Toggle sidebar

Making a Murderer

Midway Cat

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
UKRob 73 said:
I have to take exception to the suggestion that planting evidence is impossible. The most famous recent murder case in Ky, the Trent Digioro murder, had it. The FBI expert witness lied under oath. Was caught, charged, admitted to it and was fired and sentenced.
The ky supreme court then overturned Shane Raglands murder conviction because the FBI lied.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily planting evidence, but you are correct that this kind of misconduct occurs more often than people want to acknowledge.

The FBI agent in that case was actually prosecuted for perjury, which is about as rare as anything I've ever seen in a criminal case.

Interestingly enough, that FBI agent's testimony was the first thing that popped into my mind when the FBI expert in Avery's case miraculously completed his testing of the vial of blood in time to offer his opinion at trial. It's a test that hasn't been utilized in a decade, and it was scrapped because it's not reliable, yet here we are at trial with an expert who is 100% certain that the defense's theory is wrong. Very suspicious.
 
Midway Cat

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
drxman1 said:
I would like to know more about how Avery has some "penpal" girlfriend for 7 years that he's never even seen?
Click to expand...

It happens literally all the time, especially if the defendant's case received media attention.

There are some really odd people out there who are extremely attracted to people in prison. And I'm not just talking about the ones who might be innocent.
 
Midway Cat

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
anthonys735 said:
*Well I consider the Juror info pretty relevant as I was already suspecting a compromise was the reason for the guilty/not guilty. Pretty hard to comprehend multiple jurors being "not guilty" at the beginning of deliberations and "guilty" at the end. Not guilty on the second charge now makes more sense.

*Interesting to see Katz's take on the local authorities and Dassey press conference.

*Just annoyed by all these people that think he is completely innocent and signing a petition for a Presidential Pardon. I think he needs a fair trial, that's about it.
Click to expand...

A couple things here:

(1) It's really important to remember what happened when the juror was excused. At that point, the judge read an instruction ordering the jury to begin their deliberations again from the very beginning. They even had to elect a new foreperson.

More important, though, the judge told the remaining jurors that they were required to put out of their mind any conclusions they'd reached up to that point. Instead, the new juror needed to be able to participate fully in the deliberations, have the chance to convince others, etc. So any vote at the beginning of deliberations would have to be thrown out as well.

That's why it's pretty difficult to draw conclusions about compromise verdicts and the like based on the info we have. We don't even know what the breakdown was when the juror left, much less what the count was after the new juror joined.

(2) This presidential pardon stuff is complete nonsense. News flash--The POTUS doesn't have the power to pardon someone for a conviction in state court. If these people want to harass someone, they need to focus their attention on the governor.
 
K

krazykats

New member
Nov 6, 2006
23,768
2,330
0
Yea but Obama is all about free so free Avery! Duh.

/pleasedon'tmakethispolitical

Gtown what do you think about the jurors? That seems to have a heavy guilty influence to me.
 
J

jtrue28

New member
Feb 8, 2007
4,134
342
0
Teresa's family didn't seem distraught or angry enough. If I had just lost my wife, sister, or daughter, etc, I'd be a freaking mess. I wouldn't be able to sit in the court looking at the guy who had raped/killed/burned them without wanting to rip his head off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wildcatadam6
Midway Cat

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
SosaUK said:
& @GTownJJB

Does the State have a certain amount of time to decide to try the case again?
Click to expand...

It differs slightly from state to state, but the short answer is no.

In Kentucky, for instance, there is no statute of limitations for felonies. So, theoretically, the state could wait years to proceed again, and it wouldn't be an issue.

A potential problem could arise if Avery remained under indictment for a substantial period of time while they were making a decision, but the prosecutor could simply dismiss the charges without prejudice until he has his ducks in a row. Then he could present the case to the grand jury again, get another indictment, and go for it.

The easiest way to think about it is that a mistrial forces everyone back to square one. It's as if the defendant was just charged and nothing else has happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SosaUK
Midway Cat

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
krazykats said:
Gtown what do you think about the jurors? That seems to have a heavy guilty influence to me.
Click to expand...

