FBI Confirms That Charred Remains Are Halbach's - HTRNews, Manitowoc - May 3, 2006
Forgot to link this story earlier.
Forgot to link this story earlier.
Making a Murderer
- Thread starter etowncatfan
- Start date
http://www.people.com/article/steve...kratz-says-netflix-series-forgot-key-evidence
So in an interview, I assume was today, Ken Kratz says evidence left out was that the request specifically for Halbach is true. Also that 2 calls were made at 224 and 235 right before she got there, and then at 435. However the two earlier calls were from a *67 number vs the later being from Avery but unblocked.
This part I did find weird is that he used his sister's name and address( I believe someone here said the girlfriends name because the car was in her name) and in fact the van was parked over closer to her Trailor.
Also says that request for Halbach started weeks before the murder, and that is pretty close to when he supposedly bought the cuffs and kink chains.
Also he adds that the bullet found later could not have been planted because the rifle was seized in the original search and would not have been able to be fired and have halbach's bone fragments on it. That is believable especially since they left it out.
That was all, per Kratz, evidence not in the doc. I'd have to think if that's the case then he did it.. At that point I'd have to think the police planting the key and maybe the blood was in effort to make it so obvious as to not look questionable at all with that lawsuit going on. Clearly the jury had more than the doc represented that would aid in their verdict.
Obviously the blood came from the vial, but there was also DNA found under the hood too not reported in the doc, but where in the hell did the key come from? Could Avery have drenched it in bleach or gas or something and then that maybe explain why only his DNA was on it? Weird.
My cousin who is an attorney mentioned the plate, and said he thought he remembered Avery's prints being on it too. But that was never discussed in the doc.
So in an interview, I assume was today, Ken Kratz says evidence left out was that the request specifically for Halbach is true. Also that 2 calls were made at 224 and 235 right before she got there, and then at 435. However the two earlier calls were from a *67 number vs the later being from Avery but unblocked.
This part I did find weird is that he used his sister's name and address( I believe someone here said the girlfriends name because the car was in her name) and in fact the van was parked over closer to her Trailor.
Also says that request for Halbach started weeks before the murder, and that is pretty close to when he supposedly bought the cuffs and kink chains.
Also he adds that the bullet found later could not have been planted because the rifle was seized in the original search and would not have been able to be fired and have halbach's bone fragments on it. That is believable especially since they left it out.
That was all, per Kratz, evidence not in the doc. I'd have to think if that's the case then he did it.. At that point I'd have to think the police planting the key and maybe the blood was in effort to make it so obvious as to not look questionable at all with that lawsuit going on. Clearly the jury had more than the doc represented that would aid in their verdict.
Obviously the blood came from the vial, but there was also DNA found under the hood too not reported in the doc, but where in the hell did the key come from? Could Avery have drenched it in bleach or gas or something and then that maybe explain why only his DNA was on it? Weird.
My cousin who is an attorney mentioned the plate, and said he thought he remembered Avery's prints being on it too. But that was never discussed in the doc.
I don't think it's obvious the blood came from the vial. I'm assuming you think Kratz was in on it too, if that's true he'd know that it would be a damn good chance the test for edta would come back positive. If it does the case is shot, because they tested blood from the vial at the same time, and it was positive for edta.
I guess it's possible he didn't know, but still I think they checked 3 samples from the vial and they were positive, yet the crime sample wasn't. Seems highly unlikely it was from the vial.
I guess it's possible he didn't know, but still I think they checked 3 samples from the vial and they were positive, yet the crime sample wasn't. Seems highly unlikely it was from the vial.
I thought most of what he said made sense, but this didn't. The rifle was in the possession of law enforcement from November 5 on. Doesn't that actually make it easier for them to get their hands on shells fired from that particular rifle? What's to stop them from pulling it out of the evidence locker and firing a few shells to plant? If we're willing to believe that they'd plant the blood, why not?
Also, just a minor correction. I think you meant "Halbach's DNA," not "Halbach's bone fragments." It definitely makes for a disturbing mental image, though.
No I don't think Kratz was in on planting evidence. But I bet he knows it happened.
I'd say he may have been having conversations leading police to know what may be needed that would really lock up the case. And in turn it somehow worked out that he got it. Clearly the vial was tampered with, but for what?
I think Avery did it but not how it was explained.
I'd say he may have been having conversations leading police to know what may be needed that would really lock up the case. And in turn it somehow worked out that he got it. Clearly the vial was tampered with, but for what?
I think Avery did it but not how it was explained.
Easy, Bill. I understand where you stand. I think we generally agree, actually.
You came on pretty strong initially, so you just seemed like the "string 'em up" type. No worries.
