| Author |
Message |
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, January 16, 2016 - 7:14 pm 
Brenda, I agree I have trouble with how they treated the nephew, especially since I believe he had been abused by Steven Avery, one of Avery's many victims. And I truly believe he had an attorney who wasn't on his side. For that reason, I think he needs a new trial.
As for the cops distancing themselves, maybe, but we are talking about small counties here. The county that took over the investigation had an even *smaller* force than the one Avery was in. So, they *asked* them to assist. I've read some reports that said they were told to stay away, but I saw an interview from the Sheriff in the lead county and he said he asked them to help. So it just isn't true that they violated any rules by assisting.
Bullet - to believe that the bullet was planted months after the crime, you would have to believe that the police took Avery's gun out of evidence, put Teresa's DNA on a bullet and then went out to the garage and fired the bullet. That seems pretty far-fetched to me.
I think the big problem here is that the police were inept, not that they are some wildly clever cops who planted all this evidence, and then no one discovered it, could prove it, or leaked it. With so many involved, I'd be surprised if *someone* didn't talk.
You have to ask yourself, how did the police plant the car, his blood, the body remains, the personal belongings, his DNA on the hood latch, the bullet, the key.... I'm sorry, that's just too much for me to believe.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, January 16, 2016 - 7:22 pm
Nancy Grace outlines why Steven Avery is guilty:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/making-a-murderer-nancy-grace-856328
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Saturday, January 16, 2016 - 7:22 pm
I don't think they fabricated or created the bullet, but I question if the garage is where they really found it. Perhaps it was found out on the property somewhere. Having it be "found" in the garage would be an easy way to tie him to the crime. I just find it nearly impossible to believe that there wasn't other blood evidence in the garage if she was shot in there? I don't believe he was capable of cleaning up that well. She was probably killed outdoors somewhere.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, January 16, 2016 - 7:37 pm
Brenda, it was "embedded" in the garage, so it had to be have been shot there.
************
This is a series by a reporter who went to all 6 weeks of the trial. It's called "Rebutting a Murderer" and he is going through episode by episode of the Netflix series and filling in all the things they didn't tell their viewers.
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, January 16, 2016 - 8:08 pm
I don't know Brenda, I encourage you to read all the rebuttals in that link above. He addresses many of the questions.
Like, if they really didn't believe she was shot in the garage, why didn't the defense experts have their own blood expert testify that it would be impossible to not find any blood in the garage?
And let's not forget that Brendan not only confessed that he had helped Avery clean the garage, but his mother noted that she had seen a stain on his pants that day, and he said it was from bleach helping Avery clean the garage.
Why would they be using bleach in a garage that's such a mess?
And how would cops have planted her DNA on the bullet?
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, January 16, 2016 - 8:16 pm
From another reporter who attended Avery's trial:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/making-a-murderer-compelling-but-is-it-a-game-changer-in-steven-avery-case-b99647809z1-364794271.html
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, January 16, 2016 - 8:22 pm
This is the list of the all the articles written by the local reporter covering the trial, at the time of the trial:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/coverage-of-steven-averys-2007-trial-now-in-making-a-murderer-netflix-series-b99643080z1-363828481.html
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, January 16, 2016 - 8:29 pm
This is the testimony regarding the bullet:
William Newhouse, a gun expert with the Wisconsin State Crime Lab, said he couldn't conclusively link a bullet found in a crack in Avery's garage to a .22-caliber rifle seized from his bedroom, but the bullet found under an air compressor in Avery's garage was likely fired from it. That was the bullet that a state DNA expert said had Halbach's remnants on it.
Newhouse testified that the bullet could not have been fired from any other gun. He also said that all 11 cartridge casings found in Avery's garage were fired from the .22-caliber rifle.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/prosecutors-link-gun-found-in-room-to-bullet-with-halbachs-dna-b99643001z1-363819121.html
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Saturday, January 16, 2016 - 8:56 pm
So how was it embedded it if was found under the air compressor?
Did they mention the bleach in the documentary? That certainly gives me pause.
