender himself said that there was no question of conflict in his mind and gave a detailed explanation as to why.

Of course, that was completely omitted from the documentary to give everyone watching the distinct impression there were all types of improprieties around Lenk and possible conflicts  (all presented with ominous music in the background) when the lead investigator from the State of Wisconsin said completely the opposite.

Fassbender also said that Lenk was never at the crime scene without someone else from outside the County present and that they welcomed and needed the assistance of the County.  The idea wasn't that no one in the County could be involved, it was that the lead investigators and prosecutors who organized and drove this case were not from the County, just to be extra safe.


Verifies all my feelings about this entire docuseries where they took things and intentionally edited them to forward their conspiracy theories when there were lots of important explanations that were purposely left out.

----------


## RadicalModerate

From all the hype, I figured this "documentary" wasn't worth watching. I was wrong. It compares favorably with "The Thin Blue Line" . . . "The Wire" . . . "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo Trilogy" . . . "Carnivale"  . . . Downton Abbey . . . and "The Sopranos."  Please don't tell me how it turns out. (did I forget "Rumpole of The Bailey" . . ? The Iowa Primaries? =~)

----------


## Jersey Boss

http://www.eonline.com/news/787359/m...sed-in-90-days

One of the stars of the Netflix hit Making a Murderer just received major news today in a Milwaukee court.

Brendan Dassey's conviction was overturned by a federal judge moments ago, court reporters tweeted.

According to court documents, a judge ordered that Brendan should be "released from custody unless, within 90 days of the date of this decision, the State initiates proceedings to retry him."

The judge further ordered that "in the event the respondent appeals this judgment, this judgment will be stayed pending resolution of that appeal."

----------


## Pete

Wow!

----------


## OKCRT

> http://www.eonline.com/news/787359/m...sed-in-90-days
> 
> One of the stars of the Netflix hit Making a Murderer just received major news today in a Milwaukee court.
> 
> Brendan Dassey's conviction was overturned by a federal judge moments ago, court reporters tweeted.
> 
> According to court documents, a judge ordered that Brendan should be "released from custody unless, within 90 days of the date of this decision, the State initiates proceedings to retry him."
> 
> The judge further ordered that "in the event the respondent appeals this judgment, this judgment will be stayed pending resolution of that appeal."



He never should have been convicted in the first place IMO. The cops pretty much talked him into confessing and also pretty much told him what to say.

----------


## Easy180

Great news as far as I'm concerned. His **interrogation** was beyond sleazy.

----------


## Pete

^

I can understand that perspective given the way that entire series was filmed but if you read the court transcripts they left a lot out and did a great deal of selective editing.

Not so sure this guy is going to be released, as prosecutors tend to protect their convictions pretty aggressively.

I also seriously doubt he is innocent, even if his confession was obtained under somewhat dubious circumstances.

----------


## Easy180

I just think with his intellect he would have broken down and confessed within 5 minutes of being grilled had he really been involved.

----------


## BDP

> And AGAIN, the footage in this documentary was heavily edited and even shown out of sequence.  There is simply no way anyone watching all these episodes -- and I've watched them all twice now -- is any position to say what did and didn't happen.


I just finished it and that's kind of how I felt. I was surprised that there wasn't much convincing of anything in the show. From the reaction, I thought it would be much more convincing. There was a lot of things it showed that just made me think 'WTF, that can't be right'. The contaminated DNA from the RAV4, the FBI's EDTA test, and Dassey's post conviction hearing were the most puzzling to me. In the case of the DNA, it seemed weird that they made the exception this time, when they had not before and it was against protocol to do so, mainly because the show made it seem like their justification for it was simply "nah, it's okay this time". The FBI EDTA test just seemed like a totally unscientific approach, especially as I understand it, there was no control. And, it seemed to me that it was pretty well shown that Dassey's first attorney wasn't working in his client's best interest, or at least he was operating under the assumption he was, in fact, guilty. However, none of that makes me know for sure they didn't do it. 

But, I do understand the manipulation involved, which is why I was so confused most of the time. The show left so many matzoh balls hanging out there and didn't really show the responses to them, which I just assume must have been made. A lot of the time I wasn't sure what the prosecution was alleging happened exactly or why exactly they thought it. I really just came away from it going "what!?". I kind of felt set up in the same way as if someone came up to me with some footage and said "OK, I'm going to show you a UFO that's an alien spaceship". Then after seeing video of a flying object that I can not identify, they say "see! Have you ever seen anything like that before? It must be an alien spaceship!".

----------


## checkthat

There has been a ton of action on these cases in the last few months. Brandon Dassey's conviction was overturned due to the coerced confession. The State is able to appeal this decision. Here is the judge's decision:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-and-Order.pdf

Kathleen Zellner, an attorney renowned for freeing innocent people who were wrongly convicted, has filed a motion on Avery's behalf requesting to use new methods to test the evidence. She can explain it better than I:





MAM2 is currently filming and will hopefully get to show both men being released.

----------


## OKCRT

> There has been a ton of action on these cases in the last few months. Brandon Dassey's conviction was overturned due to the coerced confession. The State is able to appeal this decision. Here is the judge's decision:
> 
> http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-and-Order.pdf
> 
> Kathleen Zellner, an attorney renowned for freeing innocent people who were wrongly convicted, has filed a motion on Avery's behalf requesting to use new methods to test the evidence. She can explain it better than I:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looking more and more live Avery was railroaded for a 2nd time and Zellner appears to have the proof.

----------


## RadicalModerate

This is like being caught between a rock and a hard place (legal-/justice-wise). If Avery is innocent, the killer is still at large. If Avery is guilty--and freed--then another dumbass is loose on the streets. It's sort of like the  Speluncean Cave Explorers . . . except in Wisconsin (edited to correct the spelling of Speluncean )

----------


## OKCRT

> This is like being caught between a rock and a hard place (legal-/justice-wise). If Avery is innocent, the killer is still at large. If Avery is guilty--and freed--then another dumbass is loose on the streets. It's sort of like the  Speluncean Cave Explorers . . . except in Wisconsin (edited to correct the spelling of Speluncean )


The DNA should tell us if it was Avery and if it proves it wasn't the police have some splainin to do. One of the claims is that some of the blood found was from an old sample of Avery's. If what they say is true they can now tell how old that blood is so we should know if it was planted. If it was,they are going to have to open this back up.

----------

