Evidence that's missing from ?Making a Murderer' - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213)

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.

Steven Avery Prosecutor Ken Kratz Says Netflix Series Omitted Key Evidence : People.com (http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-prosecutor-ken-kratz-says-netflix-series-forgot-key-evidence)

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."

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.

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

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.

^

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.

^

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.

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.

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.

.... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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/MakingaMurderer/comments/3yejbr/a_theory_about_the_car_the_plates_the_key_and_the/

...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/MakingaMurderer/comments/3yu8ak/what_you_probably_dont_know_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 (http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/detecting-evidence-after-bleaching.html)


Oxygen bleach is color-safe and won’t bleach white spots onto dyed fabrics as chlorine bleach will

https://household-tips.thefuntimesguide.com/2010/02/oxygen_bleach.php

^

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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/ej65jscjwgcpqtc/Transcript%20-%2005-12-2006%20-%20Dassey%20and%20O'Kelly.pdf?dl=0

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.

^

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.

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

Blood Simple: Steven Avery (http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/)


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.

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

Blood Simple: Steven Avery (http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/)


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.



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.


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.

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.

^

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.

^

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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" (http://chadsteele.blogspot.com/2016/01/some-clarity-to-some-of-evidence-in.html#comment-form)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

^

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

As things stand now, nothing has changed.

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/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_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 Laboratory’s 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 country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

^

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.

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?

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.