| Author |
Message |
Looky_lou
Member
05-07-2011
| Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 10:28 am 
Brenden's interviews are heartbreaking. I don't think there is any doubt he will get a new trial. And then to watch that investigator for his own attorney interview him it's just appalling.
Just a couple notes. I think they made a mistake on the Dateline show when they said that Teresa left a message telling Steven she was lost and having trouble finding the place. That message was left on the Ziperer's answering machine. They were the second appointment. Mrs Ziperer testified at the trial that she got the message that evening because she had been working outside all day. Teresa had been to the Avery's many times including 3 weeks earlier so I don't think she would be lost trying to find them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the District Attorney and Judge Fox who made the decision to move the investigation to Calumet County because of the conflict of interest with Steven's lawsuit? At the time, they were in the middle of giving depositions. I thought the order came from Calumet County that no-one from Manitowoc could be on the property without being supervised to remove any doubt of any evidence found. That's the whole crux of Lenk finding the key. He was alone in the bedroom and unsupervised, creating the situation that they were trying to avoid. I'm not saying that it was definitely Lenk who planted it, I'm saying that open the door for doubt on how it got there and had been missed on many other searches.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 12:05 pm
and then another juror felt he was guilty and raped her too, even though that wasn't presented at trial.
That juror said that AFTER the fact, long after the trial was over. So we don't know that there was bias.
I thought the order came from Calumet County that no-one from Manitowoc could be on the property without being supervised
I've seen people post several times that they weren't supposed to be there. But what I have seen in evidence is the Sheriff of Calumet County on video then and NOW saying that there was never such a prohibition. It was even in the show last night, from then, the Sheriff saying he was using Manitowoc for "resources", which echoes what he has said in recent interviews.
IF it was true that they were not permitted to be on scene, then any evidence they found would have had to be thrown out.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 12:13 pm
By the way I do believe that Brendan's 'confession' was influenced by the questioning, but I don't buy that he wasn't involved at all.
One of the reasons they brought him in was because he told his mother he got the bleach stains (which she witnessed) on his jeans from helping Uncle Steven clean his garage. Uh, you think Uncle Steven regularly cleaned that garage? He also said he was at a bonfire at Steven Avery's the night Teresa was killed. And that's where the bones were found, along with her cell phone.
If they hadn't pushed him, they likely would have gotten a more accurate picture of what happened, instead of the distorted one they ended up with.
It's hard to say how involved he was, but he does seem to have been involved with the cleanup.
|
Pamy
Member
01-01-2002
| Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 12:22 pm
Lookylou, welcome to posting! Hope to see you posting in other threads.
|
Looky_lou
Member
05-07-2011
| Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 1:40 pm
Thanks Pamy. I've posted a little on a couple other threads but have mostly been lurking for many years. I tend to shy away from posting but have enjoyed sharing comments on this thread.
|
Cricket
Member
08-05-2002
| Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 7:44 pm
Looky lou stated:
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.
Welcome to the board, Looky_lou. Unlike you, I don't take these women at their word because I read an article...posted it pages back about the woman who accused Steven of rape and DNA disproved it. When asked why she wasn't in the documentary, she stated that the women were 'convinced' he was innocent of the murder of Teresa and she wasn't convinced he was innocent...she thought he did it. So, no...they didn't go into this film with an open mind.
Also in that article the woman who accused Steven of rape stated after he was released they met. He asked her for money for a new house. She obviously didn't give it to him, but wanted nothing to do with him after that.
As I also stated at the beginning of this discussion, I lived in Green Bay when this happened and went through the arrest and trial. Steven is guilty. The cops did not frame him. He really thought he could now kill someone and get away with it because of his false conviction. I didn't want to believe someone who gotten out of jail would ever want to go back, but because he had a lawsuit against the police in his county, he really thought he could get away with it.
When Avery stated the cops were trying to frame him because of his lawsuit, I knew he did it. He thought he had a built-in defense.