To me it's a cautionary tale about kids being interviewed without a lawyer, lawyers that have conflicts of interest. I feel really, really bad for the victims family-- having this all drudged up again and questioned. Am I convinced he's guilty? He probably is, but do I also think there's a possibility someone else at the Avery compound did it or participated? It's a possibility that I don't think the police fully explored. It seemed they honed in on Steven and then set out to make sure they could convict him.
If the boy participated why wouldn't he have taken a plea bargain? I thought he was offered one. What a sad case all around.
|
Ranger2
Member
08-08-2008
| Sunday, January 17, 2016 - 4:40 am
I'm a little confused about the testimony of the bullet found. First newhouse says the bullet was "likely" fired from averys gun....would that mean probably? Then later he says it could not have been fired from any other gun. Which is it?
I do appreciate these links, I am trying to go back through them all. The other thing that is confusing me is about the bleach and cleaning the garage. That link I provided with all the pictures shows a picture of the garage That has a very dirty floor and junk everywhere. I do wonder if that bullet was found somewhere else and planted in the garage.
|
Ranger2
Member
08-08-2008
| Sunday, January 17, 2016 - 4:51 am
Oh and something I wanted to share, and I really hope this is starting to happen everywhere. In the county that I live, the paper is reporting on some cases where either the person convicted of the crime has recently been cleared of the crime they were innocent of, or some cases where the evidence was very shady. One man who spent 28 years in jail for something he did not do, when he was released, he left the county because he was afraid of repercussions from the sheriff's department, because he felt that were embarrassed for how his conviction came about.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 17, 2016 - 11:46 am
Brenda, I'm sorry, there were 2 bullets found, one embedded and one not. I had read somewhere that it was the embedded bullet that had her DNA, but this article makes it clear that it was the other one.
That's the problem with so many things written about this case, on both sides. A lot of it is not accurate.
For example, serving "18" years for a crime he did not commit, when 6 of those years were for a crime he clearly did commit.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 17, 2016 - 11:47 am
I thought he was offered one.
He was offered one to testify against Avery, but then decided not to take it. In the end, NONE of his testimony or his confession was used in the Avery trial - another fact that many blogs, articles, etc, get wrong.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, January 17, 2016 - 11:50 am
First newhouse says the bullet was "likely" fired from averys gun....would that mean probably? Then later he says it could not have been fired from any other gun. Which is it?
WE don't have the transcripts, as previously noted, we only have the journalist's reporting. But if he said the bullet with her DNA could not have come from any other gun, that's probably correct.
|
Mictay
Member
09-29-2006
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 12:27 pm
Watching this now. Anyone else find it weird that the blood sample for the 1985 case was found unsealed then resealed with scotch tape and a needle hole in the vile??
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 12:32 pm
Mictay, no. There is a needle hole in all vials. Ever had your blood taken? That's how they get the blood in.
As for the tape, evidence tape is broken and resealed all the time. They don't put it in and then leave it forever. They break the tape and then reseal it.
The only thing unusual here is that they used scotch tape instead of evidence tape. That's just sloppy police work, not a conspiracy.
In fact, I would argue that it shows a *lack* of conspiracy. If you were purposefully trying to hide your actions, you'd be sure to use more evidence tape to reseal it!
|
Mictay
Member
09-29-2006
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 2:11 pm
Yes I have had blood taken, the cover on that vile was not the same as they use when you just go have your blood taken. Like I said I'm not sure if he's guilty or not but their are strong facts showing a cover up to some extant, some of the evidence justs doesn't fit, they never found a drop of her DNA in his house, or garage. Just going by what the documentary is showing, I understand it's very one sided but even watching the trial, their is absolutely reasonable doubt. I don't believe he got a fair trial. JMO
|
Pamy
Member
01-01-2002
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 2:31 pm
that's my main issue also. He didnt get a fair trial, imo
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 2:32 pm
Mictay, you asked if anyone found it weird. I answered. 
