| Author |
Message |
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 12:24 pm 
Here's another good article with a lot of information that wasn't presented at trial.
Be warned that it includes some details about the cat murder.
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php
|
Uncle_ricky
Member
07-02-2007
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 1:01 pm
Came across this in Jeff Probst's Twitter feed. It looks like he's urging his followers to sign the Change.org petition to the President to free Steven Avery.
https://twitter.com/JeffProbst/status/683684922691842049
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 2:32 pm
That's too bad, but it makes my point.
People that have only watched a very one-sided documentary have a mistaken understanding of the case.
It's quite hypocritical that the documentary essentially blames the police for being dishonest, while being so dishonest itself.
|
Lurkin
Member
02-15-2002
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 2:56 pm
Thanks Karuuna , I forget about Reddit
Jewels. I think it was brought up that her blood was in the back of the Rav and his defense said why would he have put her in the car if he burned her in the barrel
Personally I would never sign a free Avery petition. I also believe they didn't show all the facts and slanted in the documentary. But would sign for a new trial in another county. Especially a new trial for Brenden
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 3:08 pm
As I understand it, her blood was from a head wound, something about it showing hair evidence.
As I noted, I don't think it happened the way it was portrayed in the trial, and by the cousin. It does seem likely that she was loaded in her car and transported at some point. There was evidence of a gunshot wound to the head. And there was burned bone evidence in 3 different locations, it wasn't all in a single burn barrel. Although the bone evidence found in the other locations couldn't conclusively be linked to Teresa.
|
Rissa
Member
03-19-2006
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 3:51 pm
I didn't get the impression the documentary had the primary intention of trying to prove Avery innocent, if they were than they didn't do a great job. The whole family makes me uneasy, wouldn't let a single one of them babysit a goldfish. Lol And no one here seems to be absolutely confidant that he is innocent either, just that the way the crime was investigated leaves a lot of room for doubt. I thought it was more about the process being suspect, the officials involved, the attorneys, the judge, etc.
The complete absence of organic evidence in the areas Brandon 'confessed' the crime occurred in just confirms my suspicion that he had nothing to do with it or at least that his confession was fabricated. Still have a few episodes left so could still change mind one way or another.
I am appalled that the police allowed that press conference where they gave that very graphic timeline of Teresa's death. I don't believe that's the way it happened but her family and loved ones had to listen to that and now have those images seared into their memories. Disgusting thing to do.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 4:32 pm
The documentary may have been about the process, but it seemed to intentionally gloss over some issues about Avery, like the cat incident is presented as an accident, and his relationship with his girl friend is presented as good, when in reality it was volatile and at times violent (hence the 3-day restraining order).
It's called the "making of a murderer" right? So, it does seem to present the message that he is innocent. Even in the title.
|
Pamy
Member
01-01-2002
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 5:43 pm
Im wondering if she was killed 10 miles away and brought back onto Avery's property to frame him
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 5:51 pm
Then how did his DNA get in the car and on the car hood latch? Who else knew that she was going out to see him? Why did he block his phone number when he called her twice that day? And why did he call her again without blocking his number (to make himself look innocent, I suspect).
I think he was involved, if not the only one.
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 6:00 pm
In the documentary, the vial of Avery's blood that was in evidence from the previous trial was shown to be tampered with.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 6:50 pm
The documentary provides information that suggests that the blood evidence may have been tampered with. However, others have disputed this evidence, noting that the little hole is created at the time the blood is drawn. And EDTA was not found in the blood. (I understand there are some concerns about the accuracy of the test, but it's not a new test, it was used in the OJ trial, and the scientist testified to it with "reasonable certainty" under oath - so was she part of the conspiracy also?).
If there were serious issues with this testing, his lawyers would have either raised it during the trial and contradicted it with other experts, or won the right to appeal on it. Their appeal was refused.
In fact, it was the *prosecutor* who asked for a delay in the trial so the old blood could be tested and shown that it was not used to plant evidence, and the *defense* that opposed any such delay. Guess they didn't show that on tv?
2007 Prosecutor asks for delay
And none of that explains how his skin cells and sweat got on the *inside* of the hood latch.
He had a cut on his finger, he could have easily dripped that blood himself.
|
Nyeratheart
Member
09-03-2010
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 6:56 pm
Thank you to whoever suggested River! (I didn't get the chance to look back to find out who it was.) we binge watched this weekend and it is great. Just have the last episode left to watch. Can't wait!
|
Pamy
Member
01-01-2002
| Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 7:51 pm
as a juror, following the laws on how to decide a verdict in a murder case, no way could I find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 99.9%
civil case...perhaps. I think you only have to be about 51% sure
|
Scooterrific
Member
07-08-2005
| Monday, January 04, 2016 - 10:27 am
That was my point Pamy.
