Making a Murderer

[krazykats]

So that link has some good info too. Seemingly the Avery's have all been in some trouble over the years.

There does tend to be more reason to suspect possibly that the deleted messages by the ex boyfriend could be an issue. Like the defense said if it could have led to possibly more info about where she was going etc then maybe a clearer picture is presented.

Also the brother Earl who let the police on the property to search it had a history of assault and sexual charges. Sounds like a few people in that town believe he did it and they got the wrong brother. That could be easy too and takes the police from planting evidence.

 

[Midway Cat]

The one officer testimony that bothered me and I can't recall his name was the one that signed out of the muster sheet but not in. His time of entry originally was approx 2, later it was approx 6. That's a big difference of either daylight or dark.
More than likely he was trying to cover his *** for not signing in and being somewhere he wasn't supposed to be, but it definitely was inline with what the defense was arguing.

I wasn't terribly impressed with the website you linked in one of your other posts, but I did come across an interesting detail that I don't recall being disclosed in the documentary. According to your site, the license plates for Teresa's vehicle were found crumpled in another vehicle on the Avery property a couple of days after the discovery of the RAV-4.

If that's true, it makes the testimony of the officer you referenced even more troubling.

Let's see--He asked dispatch to run the plate for Teresa's vehicle two days before it was found on Avery's property. During that call, he also provided the physical description of Teresa's vehicle and asked for confirmation. It sure sounded like he was looking at the vehicle with its plates still on it, two days after Teresa has been reported missing.

Then, two days later, the RAV-4 is discovered without plates in a relatively conspicuous location.

I'm sure that there's some context we're missing, but that call is extremely difficult to explain knowing that there were no plates on the RAV-4 when it was found.

 

[drxman1]

What about the "bugging" phone calls the victim 's coworker supposedly reported? Any analysis on who that could have been?

 

[downw/ball-lineD]

I have not read every post in this thread, but I am impressed by the inquisitive nature of many of the posters on this subject. I would love for many of you to serve on my juries. Questions need to be asked in any trial.

Personally, I Found the judges ruling on no third party culpability to be extremely troubling. I'm sure I don't have all of the facts on the issue, but for a judge to essentially rule that a defendant can NOT suggest other possible suspects would seem---to me at least----to be a reversible issue. again, perhaps I missed some critical element on this issue, but I found that troubling.

On the young nephew' s confession---well I guess the old adage of keeping your mouth shut is the best practice. I will say however that kids first attorney was pathetic IMO. Maybe I missed some of the facts in that regard, but what I saw was troubling. Especially the "actions" of his investigator. Very disturbing.

As much as I believe in our jury system, i wish I could say these cases were out of the ordinary. Many legally "not guilty" people are serving time. Very unfortunate and worth review and strong consideration for any "free" society. With that said, many of the thoughtful posts in this thread give me hope that our system is not entirely broken. Always question those with power. Always

 

[MacCard]

The problem I see with juries is the type of people who end up serving on them. For the most part, anyone with a decent job and livelihood would much rather go to work than serve on a jury. The running societal joke is talking about how to get out of jury duty.

So you're left with a pool of a large number of people with nothing better to do. That's a gross generalization I know, and it's not to say everyone on a jury is an idiot. But the population you're pulling from probably isn't a fair representation of our best and brightest.

 

[ALL IN YOUR FACE]

Anonymous is getting involved on Twitter. @OPAveryDassey Apparently they will be releasing trial transcripts and phone records from the officers involved along with documents of corruption and collusion.

 

[Kooky Kats]

opcorn:

hope they blow it up.

Hope it exposes more than wrongdoing than in Podunk WI. If FBI (in a state matter) were somehow found corroborating with these dickheads, it could prove nuclear to the system.

 

[downw/ball-lineD]

PS, I forgot to mention how troubling I felt the FBI testimony was. It would have been beneficial to see the testimony that suggested his opinion/testing-techniques could constitute "expert" testimony. I'm not sure how anyone could not be troubled by the clear tampering that occurred to the blood sample. Just baffling.