There is a hole in the vial that was created when they drew the blood. Nothing unusual. The blood found in the car was tested, and they found no preservative. The prosecution ALSO wanted to run an additional test to compare the ages of the blood in the car and the blood in the vial. Guess what? The *defense* said no! Why would they say no to a test that could free their client? Maybe because they knew it would hang him instead??
I'm sorry, I don't find reasonable doubt here. I find a psychopath, and a lot of contortion by this documentary to make the police look bad. It's the documentary that is untrustworthy, not the police.
You can't watch the trial in full.. there are NO recordings available. You can only see the highly edited snips in the documentary. You can't even read the full trial transcripts.
The documentary omits the part of Brendan's confession that actually fits squarely with every piece of evidence. That's intentionally deceiving. They omit the explanations for every piece of this evidence they call into question. That's intentionally deceiving.
I think the police *may* have been wrong about where she was killed, but not who killed her. And that's good enough for me.
As for no DNA, I posted earlier about the "CSI effect," the idea that because so many of us watch tv shows, we think DNA is the answer in every case. The fact is, it's not that simple. Ask any real police officer.
|
Mictay
Member
09-29-2006
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 2:41 pm
I read earlier they are doing an ID discovery show on this, might have read that wrong, but I'd like to watch it, so if anyone knows date or time. I would like to hear all sides.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 3:09 pm
It's supposed to be on their show called "front page" and will air later this month.
I'm confused about these claims that he didn't get a fair trial. Can someone explain?
Because having read the newspaper reports from 2006, and all the trial motions that are available, every single thing that the documentary covers WAS raised at the trial - from the blood being "planted", from no DNA in the bedroom or garage, from the key being "planted", from the detective knowing the license plate, all of it was brought up at trial. And the jurors, having heard all the "planted" theories rejected them and found him guilty.
So, how was it not a fair trial?
|
Scooterrific
Member
07-08-2005
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 4:08 pm
Mitcay. .yes I and several of my friends and coworkers found that one of several strange things
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 4:14 pm
It was presented at trial. The jury heard BOTH sides and was not convinced that there was anything weird or strange. They still convicted him.
|
Mictay
Member
09-29-2006
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 4:36 pm
I think it would've been very hard for people not to already have their own opinion of Avery. I'm not sure you could go anywhere in Wisconsin and not know about him..
A few other things bother me, like the officer who called in her plate number, to me it sounded like he had found her car on the recording but just wanted to confirm it but not report finding it.. If that makes sense. The other thing is the car key, they just happen to find it after searching the house multiple times. Just laying there..
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, January 18, 2016 - 5:13 pm
yes, that's how they made the recording sound on the documentary. But if you listen to the testimony, he was calling in information he had received from her sister.
The key fell out of the bookcase after they shook it. It wasn't lying in plain sight the whole time.
The key only had Avery's DNA on it. If they were trying to plant evidence, why would the police wipe off Teresa's DNA? Only the killer would do that.
In addition, the rest of the key lanyard was found in the car. Again, if police were trying to plant evidence, why would they take it apart? And how did they get it out of the car to put in his bedroom??
I'm sorry, I have heard all this before. I know you are just watching it, but I feel compelled to provide the other side, because the documentary does not.
This man is a *dangerous* psychopath. He murdered a cat in a horribly brutal way (not at all like he said in the documentary). He forced his cousin/sister-in-law off the road and held her at gunpoint. Who knows what he would have done to her if he hadn't found out her baby was in the car? And why? Because she had complained about him pulling out his wang every time she drove by his house!
He raped two other women, beat his girlfriend, threatened to kill his wife, he molested other younger family members and he drew a picture of a torture chamber and showed it to his fellow inmates, explaining what he would do to a woman when he was let out.
And then he did. Guilty. If this man goes free, another woman will be beaten, raped or died.
Who wants that? This is NOT someone who is a victim, or who deserves your sympathy.
If people want to find a cause for someone who was wrongly jailed, there are plenty of nice people whose causes you can take up. This is the wrong case to make a poster for injustice.
|
|
|
|