I couldn't have given a guilty verdict had I been on the jury. That has more to do with the cluster touch that the crime scene turned into though. My hunch is he did it, but law enforcement framed the 'case'.
If you're on a jury you have to, IMO, slap that ish down, even if it means a guilty man walks. If you start letting them get sloppy like that, then you're pretty much endorsing even more severe liberties in the future, which is frightening.
Colburn, to me, is an interesting character. I think the guy was just a dim-witted pawn that the brass used to frame certain timelines, distraction, etc. I'm not saying he didn't know what was going on, but he was a foot-soldier.
If you're on a jury you have to, IMO, slap that ish down, even if it means a guilty man walks. If you start letting them get sloppy like that, then you're pretty much endorsing even more severe liberties in the future, which is frightening.
Colburn, to me, is an interesting character. I think the guy was just a dim-witted pawn that the brass used to frame certain timelines, distraction, etc. I'm not saying he didn't know what was going on, but he was a foot-soldier.
Really the only thing Colburn dead that was odd was call about the plate and the only thing that makes that odd is simply the fact that she was just reported missing and the plate was in another car on the junkyard property.
There are reasons that could have come about but he didn't give any and that is why it's weird.
There are reasons that could have come about but he didn't give any and that is why it's weird.
Honestly, that doesn't do a lot for me. Especially coming from that scumbag. Remember his initial press conference about her being in the trailer and tortured, slashed, cut up, brutally murdered? Sounds about the same. The ballistics would upset if it was omitted.
I'd prefer to see the evidence presented and argued before making a decision. If it wasn't included in the trial then I assume its BS.
*So sweat and blood but still not finger prints on the vehicle? So he cleaned his prints but not his and her blood?
*Back to the torture and chains but unless something major was left out I don't see how she was raped and cut inside that bedroom. I just can't believe he'd be so smart about some of the murder and so careless about the rest.
*Leaving the ballistics out would be pretty crucial but still there would have been the opportunity to plant the bullet, it wasn't discovered until well after and if it was fired in the garage where is the blood associated with it? Absolutely no way that place was cleaned.
*He is known for the towel or naked approach. We've seen that before. The calls are a little worrisome but really not out of the norm for even our guys with customers that prefer them. Also, I feel like the boss that was on the stand might have mentioned her saying this guy was weirding her out.
There's still a big chunk of what happened that is being left out, mainly the murder scene, which by all accounts should have been a bloodbath. After episode 5 or 6 I really never thought the police had anything to do with the actual murder. I think they got there, knew they didn't have nearly enough with the sympathy he was certain to get and started creating a crime scene/ creating stories with interrogations. which would explain the ridiculous amount of time they held the scene.
I'd prefer to see the evidence presented and argued before making a decision. If it wasn't included in the trial then I assume its BS.
*So sweat and blood but still not finger prints on the vehicle? So he cleaned his prints but not his and her blood?
*Back to the torture and chains but unless something major was left out I don't see how she was raped and cut inside that bedroom. I just can't believe he'd be so smart about some of the murder and so careless about the rest.
*Leaving the ballistics out would be pretty crucial but still there would have been the opportunity to plant the bullet, it wasn't discovered until well after and if it was fired in the garage where is the blood associated with it? Absolutely no way that place was cleaned.
*He is known for the towel or naked approach. We've seen that before. The calls are a little worrisome but really not out of the norm for even our guys with customers that prefer them. Also, I feel like the boss that was on the stand might have mentioned her saying this guy was weirding her out.
There's still a big chunk of what happened that is being left out, mainly the murder scene, which by all accounts should have been a bloodbath. After episode 5 or 6 I really never thought the police had anything to do with the actual murder. I think they got there, knew they didn't have nearly enough with the sympathy he was certain to get and started creating a crime scene/ creating stories with interrogations. which would explain the ridiculous amount of time they held the scene.
Last edited:
Also, how does a 25 year old girl with a stalkerish ex-BF, a weird guy roomie, a job, 2 involved brothers and parents go missing and unreported for 4 days? The days she was missing were in the middle of the week.
Also seems that sweat and epithelial DNA would be much easier to acquire and plant than blood.
Also seems that sweat and epithelial DNA would be much easier to acquire and plant than blood.
This Bill.
Kratz did say in the doc that she was killed in the garage...just so weird they jack hammered that floor and couldn't find her blood, except on the bullet under the compressor.
The towel method is a daring maneuver. Successful if your Tom Brady, not likely if your Steven Avery.
Okay. I finally took the time to track down the Court of Appeals decision in Steven's case. Here's a link to a PDF version of the opinion if you really want to go wild. The facts section toward the beginning adds some details that weren't in the documentary.
The discussion sections have lots of facts too. There's an explanation about the juror who ended up leaving during the middle of deliberations. His daughter totaled her car, and his wife complained that he wasn't around to help because he was still sequestered. There was also some talk about his wife being upset about negative publicity at the beginning of the trial relating to the juror allegedly living off of her trust fund. Apparently, he'd been having marital problems before the trial started, and things were just getting worse.
Weird thing, though. When they had a hearing on the motion for a new trial, the juror came back and testified about what happened, but he denied ever saying anything about his daughter's wreck or his marital problems. I have no idea what was going on there. Maybe he was just trying to do something to help Avery at that point?
Regardless, the jury had to start completely over after he left. They even had to elect a new foreperson. And the judge instructed them to discard any opinions they might have reached about the evidence up to that point so that the new juror could have the same opportunity to participate in the deliberations as they had.
The defense attorneys probably didn't have much choice, but I bet it chapped their *** that they'd stipulated to that instruction when they found out after the trial was over that 7/12 were in favor of acquittal when deliberations began.
The discussion sections have lots of facts too. There's an explanation about the juror who ended up leaving during the middle of deliberations. His daughter totaled her car, and his wife complained that he wasn't around to help because he was still sequestered. There was also some talk about his wife being upset about negative publicity at the beginning of the trial relating to the juror allegedly living off of her trust fund. Apparently, he'd been having marital problems before the trial started, and things were just getting worse.
Weird thing, though. When they had a hearing on the motion for a new trial, the juror came back and testified about what happened, but he denied ever saying anything about his daughter's wreck or his marital problems. I have no idea what was going on there. Maybe he was just trying to do something to help Avery at that point?
Regardless, the jury had to start completely over after he left. They even had to elect a new foreperson. And the judge instructed them to discard any opinions they might have reached about the evidence up to that point so that the new juror could have the same opportunity to participate in the deliberations as they had.
The defense attorneys probably didn't have much choice, but I bet it chapped their *** that they'd stipulated to that instruction when they found out after the trial was over that 7/12 were in favor of acquittal when deliberations began.
Last edited:
Also, that the third party liability rule in Wisconsin is absolute nonsense. On some level, it actually shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, which is a huge no-no.
Call me crazy, but to me, it just makes no sense to require the defendant to produce evidence of a third party's "motive" in order to be able to argue that the third party might have done it. The state doesn't have to prove motive, so why in the hell would a defendant?
I understand not allowing a defendant to put on evidence about each of the 1,200 people who were in an office building at the time that a purse was stolen, etc. I can even understand limiting that kind of evidence in the context of a civil case. But proof about ten other people who had opportunity and a connection to the location where a murder likely occurred? In a case where the defendant is facing life without the possibility of parole?
That's relevant, and it's not cumulative evidence; it's just a reasonable doubt defense.
Definite Fifth and/or Sixth Amendment violation.
Call me crazy, but to me, it just makes no sense to require the defendant to produce evidence of a third party's "motive" in order to be able to argue that the third party might have done it. The state doesn't have to prove motive, so why in the hell would a defendant?
I understand not allowing a defendant to put on evidence about each of the 1,200 people who were in an office building at the time that a purse was stolen, etc. I can even understand limiting that kind of evidence in the context of a civil case. But proof about ten other people who had opportunity and a connection to the location where a murder likely occurred? In a case where the defendant is facing life without the possibility of parole?
That's relevant, and it's not cumulative evidence; it's just a reasonable doubt defense.
Definite Fifth and/or Sixth Amendment violation.
DrX your a gun guy.......does a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol have the same power? If so isn't there a chance there was no blood splattered? And to me it isn't the idea of it being planted so much as it is getting the bone fragment on it. You can't just dust it on there I wouldn't think.
I know Kratz is a douchebag, but I'd have a hard time seeing him quote evidence that the video left out and just be 100% false on that. Just me I guess.
I know Kratz is a douchebag, but I'd have a hard time seeing him quote evidence that the video left out and just be 100% false on that. Just me I guess.
Like I said, IF you think the investigation was a fix do not stop there in thinking the jury wasn't fixed too! Corruption has no bounds until it's busted.
I've had marital issues in my 10 years, and there is no way I'd have left that jury for that reason. My daughter, yea, but if my wife was going to leave because I had jury duty I guess she was going to leave at some point regardless........that's just real talk IMO.
He also pointed to very stubborn people as the 3 wanting to say guilty. Almost like he was saying they were determined and there is no telling how they flipped the others.
I've had marital issues in my 10 years, and there is no way I'd have left that jury for that reason. My daughter, yea, but if my wife was going to leave because I had jury duty I guess she was going to leave at some point regardless........that's just real talk IMO.
He also pointed to very stubborn people as the 3 wanting to say guilty. Almost like he was saying they were determined and there is no telling how they flipped the others.
He made up stories to sell his prosecution publicly to get the public to blame Avery. It's not right but I can understand the strategy when going for a conviction.
I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying evidence is evidence to lie about it after the fact is silly.
I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying evidence is evidence to lie about it after the fact is silly.
I'm interested in the evidence but I'd like to see it as it was presented in court. I'm not taking that dudes word on anything. He was made to look like a complete ******* in this documentary, so him dropping a few words defending himself in People mag after the trial means nothing to me. He's a lying disgusting scumbag that made sexual advances on a domestic abuse client. It really doesn't get much lower than that.
This is exactly the problem I was talking about way back at the beginning of this thread.
Prosecutors have an ethical duty to seek justice. It's not about convictions; it's about doing the right thing when the circumstances call for it.
The problem is that these guys are lawyers, so it's natural for them to want to win no matter what it takes. Like the police, though, they have an extremely difficult job because sometimes they have a responsibility to do things that make their jobs tougher than they might be otherwise. Just because it's tough, though, doesn't mean that it's okay to cut corners or push the envelope. There are numerous examples of the prosecutor in this case doing just that.
If this guy did anything close to what you're suggesting, he shouldn't be allowed to keep his job. He doesn't have the right mindset to be given so much authority.
I agree on Kratz the scumbag.
I also agree on who fired it, but I think with her bone fragment on it that it removes some doubt there.
I skimmed through that PDF and I'd say based on the circumstances a decision to not grant a retrial was at the very least right based on the terminology there. But that said, there are what 7-8 cases used to distinguish which rules they want to play by for about 5-6 different filings for a retrial? Man that is some deep legal mumbo jumbo there.
Also, I don't understand why proving other people may have done it, that you have to prove motive.......he'll prove Avery's motive! You can't! I mean rationally in this thread the best you can do is sex which is fair but in court that could be used for others too!
Apparently just about everyone was at or around his Trailor between 240 and 5pm and saw her alive. That's a lot of people, and one of them was the person who let them on the property while Avery was out of town!
Oh and if you want to know why the family may have been against him, he about turned on everyone of them as possible suspects for a retrial! I mean was grasping at straws but good lord that's tough to come back from there.
I also agree on who fired it, but I think with her bone fragment on it that it removes some doubt there.
I skimmed through that PDF and I'd say based on the circumstances a decision to not grant a retrial was at the very least right based on the terminology there. But that said, there are what 7-8 cases used to distinguish which rules they want to play by for about 5-6 different filings for a retrial? Man that is some deep legal mumbo jumbo there.
Also, I don't understand why proving other people may have done it, that you have to prove motive.......he'll prove Avery's motive! You can't! I mean rationally in this thread the best you can do is sex which is fair but in court that could be used for others too!
Apparently just about everyone was at or around his Trailor between 240 and 5pm and saw her alive. That's a lot of people, and one of them was the person who let them on the property while Avery was out of town!
Oh and if you want to know why the family may have been against him, he about turned on everyone of them as possible suspects for a retrial! I mean was grasping at straws but good lord that's tough to come back from there.
I'm on ep 4. Did this dateline ***** really just admit "murder is hot"?
So much to say to that.
In my mind, if the police planted the blood in the car, and Kratz knows it there is no way in hell he sends it off to check for EDTA's.
Too big of a likelihood it shows up, especially since it did show up in the vial samples.
I don't there would be much if any blood splatter from it though. At least I think that's what the op meant.
Unlikely it blows clean through and has an exit wound.
Correct I do not think a .22 anything would go thru clean.
Which means no spilt blood everywhere.
The thought of Avery using arm/leg restraints even in consensual sex is disturbing enough to have him locked up.
The prosecutors said she was stabbed in the bedroom. That's the missing blood i have the most problem with.
I agree, obviously I don't know the first thing about collecting DNA samples or blood, but it seems if that much activity took place there would be some.
Of course he was obviously anxious for her, and specifically her to get there that day. That's why he called so many times. So it's plausible he had taken some sort of action to limit blood spillage in the bedroom.
Of course he was obviously anxious for her, and specifically her to get there that day. That's why he called so many times. So it's plausible he had taken some sort of action to limit blood spillage in the bedroom.
In the Avery trial the prosecutors did not say she was stabbed in the bedroom. They had different theories for both of the trials.
True, but a .22 isn't going to have much blowback, not enough that it's going to be all over everything.
Correct and while the jurors may have not been aware of that, those that were you'd think would question that change.
And that press conference was one of the biggest jokes of the entire investigation/trial.