| Author |
Message |
Bbpeach
Member
07-06-2005
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 6:10 pm 
Was he ever convicted of these other rapes and molestations? If not, then it is just rumor/hearsay.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 6:52 pm
It's a bit more than rumor/hearsay. There are sworn affidavits by the other two victims, and they were filed with the court. Both of them were threatened by him. Once he was convicted of the Hallbach murder, they decided not to go through with prosecuting them since he was already in for life.
|
Scooterrific
Member
07-08-2005
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 7:06 pm
Mitcay your questions and uncertainty are in line with a multitude of people's. ..
|
Pamy
Member
01-01-2002
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 7:24 pm
1 reason for new trial
"A juror who was ultimately dismissed from the murder trial of Making a Murderer subject Steven Avery tells PEOPLE that two jurors who convicted Avery were related to Manitowoc County employees.
"After the trial, I found out...[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy," the dismissed juror, Richard Mahler, says. "Another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office."
whole article at
http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-says-two-jurors-related-county-employees
|
Pamy
Member
01-01-2002
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 7:29 pm
also I dont buy she was killed there, you even say she *may* have been killed somewhere else. When you get jury instructions, they tell you if you think someone is lying about 1 fact you can dismiss their WHOLE testimony.
|
Pamy
Member
01-01-2002
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 7:31 pm
and I will add he may very well be guilty, I just think he deserves a new trial imo, there was doubt in this one
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 7:32 pm
It is not illegal or improper to have relations on the jury, as long as it is disclosed. Therefore, there are no appeals available on this issue, precisely because the relationships WERE disclosed, and the defense did not object. If the defense did not object, why are we?
As for where she was murdered, no one lied. The prosecution put forth their *theory* of the case. You don't have to agree with all of it to find someone guilty, and there was no lying testimony to dismiss! The prosecution doesn't testify themselves.
In fact, the only person that could testify that she was killed in the bedroom or the garage would be Brendan, and let me remind, Brendan's confession was NOT used in Avery's trial, and he didn't testify in that trial.
All kinds of things here are being distorted from what actually happened at trial. That's what I find troubling, and why I think the jury and those who actually attended the trial are better judges of whether there was reasonable doubt.
All the journalists who covered the case, and the jurors didn't have reasonable doubt. And they heard ALL the evidence.
There's no reasonable doubt because all of these things were ALL brought forward at the trial. All of them. They were considered at the time, so how could he not have received a fair trial?
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 7:51 pm
The blood vial with the "mysterious" hole... not so mysterious...
Except ... every such blood vial would have a hole in its top because blood is injected into the tube through the cap, On Milwaukee is reporting. The online magazine says it obtained court documents showing that prosecutors had a jail nurse ready to testify that she injected the blood into the vial.
"If it's properly filled, that stopper will always have a pierced marking," Dennis Ernst, who chairs the national committee that writes the industry standard on blood draws, tells writer Jessica McBride. "Piercing the stopper of the tube is the recommended and the only way those tubes should be filled."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/01/14/shocking-avery-details-arent-too-shocking/78790092/
|
Pamy
Member
01-01-2002
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 8:12 pm
Im not sure they knew, I could be wrong, I thought that info was revealed by the juror that was dismissed after the trial
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 8:23 pm
If the defense didn't know, they could file an appeal. The only appeal they filed regarding jurors was over the juror who was dismissed.
I read an article about jury selection with his attorneys, they didn't note any improprieties except that they tried to get more people on the jury that weren't local, but other than that, no complaints. They also said there wasn't anything improper about selection.
It's part of jury selection in any trial. You have to disclose who you know and how you know them.
And at any time during the trial, if someone comes forward that you know, you must reveal that also.
It's standard practice.
|
Pamy
Member
01-01-2002
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 8:29 pm
Kar, you keep saying there is no reasonable doubt/he got a fair trial...ok that's your opinion, no problem at all. My opinion is I feel there was doubt/he didnt get a fair trail. I value your opinion, I haven't argued why I feel your opinion is wrong because someone's *opinion* can never be wrong. You asked 'how was it not a fair trial?'..I answered with one of the reasons why I felt it wasn't.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 8:29 pm
Here's an extensive article on jury selection by Avery's attorney - he says it was disclosed:
Since the series came out, reports have surfaced that say one juror volunteered for the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department. Were you and Dean Strang aware of that when the juror was selected?
Yes. He did disclose that, although the extent that I've seen in subsequent reports, the extent of his involvement, I'm not sure if he fully disclosed. That would be one of the things that we'd have to look into.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-discusses-his-suspicions-about-the-jury-20160114#ixzz3xep49LVP
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 8:35 pm
Pamy, I understand, and I just continued the discussion. You noted that if someone lies, a juror can discount their entire testimony.
And I noted that no one actually testified that she was killed in the bedroom or the garage, so there was no such testimony to discount.
That seems like a fair response to me. You know, I hope, that I think very highly of you, so it's not personal... I just see it very differently, and I'm very disturbed by how many people have taken up the cause of someone I believe to be a murderer.