Other than the comments from the excused juror, I really don't know anything about them. And I'm not willing to speculate about their potential connections to the Sheriff's Department, etc. like some people have.

If you have some background information that makes you suspicious and, most important, it's actually been substantiated, I'd be very interested to see it.
 
S

SosaUK

New member
Jun 11, 2013
51,355
633
0
GTownJJB said:
It differs slightly from state to state, but the short answer is no.

In Kentucky, for instance, there is no statute of limitations for felonies. So, theoretically, the state could wait years to proceed again, and it wouldn't be an issue.

A potential problem could arise if Avery remained under indictment for a substantial period of time while they were making a decision, but the prosecutor could simply dismiss the charges without prejudice until he has his ducks in a row. Then he could present the case to the grand jury again, get another indictment, and go for it.

The easiest way to think about it is that a mistrial forces everyone back to square one. It's as if the defendant was just charged and nothing else has happened.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's what I thought regarding the statue of limitations or whatever.

I assume you work in law?
 
-BBH-

-BBH-

Active member
Mar 13, 2004
10,421
1,006
73
anthonys735 said:
*Well I consider the Juror info pretty relevant as I was already suspecting a compromise was the reason for the guilty/not guilty. Pretty hard to comprehend multiple jurors being "not guilty" at the beginning of deliberations and "guilty" at the end. Not guilty on the second charge now makes more sense.

*Interesting to see Katz's take on the local authorities and Dassey press conference.

*Just annoyed by all these people that think he is completely innocent and signing a petition for a Presidential Pardon. I think he needs a fair trial, that's about it.
Click to expand...

Do I think he's innocent? I have no idea. Do I believe the State had any sort of case before planted evidence and a coerced "confession" from an emotionally unstable special education student? Nope, none.

Do I think Lt. Lenk is a dirty son of a ***** and Colburn his weak willed sidekick? Yup, more than anything else in the case.

Fair trial is absolutely impossible at this point. I feel sorry the most for Dassey.
 
V

Violent Cuts

New member
Jun 22, 2001
26,917
1,192
0
bbonds said:
Teresa's family didn't seem distraught or angry enough. If I had just lost my wife, sister, or daughter, etc, I'd be a freaking mess. I wouldn't be able to sit in the court looking at the guy who had raped/killed/burned them without wanting to rip his head off.
Click to expand...

You can't expect people to have constant scowls on their faces every day for years. At some point they have to get numb. And bored sitting in a courtroom listening to attorneys argue.
 
Midway Cat

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
krazykats said:
Here is the juror link that explains connections.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I did not realize that the son of one of the jurors was a deputy with the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department. That's pretty crazy to me. I'm extremely surprised that his appellate attorney didn't raise that issue.

Being related to the county clerk is one thing, but everyone was well aware that Avery's defense was going to focus on alleged misconduct by the Sheriff's Department. You just can't allow the father of one of the deputies anywhere near the case. That guy absolutely should've been dismissed for cause during jury selection.

Edit: Your link didn't say that the juror's son was actually a deputy, just that he "worked for the Sheriff's Department." But the dismissed juror said as much in his interview with People published earlier today:

Dismissed Steven Avery Juror Tells People Jury Members Were Related To a Local Cop, County Employee
 
K

krazykats

New member
Nov 6, 2006
23,768
2,330
0
Yea I found it late last night but was half asleep and couldn't remember where I found it. Then today I found something similar and posted it. Still, point is made that it was too close for the juror to be involved at all.

And I'd agree with you about the county clerk thing, but that is where Avery's vial of blood was left unsecured. Which just like the key and anything else the manitowac Sherrif's weren't to be involved in but found anyway just draws suspicion to it.
 
K

krazykats

New member
Nov 6, 2006
23,768
2,330
0
Perhaps more to the point for Avery, the panel selected Friday includes a man whose son works for the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department and a man whose wife works for the Manitowoc County clerk of courts office. Avery, 44, is charged with killing 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach.


That's the exact quote from my link. It does say the relation, not sure you read it right but it's there too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimTirey
D

downw/ball-lineD

New member
Jan 2, 2003
7,879
330
0
krazykats said:
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

Defense attorney's thoughts on who may have done it but weren't allowed in court to go after 3rd parties.