 

[anthonys735]

The first Dassey interrogation scene made me nauseous. TS. That was well before I knew much about the case.

 

[drxman1]

They didn't use Dassey's confession in the Avery case so I can't imagine it changing.

March 3, 2006: Four months after Halbach vanished, authorities arrest Avery's 16-year-old nephew Brendan Dassey as a co-conspirator. Dassey, the son of Avery's sister, is charged with being party first-degree intentional homicide, sexual assault and mutilating a corpse. Dassey had lived on the Avery family property near Mishicot.

March 8, 2006: Special prosecutor Kratz also charges Avery with kidnapping, false imprisonment and sexual assault with a dangerous weapon.

Although they later dropped those 3 charges against Avery, I'd say Dassey's confession effected Avery's case.

 

[drxman1]

Anonymous is getting involved on Twitter. @OPAveryDassey Apparently they will be releasing trial transcripts and phone records from the officers involved along with documents of corruption and collusion.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...t-officials-who-railroaded-these-innocent-men

 

[drxman1]

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movie...-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

Some interesting information that Netflix reportedly left out about Steven....

— In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.

— Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

— On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

— The bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, which always hung above his bed.

— Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he’s purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he’d had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).

— Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence.

 

[Ribsandwhitebread]

Agree with the last paragraph:

"I also believe that Adnan Syed is guilty, but in both cases, I don’t believe the jury should’ve convicted because there simply wasn’t enough unimpeachable evidence to support a guilty verdict. I am even more convinced than after Serial that the jury system is ******, but ironically, in both cases, I also think the jury arrived at the correct conclusion."

 

[anthonys735]

^I'd like to see some of that in official format. A couple of those claims would be fairly substantial.

 

[IdaCat]

If true, I question the ethics of Netflix withholding key information, especially if it was presented during the trial. This may just be a commercial endeavor to them, but it isn't a tale to be twisted for entertainment purposes. A hell of a lot of people are naturally taking it very seriously. Regardless that the legal process was seriously flawed, people deserve all the known facts.

 

[drxman1]

Agree if Netflix suppressed those juicy tidbits, that's kinda ********.

 

[Bill Derington]

The show was produced to lean heavily in Averys defense. They also wanted to make it interesting and create buzz, and man alive did they succeed.

I don't know if what was posted above is correct or not, but I would lean that it is due to every higher court refusing to issue a retrial.

 

[anthonys735]

If I'm not mistaken the retrial has more to do with new evidence or some type of negligence during the original trial not really the facts of the case that was already presented and ruled on.

 

[anthonys735]

Also, from what I can tell they did a decent job presenting both sides I think the audience just felt more sympathy to the people that participated in the documentary. I think the intent was to come from the opposite angle that the jury and prosecutors presented in the trial.

 

[assistbyhawkins]

I finished the show last night, fascinating stuff. I came away thinking that Avery did indeed kill her, but under no circumstance should he be convicted because it is very apparent that the police planted evidence.

I think he killed her and the 2 ******* cops planted evidence to ensure a guilty charge and it created a ton of doubt. Not sure how any juror could convict "beyond reasonable doubt" at all, but I also dont know how anyone could come away from watching it and think Steven Avery had nothing to do with the murder.

I wouldve voted not guilty due to the evidence of tampering if I was a juror, but hes guilty as hell.

Not sure what to think of Brendans involvement, whether him having sex with her, etc., is true or not. But I do believe he played some part.

 

[Bill Cosby]

@opaverydassey

 

[drxman1]

Also, from what I can tell they did a decent job presenting both sides I think the audience just felt more sympathy to the people that participated in the documentary. I think the intent was to come from the opposite angle that the jury and prosecutors presented in the trial.

I wouldn't say they did a decent job presenting both sides. Did they show a single law enforcement/prosecutor in a likeable way? No. They were made to look like the bad guys, the corrupt justice system.

If some of what that article says is true, I'm not remotely as sympathetic to Avery.