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-24-2003
| Monday, January 04, 2016 - 10:46 am
And then there's the I.R.S. That's something else. I was the alternate on a federal tax case in January '91. Being on a jury is a very interesting experience. IIRC, tax cases it's more along the lines you're guilty until you prove your innocence.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 04, 2016 - 10:55 am
The problem with "beyond a reasonable doubt" is that it means different things to different people. But beyond a reasonable doubt does not *legally* mean 99.9%. There is no law that says that. It's just a personal interpretation, one that the law says you cannot use.
In the United States, the only legal alternative you can use is "moral certainty."
So beyond a reasonable doubt means just that - no "reasonable doubt." It is illegal to try to define it in any other way and this has been made clear in many court cases. Legally it has been said to mean that it does NOT mean "with absolute certainty." It is not proof without any doubt. It does mean more than "probably." It also does not mean "possible doubt." That is what the law has said, and it's been tested many many times in court. In fact, "beyond a shadow of doubt" has been *rejected* as a legal alternative because the standard is too impossible, that seems more like the 99.9% (to me).
And again, we did not hear everything the jurors did. I am willing to trust that they made their decision thoughtfully.
And also, my chief complaint here is that this guy is not the sympathetic figure that he has been painted to be, by this documentary, and by many of these petitions.
Was there some issue with the investigation? Yes.
But as I have shown by the record, it's not as bad as it was made out to be by the documentary.
Take just the blood evidence. Clearly, the prosecution was WILLING to have the previous blood sample aged and compared to the blood found in the car. It was the DEFENSE that fought this. You have to ask yourself why, if they were so sure this evidence was planted!
But they must have believed there was at least some reason to believe that the tests would show that the blood in the car was not from the sample. Again, ask yourself why they thought it might have turned out that way, so much so that they weren't willing to risk having that test done!
|
Cricket
Member
08-05-2002
| Monday, January 04, 2016 - 11:23 am
Why is everyone falling for the misrepresentation put out there by Netflix without doing their homework and looking up the facts. I'm talking about news agencies who should know better.
I found this website discussing the Netflix 'movie.'
Are You Aware of the Netflix Doc, WI
After reading through all the horrible things being said about Manitowac and WI because of this one-sided supposed documentary that left out the real facts, I came across this reposting of a Facebook post by a Country employee.
Quote:
From the Facebook of a County Employee:
This is going to be a long one friends. I feel compelled to post a response to the recent release of the Steven Avery / Brendan Dassey "documentary," Making a Murderer on Netflix. This film only portrays the defense's side, and never relies on any prosecutorial interviews or evidence. I am outraged over this so-called documentary portraying Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey as victims. I was one of the volumes of people who worked directly on this case in the District Attorney's Office for thousands of hours. I know the people personally and professionally who worked the closest on this case. They are all respectable, decent, and hard-working people committed to their jobs. I would trust each one of them without hesitation. It is disturbing to see how this "documentary" portrays a calculated, cold-blooded killer as a victim. There are more than 10,000 pages of hard evidence, which correctly and positively identified Teresa Halbach's killers as Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey. Teresa Halbach, a beautiful, loving, and caring member of her community, was lured into a pre-meditated, pre-planned rape, torture, mutilation, and murder. The same DNA which was relied on to exonerate Avery from a prior rape case is the same DNA which convicted him of Halbach's murder. His blood DNA was discovered in her vehicle; his hand was photographed with a recent bleeding wound; his sweat DNA was discovered on the rear seat sliding mechanism of her vehicle; a drawing of a "torture chamber" similar to the Halbach murder scene was found in his jail cell when he was incarcerated for the previous rape detailing how he wanted to kidnap, rape, mutilate, murder, and burn the body of a female so it could not be identified. Furthermore, Halbach filed a report with her employer indicating that she had photographed a vehicle for Avery, and requested not to be sent there again because he was "creepy" and came to the door wearing nothing but a towel. Her employer approved the request. Investigators discovered that Avery placed a phone call from his sister's house requesting Halbach to photograph a vehicle at his sister's home the same day Halbach disappeared. Avery was neighbors with his sister's home. Additionally, Brendan Dassey confessed to a friend what he and his uncle had done because it was bothering him. The friend did not coax this confession-Brendan freely provided it. Brendan further told officers that he watched Avery mutilate and burn Halbach in a huge fire behind Avery's trailer. And the list goes on and on. The mere suggestions that Prosecutor Ken Kratz and law enforcement planted evidence and "set up" Avery is absurd. How would they obtain blood and sweat DNA which was not aged or broken down in any way from Avery without him knowing it? This film would have the audience believe that prosecutors and law enforcement lured this innocent woman to Avery's home, and murdered her, burning her body in Avery's own backyard while Avery was home just to frame him. How ridiculous and asinine! Obviously after hearing all of the thousands of pieces of hard evidence (I have only mentioned a few), a jury of Avery's peers believed beyond any shadow of a doubt that no other verdict could be reached except Guilty as charged. The real victims in this case are Teresa Halbach and her loving family. May God help them heal.
End Quote
I feel the same as this County employee. Netflix owes WI and Manitowac a huge apology, as well as Teresa Halbach's family and they need to set the record straight. This has gotten completely out of hand.
|
Rissa
Member
03-19-2006
| Monday, January 04, 2016 - 11:26 am
\iAnd again, we did not hear everything the jurors did. I am willing to trust that they made their decision thoughtfully.
}
As thoughtfully as the first trial that saw him serve 18 yrs for a crime that we now know 100% he didn't commit?
The blood vial doesn't bother me at all. The defense was simply doing their job. if they were defending someone known to be on the other side of the planet at the time of murder they would/should have blocked that testing in the best interest of their client.
How do you think he got the blood in the car? He couldn't have dropped it from the cut on his finger since the prosecution said he was wearing gloves and that's why there were zero fingerprints. If the prosecution is wrong and he was not wearing gloves then where are his prints? Why is there zero blood from Teresa inside the house/bedroom since the prosecution says she was stabbed multiple times? Why is there zero blood inside the garage even though the prosecution says that is where she was shot? It's clear from the evidence photos that these two places were not cleaned in any way before the investigators turned up and even if they had, there would be evidence of the cleanup and luminal would still show up the blood/organic matter. Why is Teresa's blood in her vehicle if she was stabbed in the house, shot in the garage then burned right there in the yard? Too many major issues still on the table.
|
Cricket
Member
08-05-2002
| Monday, January 04, 2016 - 11:35 am
Thank you for posting facts Karuuna. As to the person who asked if I watched the Netflix show, I downloaded the first episode but when I saw who it was about, I didn't finish it because I knew the story. I had no idea they would make him look a victim. I had just rewatched a true crime show about this murder a couple of weeks ago. It first aired a few years ago. Several true crime tv shows have shown this case and not once was there ever a hint that these two men were not guilty.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 04, 2016 - 12:13 pm
Rissa, I have to agree with Cricket, and that long Facebook post.
This Netflix "mockumentary" has done a terrible injustice, not exposed one.
As I said, I don't think the murder happened the way it was portrayed, but I don't doubt in any way that Steven Avery was part of it.
And again, if the defense was SOOO convinced that he was framed, they should have had the blood age test done. They chose not to, and that alone throws doubt on their own belief that it was planted. Why block a test that would have *exonerated* their "innocent" client??
Avery lured this woman using his sister's name and by blocking his phone number when he called to make the appointment. WHY would he do that?
|
Rissa
Member
03-19-2006
| Monday, January 04, 2016 - 12:30 pm
i don't know Karuuna and again let me say that I am not saying Avery didn't kill her. But, do we allow the police to decide guilt and then create evidence to suit? If they did (and that's the question I have) then it's on their heads if Avery is set free. Our radio has been discussing this and playing the audio clip of a police officer (might have been the Sheriff himself but I am not completely sure on that) asking if the body had been found. He is told no to which he then asks her if Avery has been arrested yet. That was 2 days before they confirmed Teresa had been the victim of any sort of foul play.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 04, 2016 - 12:47 pm
We don't know that the police created any evidence!
These are accusations, not proven.
So, why would the police be found guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt), but not Avery? It seems like there are different standards here.
The prosecutor wanted to prove that there was no tampering with blood evidence. The defense said no.
The only other tampering is the key, but Avery's skin cells were also found on the key, not just the blood. How would the police have put that there?
I'm sorry, but I think all these "accusations" against the police simply are not proven, yet everyone is saying that Avery (a psychopath) deserves benefit of the doubt, but the police do not?
I don't get it.
As for this interview, they KNEW that Avery was the last one to see her, before they found the body. They KNEW that he had lured her under false pretenses. So maybe that's why he was their primary suspect from day one!
|
Kappy
Member
06-28-2002
| Monday, January 04, 2016 - 7:25 pm
TMZ was talking to the prosecutor from the case today and now this evening, it's being discussed on Dr. Drew. The case has certainly caught people's interest in it.
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-24-2003
| Tuesday, January 05, 2016 - 5:52 am
It is so suspect that the key had been laying in plain sight and wasn't found by police / investigators until a few days into searching Avery's trailer.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, January 05, 2016 - 10:53 am
Why? There are many alternative theories. They didn't think it was a key to her car, or his place was an absolute dump (did you see the photos?). How do we know it was "in plain sight"? Are there photos?
|
|
|
|