He didn't get away with it. The true victims are Teresa and her family and these women did them a disservice and they left out some truths.
I hope Teresa's family sues them and Netflix. WI has gotten such a bad rap from all over the world because of this one-sided film that is not a documentary.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, February 03, 2016 - 8:19 pm
Thank you, Cricket.
|
Kitkat
Member
08-23-2008
| Thursday, February 04, 2016 - 9:43 am
What Cricket said! Two thumbs up!
|
Looky_lou
Member
05-07-2011
| Friday, February 05, 2016 - 2:04 pm
Hi Cricket, thanks for the welcome. I’m also a Wisconsin girl, born 20 miles from Green Bay. I haven’t lived there in many many years but still have family there. I would live there again in a heartbeat. Let me also get this out of the way. I am not anti-police, my own daughter is in law enforcement. I am also not a conspiracy theorist and I believe many people have gone off the deep end with this documentary. What I am deeply concerned with is the fact that each year the number of people who are released from prison after been falsely convicted is increasing. Because lawyers and judges decide what to present at trials, juries don’t always get the full story, and that’s why they get it wrong sometimes.
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I’m pretty stubborn, I won’t be changing my mind anytime soon on this. I suspect you won’t either. I suspect with this case, there could be a video of the actual crime and people would still argue over who did it.
One thing we can totally agree on is that the Halbachs are the real victims here. It must be very hard for them to have to relive all of this. They don’t deserve it. I also believe there will be lawsuits that come out of this.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Friday, February 05, 2016 - 2:16 pm
I have no problem with someone who has a long history of abusing women and children staying in jail. Forever.
It has always been the case that judges and attorneys decide what to present. It's called the law. And it's far more reliable than all the clever misinformation being bandied about by amateur documentary makers with an agenda and all over the internet.
And that's the information that the jury got, and that's why THEIR decision is more reliable than anyone else's. Because that information MUST be vetted by the judge, and declared legal or not legal. Those are useful and important protections.
Avery's attorneys had the opportunity to have another blood test run to run age comparisons on the blood in the vial and the blood found in the RAV4. They declined... because they "didn't want to delay the trial."
Really? Something that could exonerate your "innocent" client and you don't want to 'delay the trial?'
Not buying it.
If there was a video showing the crime, of course I would change my mind.
Yes, it is a travesty that some people get wrongly convicted, and as the science gets better, it will happen less often. But Avery is far from "innocent." He's a psychopath, his history clearly shows it.
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-24-2003
| Friday, February 05, 2016 - 10:16 pm
Karuuna, how do you account for those spending years in prison after being wrongly accused? Crimes were investigated. They went to trial and were found guilty by judge or jury. Later, sometimes years later, it was determined they were innocent.
|
Chitchat58
Member
07-25-2008
| Saturday, February 06, 2016 - 12:33 am
I think Steven Avery is guilty as well. I saw the series on Netflix and it seems something about his demeanor is just off with me. He is a good liar that's for sure.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, February 06, 2016 - 8:57 am
Karuuna, how do you account for those spending years in prison after being wrongly accused? ....
I thought that Kar already commented on that in her previous post?
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-24-2003
| Saturday, February 06, 2016 - 10:36 am
She did, but says wrong convictions due to science. I'm thinking wrong convictions also due to poor investigation and trial procedures.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, February 06, 2016 - 11:02 am
Yes, Colord, I imagine those happen also.
But really, I think most happen because of poor representation (and therefore lacking the resources to do the correct forensics at times). If you're rich, you are not likely to be wrongly jailed.
And that's really the biggest issue with our 'justice' system.
It's not the psychopaths like Avery, who in this second case had very good litigators. Unlike Brandon.
As I said way back a few weeks, I have no problem with championing the truly innocent who are wrongly convicted. None at all. But a psychopath is not the right poster boy for this cause. In fact, it diminishes the cause. Because if Avery gets out, he'll torture, abuse, rape and maybe even kill again. And then the backlash against these kinds of cases will be horrible. I personally care more about his potential future victims! Not about him!!
Part of the problem too is the 'CSI effect' where people think the science of forensics is so good that it's the only thing that matters.
We used to convict without all those modern tests. It was not a bad thing. Now people think if the forensics are missing, it must be a bad case (like this one). But in fact, real-life forensics are not as good as they are on TV.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, February 06, 2016 - 11:23 am
The "science" they show on a lot of TV shows is ridiculous. I guess they just don't feel it's worth even a little research.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Saturday, February 06, 2016 - 1:30 pm
I was listening to a podcast related to the Adnan Syed case. Those of you that found this Avery case interesting should listen to the Serial podcasts about that case. Just fascinating.
So, this podcast I was listening to wasn't Serial - the serial ones are shorter and more interesting and well done. the one I was listening to was Undisclosed, which are long and tedious in the details, but sometimes interesting. This one was over an hour and 20 minutes of other times the Baltimore police messed up cases and put innocent people in jail.
So, my conclusion is that we can't just blame bad science and bad representation. Sometimes there is willful misleading on the part of police, prosecution. I don't believe their intent is evil, I think they really DO think they have the right guy. When Avery was put away for a rape he didn't do it's as if they knew he was evil and wanted him locked up because of this, even if there were other people to look at, and later evidence that someone else did it. I think they certainly didn't want to let him out because they felt he was a bad guy. How often does the police and prosecuters act this way because the accused is a thug, has a bad reputation, etc.
All questions worth asking. I want to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but there seems to be pockets of questionable behavior that goes on to gain convictions. And sometimes to gain acquittals too! It's an imperfect system for sure, but one we need to keep examining, questioning, watching in order to try to make sure they are doing the right things.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, February 06, 2016 - 1:39 pm
They didn't have to lock Avery up for the rape. He was already going to jail for ramming his pickup truck into a woman's car, running her off the road, and holding her at gunpoint. He likely would have raped her too (since he had exposed himself to her on previous occasions), if she hadn't had her baby with her. That probably saved her from being the first dead woman in Avery's life.
I think the police believed he was guilty. He matched the description, and already had shown that raping/killing a woman was the path he was on.
If the police are framing people, and I'm sure it does happen, I'm pretty sure that really good representation would take care of that.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Saturday, February 06, 2016 - 3:13 pm
I think the main problem I'm hearing about on this podcast is the police and/or prosecution not handing over evidence that casts doubt on the guilt of their suspect. They hide or sit on the evidence when it weakens their case.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, February 06, 2016 - 3:20 pm
Okay, but that is illegal, so I don't think it happens that often. Sure, there are bad cops, there are bad people in every walk of life.
And that's why excellent defense attorneys do their own research as well.
|
Uncle_ricky
Member
07-02-2007
| Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 10:28 am
A second season is in the works:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/making-a-murderer-netflix-new-episodes_uk_578e5449e4b0748f0f47e567?0gbbuik9&
|
Uncle_ricky
Member
07-02-2007
| Friday, August 12, 2016 - 3:08 pm
Wow! The nephew's conviction overturned...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/us/brendan-dassey-making-a-murderer.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
|
Scooterrific
Member
07-08-2005
| Friday, August 12, 2016 - 3:16 pm
Yes he's been exonerated according to the article I read
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Friday, August 12, 2016 - 3:47 pm
Here's a local news cast about it.
http://www.wisn.com/news/brendan-dasseys-conviction-overturned/41178138
Exonerated is not a word I would use. He may be retried.
|
Uncle_ricky
Member
07-02-2007
| Thursday, September 29, 2016 - 2:58 pm
For those who might be interested, Steven Avery (via phone) and his new fiancee will be interviewed by Dr. Phil this coming Monday and Tuesday.
http://deadline.com/2016/09/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-fiancee-interview-dr-phil-1201828589/
|