 

[mashburned]

Surprise. Internet has misled us again in the name of hits/clicks/views.

 

[Midway Cat]

If I'm not mistaken the retrial has more to do with new evidence or some type of negligence during the original trial not really the facts of the case that was already presented and ruled on.

Correct. The appeal dealt with everything that occurred during the prosecution up to and including the trial. The motion for a new trial might have mentioned some of those issues, but the primary focus most likely was newly discovered evidence.

I'm definitely interested to see the transcripts that Anonymous says they intend to leak. That's the only way we'll know what evidence was actually presented at trial.

 

[bradyjames]

If that mouth breather killed her he has to be the dumbest ******* on the planet. Which could be the case. I would love to have seen all the evidence/trial.

The things that made me feel like we were all being misled is the fact her family were so convinced.

Ken getting what he deserved is a huge plus.

 

[Bill Derington]

Also, from what I can tell they did a decent job presenting both sides I think the audience just felt more sympathy to the people that participated in the documentary. I think the intent was to come from the opposite angle that the jury and prosecutors presented in the trial.

If what drx posted is true that shines an entirely different light on the case, and none of that was in the show.
The fact that it appears Avery was infatuated with Teresa is a pretty big nugget to leave out of a show about Avery being convicted of killing Teresa, in my opinion.

 

[Kooky Kats]

— Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

Did said towel have a frontal glory hole?

Seriously, if this is true that Netflix purposefully left these details out, they are opening themselves up to libel (I think). #nolawyer

Kinda like Blair Witch Project all over again, but with real-life losers.

 

[mdlUK.1]

It's hard to know what to believe now.It is still hard to believe Avery could have got rid of all the blood that would be there if any of Dassay's story was true. I don't know how I would have voted if I was a juror and heard all this latest info.

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

Y'all seriously thought the show was somewhat balanced in it's portrayal of the details? I thought it was obvious during all the Halbach stuff that we were really only seeing one side of the ordeal,

 

[Midway Cat]

Seriously, if this is true that Netflix purposefully left these details out, they are opening themselves up to libel (I think). #nolawyer

I'm not really sure how you're imagining that would work, but no.

 

[Midway Cat]

Doc:

<edit>

My bad. Didn't see the link the first time. I still want to see the actual transcripts, but some of that information makes it much easier to understand the verdict.

The documentary was about systemic corruption in law enforcement and the court system, not whether Avery actually did it. I assume that's why the filmmakers focused more on the behavior of the officers, the prosecutor, Brendan's attorney, and the "defense" investigator. It was definitely slanted toward the defense, but that makes sense when you consider what the filmmakers were trying to emphasize.

 

[krazykats]

All of that stuff came from reddit and the Milwaukee mag. Not say it shouldn't have been included in the doc, but that shouldnt be trusted per those sites either.

Pretty sure had the phone calls or the request to her boss have happened it would have been used as evidence and her boss as a witness.

I just still can't see a timeline for when this was honestly possible to make happen that day. With people coming and going and phone calls at the time they were made it is just bizarre. That's why all the planted evidence and questionable tactics have such an impact for me.

 

[drxman1]

I linked the story at the top of that post.

Do remember her boss referencing somebody "nuisance" calling her, but they never delved more into it.

In an interview the DA said the documentary had 80-90% of the facts.

Calling it equally[laughing] That's just all kinds of stupid. Hope Anth gets some sleep.

 

[Bill Derington]

All of that stuff came from reddit and the Milwaukee mag. Not say it shouldn't have been included in the doc, but that should be trusted per those sites either.

Pretty sure had the phone calls or the request to her boss have happened it would have been used as evidence and her boss as a witness.

I just still can't see a timeline for when this was honestly possible to make happen that day. With people coming and going and phone calls at the time they were made it is just bizarre. That's why all the planted evidence and questionable tactics have such an impact for me.

It very may have been in the trial, but the show producers didn't want to use it.

 

[krazykats]

Right I understand that, didn't fit their narrative........but in all honesty someone that simple minded would probably rather be turned down forever by someone than kill them. I knew a few of those types when I was younger.

