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.

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.

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 (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29326359.html)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-innocent/social-work/exoneree-compensation)

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 (http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-innocent/social-work/exoneree-compensation)

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 (http://www.innocenceproject.org/how-is-your-state-doing/OK#sthash.CjOQrcEp.dpuf)

Does federal law take precedent?

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.

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

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 (http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-innocent/social-work/exoneree-compensation)

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.

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"?

^

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.

Good points in both of your posts.

^

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.



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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 (http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-believes-he-deserves-a-new-trial)

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

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

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. :p

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.

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

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.

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 (http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-believes-he-deserves-a-new-trial)

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.

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 (http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-believes-he-deserves-a-new-trial)

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.

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.....

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"?

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.

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...

Nancy Grace

This explains so much.

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.

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.

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.