I'm trying to dig up the juror info.
Click to expand...



To me, this was one of the more troubling aspects of the case! Someone commented that Wisconsin had a statute preventing this strategy----I don't know. However, that statute would seem to be improper burden shifting at a minimum----perhaps unconstitutional imo
 
Midway Cat

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
krazykats said:
Perhaps more to the point for Avery, the panel selected Friday includes a man whose son works for the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department and a man whose wife works for the Manitowoc County clerk of courts office. Avery, 44, is charged with killing 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach.


That's the exact quote from my link. It does say the relation, not sure you read it right but it's there too.
Click to expand...

"Works for" is not the same as "works as a deputy with." With the former, he could've had some job other than as a deputy and still have "work[ed] for" MCSD. Administrative support, maintenance, etc.

Kind of a silly distinction, but that was the reason for my edit.
 
Midway Cat

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
downw/ball-lineD said:
To me, this was one of the more troubling aspects of the case! Someone commented that Wisconsin had a statute preventing this strategy----I don't know. However, that statute would seem to be improper burden shifting at a minimum----perhaps unconstitutional imo
Click to expand...

I'm probably the guy, and I completely agree. I linked the Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinion in one of my earlier posts. If you're interested, the section about the third party doctrine is pretty ridiculous.

The most telling part is the discussion about the exceptions to the rule and why they exist. When you read it, it doesn't take long to realize that the same principles apply in every case.

My extremely uneducated opinion:

It's a rule that should apply only in exceptional circumstances. My example from earlier in the thread was a situation where someone is accused of stealing a purse inside an office building, and he wants to call witnesses and introduce evidence about every single person that was inside the building at the time of the theft. That kind of evidence would become cumulative pretty quickly, so there have to be some reasonable limitations. I think we all get that.

Instead, in Wisconsin, it essentially operates like a rebuttable presumption that the defendant must overcome before he's even permitted to introduce evidence that's obviously relevant to his defense.

Sure seems like burden shifting to me.
 
-BBH-

-BBH-

Active member
Mar 13, 2004
10,421
1,006
73
MdWIldcat55 said:
New York Times had a story today citing all the evidence against Avery that the jury heard but that the film makers left out. After reading that, it seems pretty clear he did it and the documentary twisted the facts to hook viewers.
Click to expand...

It's not that much. It certainly wasn't anything that was physical in nature or beyond circumstantial.

I do believe the state believed that Avery did it, but did not have a strong enough case to convict. Thus the planted evidence. But just because the guy had some hand cuffs and porn in his trailer doesn't mean he killed the girl. Was he a perv? Probably. . .but if that's the case Wildcat Bob is likely Charles Manson.
 
Last edited:
M

MacCard

New member
May 29, 2001
2,788
202
0
MdWIldcat55 said:
If I ever kill anybody I'm going to hire these film makers as my defense team, and hope to get some of the people in this thread on my jury.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/arts/television/ken-kratz-making-a-murderer.html
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not one of those people that are signing a petition to get this guy released. I'm still not sure what the hell happened. But Kratz doesn't really offer much in that article, surely not some pile of additional evidence that should render Avery guilty. In fact, doesn't it all kind of fit with the overall theme of evidence planting?

The DNA under the hood could have been easily placed if Strang's assertion that it wasn't "sweat DNA" is true. They're using Dassey's "confession" about Avery going under the hood as corroboration, but did Dassey offer that up on his own or was he led to say that? I don't recall that from the doc.

Also, the bullet still is very fishy. There are probably countless bullets on that property from that gun. It wouldn't be hard to get one and put Halbach's DNA on it after the fact. And I still can't get past the overall lack of evidence in that garage and the fact that the bullet was magically found by Lenk 6 months after the initial search.

Another thing that Kratz keeps offering up is that they found shackles at Avery's house and that corroborated Dassey's story. But again, was Dassey led by investigators to talk about shackles after they were found or was it something he offered up independently?
 