If it was in fact Avery they were suggesting as the annoying serial caller that does in fact change the point of view on the situation.

 

[anthonys735]

I said I thought it was presented equally considering only one side participated and I thought their goal was to show the opposite side from what Avery got on his trial. Also said, if true those were some pretty big tidbits to omit. Twist it how you want with your reddit info, bubs. I have the ability to understand something for what it is and not OMG PREZ OBamA has to pardon this guy! !!HoTTuB

 

[bradyjames]

I said I thought it was presented equally considering only one side participated and I thought their goal was to show the opposite side from what Avery got on his trial. Also said, if true those were some pretty big tidbits to omit. Twist it how you want with your reddit info, bubs. I have the ability to understand something for what it is and not OMG PREZ OBamA has to pardon this guy! !!HoTTuB

Pal>bubs

 

[Midway Cat]

I don't recall any of this. In fact, the government's expert witness said that the bone fragments most likely had not been moved after being burned because such movement typically produces chipping and cracking that wasn't present on the samples discovered in the fire pit.

The defense had an expert that refuted that claim and said it's likely and obvious that at least some of the remains had been moved.

If you watched that and thought, this dude is 100% innocent, I don't know what to tell you. Last person to see her, her remains, car, keys were all found on his property, his dna found in the car with her dna. Doesn't mean he got a fair trail, which he absolutely didn't.

I wanted to comment on this yesterday, but it got lost with everything else.

On the bone fragment expert issue, our resident prosecutor Bill had just suggested that the proof at trial established that at least some of the bone fragments had been moved. I thought it was important to point out that even the government's expert disagreed with that theory.

In reality, I doubt both experts on that particular point. It seems like the same kind of "voodoo" science that prosecutors have been using for years. Other examples: "bite mark" evidence, "hair type" evidence, "tool mark" evidence (e.g. matching particular "tools" to indentations made on the body), "comparative bullet lead analysis" evidence (as in the Shane Ragland case) and other ballistics nonsense...the list goes on and on. It sounds great when the expert testifies about it, but it's really not all that reliable and probably shouldn't have been allowed into the trial in the first place.

I did see something about DNA analysis of the bone fragments on the site that Bill linked earlier. Apparently, the FBI Crime Lab matched Teresa's mother's mitochondrial DNA with that found in the bone fragments, so there's absolutely no doubt that it was her. I guess we didn't need confirmation, but it is interesting that the documentary didn't mention it.

Last thing--Even though it should go without saying, there's no way in hell I'd ever say that he's 100% innocent. I don't think he necessarily should've been convicted based on what we saw in the documentary, but that's a far cry from being innocent.

People talk about a trial being "a search for the truth," but that's complete BS. A trial is about what the government can actually prove without breaking the rules. Some of those rules keep all kinds of relevant and extremely important evidence away from the jury, but they exist for a reason.

I really don't know what the hell happened here, but it looks pretty damned suspicious. I get why they focused on Avery very quickly. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he actually did it, but what we saw of the state's case in the documentary sure as hell didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[drxman1]

I said I thought it was presented equally considering only one side participated and I thought their goal was to show the opposite side from what Avery got on his trial. Also said, if true those were some pretty big tidbits to omit. Twist it how you want with your reddit info, bubs. I have the ability to understand something for what it is and not OMG PREZ OBamA has to pardon this guy! !!HoTTuB

Congrats on your understanding, or rather lack there of.

I never said Obama should pardon him, I just posted that link for everyone's amusement.

I think he did it, and I think the cops planted evidence. Am looking forward to potential new information.

 

[Bill Derington]

I wasnt trying to prosecute him gtown, I was simply pointing out reasons whyI thought he killed her, and I still do. That doesn't mean I think the prosecution proved it beyond reasonable doubt, I don't, at least what we saw wasn't.
It was also obvious the show was presented in Averys favor. Maybe The producers were trying to show how easily the public can be swayed by the media?