The fact is, that the defense presented that information at trial, that there was no DNA in the bedroom or garage. The jury *heard* both sides of that issue, and they chose guilty. So, it doesn't mean he didn't have a fair trial. If they heard both sides and they made their decision, that is the definition of a fair trial. It can only not be fair, if something was withheld. And it wasn't.
And as I have stated elsewhere at TVCH, yes, opinions can be wrong. I never understand why people say that. What if you have an opinion that it's okay to have sex with children? Is that a wrong opinion?
I realize many things are more grey than that. I'm just providing evidence as to why I think my opinion is correct. It's not personal. I've just read a LOT about this case.
And I have another opinion. This man is a dangerous psychopath. Again, I say if people are looking for a poster child for wrongful convictions, this is the wrong guy.
I care MORE, MUCH more, about all the women he has already hurt, and how many more he will hurt if he gets out. Because he will.
|
Reader234
Member
08-13-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 10:00 pm
I know Dr Phil doesn't get the best reviews... but he did a 2 day show on this - and one thing he kept saying (I can't watch Dr Phil continuously, I change the channel, and this case is so disturbing I also cannot watch) BUT, he said he read the transcript, and thinks its important that there is a better representation. So he did show some parts of the documentary brought up - but he also kept bringing up parts that were not on that tv show that were in the transcript that provided a better perspective (imo, again, I didn't watch the Dr Phil show in its entirity)
He also had the female reporter, who was writing a blog, she was also use that the show was conveying so many things in his perspective, and she wrote on her blog something to the affect about the victim, and was really cut apart for it - and she stated that she felt that the Dr Phil did a better job presenting the case than the 'documentary' (she stated that she was a "character in the "documentary" and didn't think they got that right )
The first day Nancy Grace was on - Dr Phil and her seemed to get in to it a bit, which I found entertaining. Dr Phil seemed to be on the side of a new trial, and Nancy Grace was presenting the other side (I see someone else posted a link with Nancy Grace, I'm sure its the same things she said on Dr Phil)
oh and the reporter talked about the cat, how he burned the cat, the reality and the "documentary" are different. That was so disturbing
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-24-2003
| Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 12:46 pm
Charlie Rose is interviewing the two women who produced and directed "Making a Murderer". I didn't get in on the beginning of it. Charlie Rose is on a number of times during the day on different channels here. I should be able to catch the whole interview sometime today/tonight.
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-24-2003
| Sunday, January 24, 2016 - 9:37 pm
Saw a promo tonight for Dateline this Friday. Said they did a show about Avery ten years ago. Now new one this Friday.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 25, 2016 - 11:04 am
Thanks for the heads up.
|
Cricket
Member
08-05-2002
| Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 9:42 pm
Investigation Discovery channel is having a special called "Steven Avery: Innocent or Guilty"? about the so-called Avery documentary. It will air this Saturday, Jan. 30th.
Previously, ID mentioned it would be part of a new series called Front Page.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 9:44 pm
That's the one we've been waiting for!
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, January 30, 2016 - 12:44 pm
Did anyone watch last night? They showed both sides in the Dateline story, including a lot including a lot of info about the test tube that was supposedly tampered with. The prosecution had a nurse who was prepared to testify that she put the hole in the stopper when she drew the blood!
Plus the defense attorney gave false information about the bones. He said it was "undisputed" that the bones were moved. I wish Dateline had investigated that, because in fact the prosecution had an expert testify that the bones were burned where they were found.
The defense attorney also said the bones from the other location were Teresa's, but that was never proved, according to testimony.
The new Avery attorney says they have "new evidence" and will be running new tests. She says her client wants every test run that can be run, and that's why she thinks he's innocent.
Which makes me wonder (again) why the original attorneys didn't want that second blood test run??
|
Mictay
Member
09-29-2006
| Saturday, January 30, 2016 - 5:26 pm
I missed last night but will catch it on demand
Going to watch the ID one tonight
|
Looky_lou
Member
05-07-2011
| Saturday, January 30, 2016 - 5:40 pm
Okay, I’ll jump in to the discussion, but I suspect that there are going to be some strong disagreements about the documentary. I did see the show last night and honestly didn’t learn anything new. The blood vial has been discussed and dissected on other message boards, with medical people explaining the process and why it’s possible to have the hole in the top, so that wasn’t a surprise. There are plenty of other things that are questionable. Has it ever been explained why the seal on the box was broken to begin with? I am under the impression that any time an evidence seal is broken it has to be documented.
I haven’t posted on this board before so let me state my position. I watched the documentary twice. The first time I had a very emotional response like many people did. I wanted to watch again to be objective and keep my emotions out of it. My opinion did not change after watching it a second time. Here are some of my thoughts.