  • Like
Reactions: -BBH-
G

GLR5555

New member
Apr 2, 2012
17,371
1,869
0
I don't have an opinion of his guilt or innocence at this point. What I do have, is the the known fact this was a piss-poor case as it was presented with reasonable doubt at every point. It deserves to be looked at with a different jury in a neutral Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -BBH-
V

Violent Cuts

New member
Jun 22, 2001
26,917
1,192
0
I don't think it's a rabbit hole considering he had already been imprisoned for 18 years for a crime he didn't commit and was suing the very people investigating this crime. Was the original crime a rabbit hole too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: -BBH-
-BBH-

-BBH-

Active member
Mar 13, 2004
10,421
1,006
73
MdWIldcat55 said:
When you head down the Rabbit Hole of 'they could have planted this and they could have lied about that' you end up with OJ was innocent too, and the CIA killed JFK. People have made millions of dollars mining that last one for 50 years now.

For me, it's Occam's Razor. A woman heads out to a place where a guy with a violent history who is a known sexual pervert awaits. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213
She's killed. A healthy amount of physical evidence points to him as the killer. There is NO plausible counter story that I am aware of (she didn't get hit by a meteor, or attacked by wild dogs.)

See the above NY Daily News story. If the guy is truly innocent, why do they have to try SO hard to hide the truth about him? Just tell a straight story.
Click to expand...

No one is saying he's a saint. Hell, I am not sure I've seen anyone here say he is innocent. I definitely think he could of done it.

But do you believe the state manipulated the system to make sure he was convicted? Do you believe they coerced a special education student to make a false confession? Did the state stand to gain a lot monetarily and otherwise by a conviction? In other words, did he get a fair trial?

And there is NOT a "Healthy" amount of physical evidence in this case. Matter of fact, the lack of physical evidence is one of the biggest red flags. They cut her hair, but there is not one single hair found anywhere. They bound her and raped her, yet her DNA is not found on the bed, on the handcuffs or anywhere in the trailer. Dassey describes a blood bath, yet her blood isn't found anywhere. And the facts go on and on.

I am not a conspiracy guy, but I do have common sense and gumption. And anyone with those two things can easily see the FACTS of this case do not add up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ukfan03
M

MacCard

New member
May 29, 2001
2,788
202
0
MdWIldcat55 said:
When you head down the Rabbit Hole of 'they could have planted this and they could have lied about that' you end up with OJ was innocent too, and the CIA killed JFK. People have made millions of dollars mining that last one for 50 years now.

For me, it's Occam's Razor. A woman heads out to a place where a guy with a violent history who is a known sexual pervert awaits. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213
She's killed. A healthy amount of physical evidence points to him as the killer. There is NO plausible counter story that I am aware of (she didn't get hit by a meteor, or attacked by wild dogs.)

See the above NY Daily News story. If the guy is truly innocent, why do they have to try SO hard to hide the truth about him? Just tell a straight story.
Click to expand...

I just don't see that it's a rabbit hole. It's pretty clear the key at the very least was planted. Can we agree on that? Once that occurs, the other theories become infinitely more plausible. OJ never had such a clear issue of evidence planting, and there's zero evidence to suggest the CIA shot JFK. But the key lends absolute credence to the Avery conspiracy story.

It's just as irresponsible to ignore the obvious because it seems far fetched. Because far fetched stuff does happen every once in a awhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -BBH-
B

bigblue11_rivals177692

New member
Feb 4, 2004
2,763
60
0
This has nothing to do with the case per sé but Teresa Halbach's dad passed away when she was 8 years old. Who did her mom marry afterward? Why his brother of course. So her step-dad was her uncle. o_O

Also, Steven's first wife, Lori, remarried. She is now Lori Dassey.

These cow touchers are a weird bunch.
 
Last edited:
wcc31

wcc31

Well-known member
Mar 18, 2002
504,739
11,761
98
-BBH- said:
Great, another educated journalist with a tin foil hat on. I bet his favorite show is The X Files and he believes the CIA killed JFK. :alien:
Click to expand...

Wonder what Pat Forde's opinion on it is. If he thinks Avery was framed, I may change my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom