Making a Murderer

[krazykats]

I honestly think Avery did it. But how in the world he was so decisively clean in doing so yet so blatantly stupid at the same time doesn't allow me to buy the scenario for which they provide. Hell not one of the scenario's provided.

The evidence is just so inconsistent that it screams foul play. Oh and just for those wondering, Avery who apparently did everything in his power to clean the Trailor and garage......then threw some plywood over the car and stripped the plates off of a car owned by the person he apparently just killed and went out of town for 3 days to help with his parents place 100 miles away.

Now if that isn't odd I don't know what is. Like he felt the scene had to be so meticously cleaned up yet just say F it when destroying the car. And no worries, no one will ever notice she never appeared in the world after visiting my place of business and her car is on my property.....really seems like a great time to leave town for a few days to help put a metal roof on his parents getaway shack.

 

[drxman1]

Another thought I had about the vial of blood...was how much left in the vial enough to account for all the blood stains in the car?

 

[krazykats]

The biggest thing was that the dad in some sort of way was related to sheriffs back when Avery originally got in trouble. I thought that tied him in nicely to at least be a suspect.

 

[bigblue11_rivals177692]

Can you summarize what they said about the stepdad and brother? There are a lot of tweets on that page.

Yeah...forgot to mention how out of control it had gotten on there but here's what I get from it.

- He thinks the brother and stepdad did it and burned her at a cabin close to the Avery property that they don't own but are allowed to use for hunting I think.

- Teresa's ex, brother, and roommate went hunting for her car late at night on the Avery property and found it and either went to or called the sheriff's office where Colborn happened to be working that night. Colborn sees it's on the Avery property and calls Lenk and that's where the set up began.

- He's also a huge believer in the bus driver's testimony and the guy that was filling up his tanker truck across the road that saw Teresa's vehicle leave the property around 3:30 but he couldn't tell who was driving.

- Teresa's vehicle was muddy and the driver's side signal light and wheel well cover were missing. He thinks the brother and stepdad drove it to the spot it was found at by the pond but got it stuck and had to tow it out thus causing the damage.

Tons more stuff but that's the gist of it.

 

[GrandePdre]

I can agree with that, although I still think the WM3 are guilty. Perhaps I need to rewatch that.

[laughing] There it is. Never change.

 

[Anon1711055878]

Avery did it, but the investigation was severely mishandled. Check out the summary from someone who actually took the time to research the facts. Most interestingly absent from the doc is the fact that Avery's DNA on both the car and the key were sweat. Pretty tough to plant that...

https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/3zbb8y/making_a_murderer_petition_gets_100000_signatures/cykq7hq

I really loved this documentary at first. I was shocked at the framing job, amazed at how such a gross misjustice could pass through the court- then I realized, after some reading, like many hot-button docs, this one is also lying. A lot.

That documentary left out essential evidence and testimony, and I'd hate to be one of the people on the other end of the internet's rage of the week, especially the poor family of Teresa.

Edit: Seems like people want some more specifics as to the gross misrepresentation of character and evidence in this documentary. Here's a post I made on /tv/ earlier, sources and all, explaining exactly the issues with this documentary, and why I believe that Avery is indeed guilty despite the strange circumstances surrounding the case and the strange behavior of the police department.http://imgur.com/a/m0np7

Additionally, here's another list of reasons that this documentary is feeding you wrong information, from another reddit post.

1 - The hole on top of the blood vial has been confirmed by multiple crime labs coming out publicly to be normal for certain type of sampling and record keeping for blood extraction.

2 - Steve Avery's previous case of animal abuse involved a bonfire.

3 - Steve Avery initially denied to police that he had a bonfire on the day of the murder.

4 - The key, while still VERY fishy to me, had his sweat on it. The DNA was from perspiration, much harder to plant than the blood they arguably had access to. How the police would have access to his sweat is beyond me.

5 - Steve Avery had called Teresa three times prior to the murder, twice from a *67 number, and called Auto Trader once to explicitly request Teresa by name.

6 - His sweat was also on the hood of the car.

7 - Brendan Dassey, according to his mother's statement, had "stains from bleach" on his pants, because he had helped "clean up Steve Avery's Garage"

8 - The bullet with Teresa's DNA on it was forensically matched to have been fired from Steve Avery's personal gun.

9 - While in prison the first time around, Avery reportedly "drew torture chambers" and showed them to other inmates.

10 - There were also previous accusations of rape against Steve Avery, one "confirmed" in an affidavit that stated Avery told his fiancee that he did indeed sexually assault one of the girls.

11 - Dassey's "confession" did state that Avery opened Teresa's car hood, which is matched by the physical evidence of his sweat on the hood latch.

The article I could find that streamlined most of this info the best was here, although other sources go more in depth. http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

Edit #2: More sources http://badgerdiggings.com/js-archive/unjust-jail-term-didnt-make-a-monster/

http://host.madison.com/news/mishic...cle_26f99c7b-fca5-51aa-bb7c-cfed00bc3c8d.html

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/htrnews...rtpage=&desc=Avery+struggles+with+his+freedom

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-zupansky1/2014/08/14/the-innocent-killer-michael-griesbach

http://chippewa.com/news/victim-s-c...cle_fb32d5b4-4569-53de-bb0c-c6e2beccd56e.html
​

 

[wcc31]

so we can all agree that Avery probably killed her and the police likely planted evidence to strengthen their case, but the trial was botched so much that it was wrong to convict him in the end.

Great? Awesome.

No, we can't all agree on that. I would have convicted him based upon the evidence presented and I'm not sold on the police planting evidence at all.

 

[DSmith21]

IMO, Avery killed her and his IQ challenged nephew helped him cover it up in some form or fashion. Dassey probably didn't deserve the sentence that he received (assuming that he only helped in the cover up and not the rape/murder). Dassey can blame his own statements and his criminally inept public defender for that.

 

[Joneslab]

But the issue is doubt.

I'm not totally sold on the police planting evidence either, but there's a ton of doubt looming over the case simply because of the way most of the evidence was found.

Being not totally sold is a major stumbling block when you're on a jury. It has to be rock solid (in theory).

Obviously we aren't on the jury and are just assembling bits and pieces from secondary sources. But there's a lot of squirreliness both ways.

 

[BBdK]

Chad probably even likes Len.

 

[drxman1]

But the issue is doubt.

I'm not totally sold on the police planting evidence either, but there's a ton of doubt looming over the case simply because of the way most of the evidence was found.

Being not totally sold is a major stumbling block when you're on a jury. It has to be rock solid (in theory).

Obviously we aren't on the jury and are just assembling bits and pieces from secondary sources. But there's a lot of squirreliness both ways.

No, the issue is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Which it was not.

The only thing Avery had going for him was that he had being previously exonerated for a wrongful conviction. The cops framed me is a Hail Mary.

 

[GLR5555]

Chad probably even likes Len.

Len should be in the cell right next to Brendan.

 

[wcc31]

Chad probably even likes Len.

No. I thought that entire episode was sickening. Who ever heard of such things? The defense working with the prosecution...while dealing with a minor?

 

[Joneslab]

The only thing Avery had going for him was that he had being previously exonerated for a wrongful conviction. The cops framed me is a Hail Mary.

It really wasn't a Hail Mary. When crucial evidence is found by the guy who took a phonecall that could've gotten you out of prison, and when they break out the blood vial and the tape is slashed on both ends, then that's really not a hail mary.

An interesting framework for a future documentary is to have two sets of documentarians, one working with the defense and the other for the prosecution, and at the end present separate films. Obviously very hard to do because of the proximity necessary to get good information, but it would be fascinating to see a movie about Avery made from the other side. Most movies like this (Paradise Lost has been mentioned, but The Staircase is probably the closest cousin) come down on the side of the defense. One reason for this is that the prosecution is usually so steadfastly prickish and villainous, even if they're right. Those guys in the Avery case made fantastic bad guys.

 

[drxman1]

It really wasn't a Hail Mary. When crucial evidence is found by the guy who took a phonecall that could've gotten you out of prison, and when they break out the blood vial and the tape is slashed on both ends, then that's really not a hail mary.

When your defense is mounted on the premise that the cops framed you, and you don't really have any concrete evidence of such, its a hail mary.

They didn't find out about the tampered vial of blood for a while, you would have thought Christmas came early by Butings reaction.

Another thing that I found telling, was when the defense attorneys all got together at the end. Dean Strang rather delicately put out there, that he hoped Steven did do it, so that an innocent man wouldn't have been wrongfully convicted...if you know you're client is innocent, I don't think you make that statement. They totally knew.

 

[GLR5555]

It really wasn't a Hail Mary. When crucial evidence is found by the guy who took a phonecall that could've gotten you out of prison, and when they break out the blood vial and the tape is slashed on both ends, then that's really not a hail mary.

An interesting framework for a future documentary is to have two sets of documentarians, one working with the defense and the other for the prosecution, and at the end present separate films. Obviously very hard to do because of the proximity necessary to get good information, but it would be fascinating to see a movie about Avery made from the other side. Most movies like this (Paradise Lost has been mentioned, but The Staircase is probably the closest cousin) come down on the side of the defense. One reason for this is that the prosecution is usually so steadfastly prickish and villainous, even if they're right. Those guys in the Avery case made fantastic bad guys.

I agree. I would say that the original Paradise Lost was not pro-defense at all. But as the case evidence became more clear, the following versions started to reveal more of the truth.

 

[assistbyhawkins]

his IQ challenged nephew .

People keep saying this, and yes he is borderline mentally retarded, but they leave out the fact that Avery himself had an IQ of 70. It was stated in either the first or 2nd episode. Brendan's IQ was reported to be as high as 73, which actually makes him smarter than Avery. So when all of you keep saying, "How could Avery be that stupid to leave the car there..... etc." Well, its because hes a complete dumbshit and actually dumber than Brendan.

Avery killed her, its pretty freaking apparent to anyone that doesnt blame George W. Bush and the American government for the 9-11 attacks. Yes, I believe its possible police planted evidence. Yes, the small town trial was a disaster and botched. But it doesnt change the fact that Steve Avery is exactly where he belongs, which is behind bars.

 

[Violent Cuts]

I hope that Avery gets pardoned somehow and the documentary makers go there to continue their story and stick around, because it's pretty obvious Avery would do something to get arrested again pretty quickly upon release.

 

[louisvillesux]

what a show. i watched it last week, and still think about it. of course the doc was set up to make him look innocent, and many fell for it. if you look further at the evidence, it becomes clearer that he committed the crime. however, the dassey kid got straight railroaded...and there are inconsistencies in the prosecutions case.

 

[wildcatadam6]

Two things:

1) to go back to my last post, was unanimity in Brendan's case required because of his being a minor?

2) I'm torn on it all. Originally thought Avery probably didn't do it, and am moving towards the guilty side. But, none of us have the luxury of complete information which only comes from being on the jury. And even then, part of the defense's argument could (should) have been allowed...to point to other people as potential suspects. Which brings me to my next point.

However, PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and I'm not sure Avery ever enjoyed that right. Kratz' press conference before the trial began, the media being all over it, etc. all led to an unfair (imo) trial.

Not sure how it works legally in a court, but if we don't have a presumption of innocence, we really don't have a judicial system.

 

[krazykats]

Despite all my what ifs, I truly believe Avery did it. Even though there is so much sketchy BS going along with evidence against him it's the best/easiest to accept way. I guess being a normal every day guy makes a lot of stupid things so unbelievable to me that I can't fathom it, or maybe don't want to accept it. I don't know.

But you really got to reach to make anything else even half way logical!

 

[UK_ Alum_02]

Another thought I had about the vial of blood...was how much left in the vial enough to account for all the blood stains in the car?

Wasn't the only bit of Avery's blood the smear near the ignition? Or at least the majority of it.

 

[anthonys735]

Jesus. I'm agreeing with Adam on something semi-political. Nice post.

I'm done with this stuff. Though. Read through all the links and 14 pages here. My threshold for this documentary is well past.

 

[Joneslab]

Wasn't the only bit of Avery's blood the smear near the ignition? Or at least the majority of it.

No, there were some other spots. There was the hair imprint in the back and the drop on the driver's side door. Maybe a couple of others.

But generally I found the lack of blood--in the house, garage, Rav4--one of the weirder things about the case. Those guys must've absolutely scoured.

 

[Midway Cat]

When your defense is mounted on the premise that the cops framed you, and you don't really have any concrete evidence of such, its a hail mary.

They didn't find out about the tampered vial of blood for a while, you would have thought Christmas came early by Butings reaction.

Another thing that I found telling, was when the defense attorneys all got together at the end. Dean Strang rather delicately put out there, that he hoped Steven did do it, so that an innocent man wouldn't have been wrongfully convicted...if you know you're client is innocent, I don't think you make that statement. They totally knew.

There's a whole lot in this post that makes very little sense.

First, the next case where I see direct proof of the police planting evidence will be the first I've ever encountered. That doesn't mean that I haven't been involved in cases where the police planted evidence; it just means that the entire purpose of planting evidence is to convince others that someone else is responsible for it. In other words, you're never going to be able to substantiate such a claim with anything other than circumstantial evidence.

Based on what you wrote, it sure seems like you want Avery to explain to you exactly what the police did wrong and provide you with physical evidence confirming it. But that's exactly the opposite of the way a trial is supposed to work. The government has the burden to prove guilt, but they also have the burden to prove that all of the evidence they're presenting was obtained lawfully. I think the defense did more than enough to put the credibility and reliability of some of the most damning evidence at issue.

I don't have any idea what your comment about the blood vial is supposed to mean, but of course the defense attorney was excited. Kind of like the prosecutor was excited when Brendan falsely confessed. None of their reactions should color your opinion about Avery's guilt or innocence; they just have extremely competitive jobs, and something helpful happened.

Last point--You're completely off base about Dean Strang's comment at the end. It was entirely appropriate, and it had absolutely nothing to do with whether he "knew" Avery was guilty.

The first rule of being a defense attorney is that you don't ask your client questions that could elicit incriminating responses. I know that sounds crazy to the average person. Most people think that the very first thing a defense attorney does is ask his client to explain what happened. In fact, though, that's the absolute last question he should ask.

This is so because defense attorneys have an ethical obligation not to perpetrate a fraud on the court. If a defendant admits that he did it, a defense attorney can't propose a theory or present an argument at trial that has been contradicted by his client's admission. That's the kind of thing that will get you disbarred.

You saw these attorneys. You know that they were extremely professional. The chances of them "knowing" that Avery was guilty are about as high as Bill or Chad "knowing" that he's guilty or Krazy "knowing" that Teresa and Steven were actually consensual lovers, and it just got out of hand. Or whatever it is he was saying earlier.

Strang was just saying something that every defense attorney who has lost a case says:

"Man, it would be so much easier to stomach losing this case if I knew that my client was actually guilty."

It's like you losing a patient during a medical procedure. It's a terrible thing, but wouldn't it make you feel slightly better if you found out that he was terminal and was on his way out anyway?

 

[Midway Cat]

1) to go back to my last post, was unanimity in Brendan's case required because of his being a minor?

Civil cases are different, but unanimity is required in every criminal case. There's no distinction between minor and adult defendants.

 

[wildcatadam6]

Civil cases are different, but unanimity is required in every criminal case. There's no distinction between minor and adult defendants.

So you're saying the 7 jurors who originally decided "not guilty" ALL switched sides? If one just absolutely refuses, is it a hung jury? And what happens after that?

 

[Anon1711055878]

Civil cases are different, but unanimity is required in every criminal case. There's no distinction between minor and adult defendants.

That's only in federal cases. It only has to be unanimous in state courts if the jury is as small as only 6. The Wisconsin jury was larger than 6, but I'm not sure about their rules on how many votes are necessary to convict. Could be unanimous; I'm too lazy to look.**



**I couldn't help myself and had to look it up. Only Oregon and Louisiana allow for less than unanimous verdicts.

 

[wildcatadam6]

It could have been mentioned for Avery's case, but I only remember unanimity for Brendan's.

 

[drxman1]

There's a whole lot in this post that makes very little sense.

First, the next case where I see direct proof of the police planting evidence will be the first I've ever encountered. That doesn't mean that I haven't been involved in cases where the police planted evidence; it just means that the entire purpose of planting evidence is to convince others that someone else is responsible for it. In other words, you're never going to be able to substantiate such a claim with anything other than circumstantial evidence.