One of the criticisms is that it was one sided, or leaned in favor of Steven. The filmmakers have stated that they went into the project without an opinion and I take them at their word. The filmmakers sat down with Teresa’s brother and talked to him about participating in the documentary, the family declined. Everyone else was also invited to participate and they declined. Well except Len Kachinsky obviously. I don’t think any of them saw this blowing up as it has. So all I can say is that if you want your side of the story to be told, you have to be willing to tell it.
Some have suggested that they make light of the story of throwing the cat in the fire. I would point out that the person making light of it was Steven himself when he told the story. It was pointed out that he went to jail for 9 months for it. I think people are smart enough to understand that if he went to jail for it, it wasn’t some dumb mistake on his part. I think Ken K keeps bringing it up because he is trying to suggest that people who torture animals may go on to become serial killers. We get it.
Do I think he’s guilty? I have no idea. That’s not what the documentary is about. It’s about whether he got a fair trial or more specifically, did he get a fair investigation. He did not. Ken K himself said he regretted the press conference he gave giving all the gruesome details. It tainted the jury pool.
Here is where I have an issue. On Oct 31 there were many people at the salvage yard. Three of them that I know of had criminal records. One brother was arrested for sexually assaulting his 2 daughters, the other for sexually assaulting his wife and for stalking a woman. Scott T was arrested for assaulting a woman and threatening to kill her. Then you have Bobby Dassey who had fresh scratch marks on his back. Yet, none of these people were seriously investigated. I read Scott’s 3 interviews with the police, and his story changed each time. Why were none of these people ever considered suspects, why weren’t their homes searched? Why did her roommate wait until Thursday to tell the family she was missing, considering the family said it was very out of character for her not to come home. They lived next door to each other for cripes sake.
My second big question is this. All of the evidence that was found was circumstantial, it could have easily pointed to any one for the people I mentioned. The only evidence that points directly at Steven are the same items that are suspicious. First of all, how is it possible that Colburn and Lenk just happen to be present when each of the items are found, even though they were not allowed to take part in the investigation? If you believe that Steven had Teresa’s key from the day he killed her, then that would suggest that the police were so inept at searching that it took them several searches to find a key behind a table. And why did Steven allow them to search the house without a search warrant? Isn’t it also possible that someone else who had access to his trailer, his garage etc., like a brother, could have put the items there. His relationship with his brothers was so bad that he was living in an ice fishing shack on his parent’s property up north when he first got out of jail. He even went to the woman who falsely accused him of rape and asked for money so that he could live elsewhere. Maybe his brothers thought that if he is in jail, they could get their hands on the 36 million he was about to get. I don’t know if any of that is true, I don’t know if the police or someone else planted evidence. What I do know, is that is where my reasonable doubt is.
I think what's really sad about all of this is Teresa Halbach has been lost in all this. Her family must be having such a hard time with all of this. That's sad.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, January 30, 2016 - 7:12 pm
I've addressed all these other issues before, but let me reiterate this one:
even though they were not allowed to take part in the investigation
That's just not true. The sheriff of the neighboring county that took the lead in the investigation has gone on record to say that because they have a much smaller force, he *asked* those in Manitowoc to HELP with the investigation, while he oversaw it.
And yes, I think the police of this small county were fairly inept.
I think people are smart enough to understand that if he went to jail for it, it wasn’t some dumb mistake on his part.
Why didn't the documentary makers show a copy of the court record that showed what he actually admitted to? Could it be that they were trying to make him a sympathetic character, so they didn't want to show how horribly he just lied?
Here's the bottom line for me. Yes, we have a bunch of criminals and unsavory types all around there.
But the ONE person who lured her onto the property under false pretenses was Steven Avery. He blocked his phone number, gave a different name and didn't even identify the property correctly. Teresa had to call back and ask for directions because she didn't know where she was going. But she KNEW where the salvage yard was, she'd been there before, and several times.
There is simply no doubt about any of that evidence. It's not in dispute.
People can believe he didn't have a fair trial all they want. I will simply repeat that all of this evidence claiming that things were faked or planted were presented to the jury. And they still found him guilty. They simply didn't find the planting stories credible.
|
Pamy
Member
01-01-2002
| Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 3:18 am
Lookylou, I agree with you. I watched Dateline and am STILL convinced he deserves a new trial. Too many things dont add up IMO
|
Ranger2
Member
08-08-2008
| Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 5:29 am
I watched the show on Dateline and on ID Discovery and both shows still left so many questions. A jury found Steven Avery guilty of a rape he didn't commit, so juries get things wrong. That's something that was brought up on ID Discovery, that one juror felt pressured into finding Avery guilty, and then another juror felt he was guilty and raped her too, even though that wasn't presented at trial. Bias there...since there is no proof of him raping her. No proof at all. I have tried to go back and watch Brendan's interviews, but I can't. I just can't watch that again. On both shows, they did show Brendan talking to his mother, and that was one part I have watched. When Brendan's mother came in to talk to Brendan, there was a detective with them for almost the entire time. When they are finally alone, that's when Brendan tells his mother that "they got into his head"> As soon as he says that, the detectives come right back into the room...within seconds.
|
|
|
|