I think if you can catch them in a lie or get them to admit it, then it wouldn't be so circumstantial. Again, big longshot.

I understand the burden of proof is on the government, and they laid quite a bit on Avery. Victims remains and car on his property, his blood and DNA in her car, car key with his dna and bullet with hers (although I contend these are the most suspicious for potentially being planted). His defense argued against these, but I don't think it really created beyond a reasonable doubt.

My point about the blood was that it was one of their best arguments, and prior to that they didn't have much going. I think it being tampered with was the most convincing piece of information that something may have being planted.

As for the comments at the end, I realize they wouldn't ask him if he did it. Yes, they both came off as very professional and skilled. I'm saying that I think they know he did it.

I don't think losing a legal case and a patient are really that comparable either. From a medical standpoint, you try everything you know how to do to save them, and you don't have to deal with whether 12 jurors believed you more.

 

[etowncatfan]

Since I am the one that got this thread going and I am enthralled and appreciate everyone's opinion,let me ask everyone a question. If you were a juror and you know almost certain that a person did the crime, would you still convict him knowing someone planted 2 or 3 pieces of evidence against him? Or does the killer lose his right to a fair trial?

 

[Midway Cat]

That's only in federal cases. It only has to be unanimous in state courts if the jury is as small as only 6. The Wisconsin jury was larger than 6, but I'm not sure about their rules on how many votes are necessary to convict. Could be unanimous; I'm too lazy to look.

That's fair. Different states might do weird stuff. Like the third party doctrine nonsense in this case, for instance.

As a general rule, though, no felony case is tried to a jury of less than 12 except by stipulation of the parties. And any verdict in a felony trial must be unanimous.

In Kentucky, for instance, those specific requirements are listed in KRS 29A.280.

 

[krazykats]

If the evidence was planted I think it should not be submitted, therefore the DA is out some very damning evidence in this situation. That isn't the problem though. It's once you decide to believe there is planted evidence where does that stop?

 

[Midway Cat]

I don't think losing a legal case and a patient are really that comparable either. From a medical standpoint, you try everything you know how to do to save them, and you don't have to deal with whether 12 jurors believed you more.

Fair enough. It's obviously not exactly the same, but the stakes often are as close to life and death as you get outside of war, law enforcement, or the ER. It certainly was that important to Steven Avery.

It's a really unique situation, but if you lose a case like this one and the guy is actually innocent, it's kind of like someone dying by your hand. The old adage is that the defense attorney's worst nightmare is having a client who truly is innocent. But if that guy gets convicted? Way, way harder to handle.

 

[UK_ Alum_02]

If the 12 jurors can't reach a unanimous decision, a mistrial is declared. At least that was the case on a murder trial I sat on as a juror.

 

[Midway Cat]

So you're saying the 7 jurors who originally decided "not guilty" ALL switched sides? If one just absolutely refuses, is it a hung jury? And what happens after that?

Yep, that's right. All seven flipped. Even one hold out would have resulted in a hung jury.

If that had happened, the case would've started again from the beginning. The court would've scheduled a new trial date, and they would've gone through the entire process again.

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

I think that it's pretty damned telling that in the first polling during deliberation, out of the jurors that were inclined to take a stance, 70% thought he wasn't guilty. The evidence we weren't presented must have been pretty damned rock solid.

Also find it funny that all of the questionable evidence (deleted voicemails, lack of any DNA from the victim on the key, lack of a shred of evidence to support the scenario described in dassey's confession, flawed timeline) really doesn't matter to the "you're a conspiracy theorist if you don't think this was an open and shut case" crowd, like chad the nad.

 

[wildcatadam6]

Yep, that's right. All seven flipped. Even one hold out would have resulted in a hung jury.

If that had happened, the case would've started again from the beginning. The court would've scheduled a new trial date, and they would've gone through the entire process again.

With a new jury?

 

[UK_ Alum_02]

Yes. The trial, if the state decides to try it again, would start anew at a later date. The jury pool would be different.

 

[krazykats]

Avery really should have chosen to get a new jury when the one guy needed to get out of it. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but the more time away from the publicity the better.