International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Trials and Errors (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=302005)

Caper 28th December 2015 10:21 PM

Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer
 
Anyone else watching this Netflix doc? I'm a few episodes in. I really want to believe this guy is innocent. But right now I can't come up with a plausible case for innocence. Anyone?

rjh01 29th December 2015 12:36 AM

Just done a google search. The guy is innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery.

Caper 29th December 2015 01:34 AM

I'm 5 episodes in. It's really a crazy documentary. It wasn't until the end of EP.5, where I think there might be a decent shot he is innocent. His nephews confession means nothing to me. The confession is much like that of Joe Dick of the Norfolk 4.

Still skeptical though. I know that the doc wants to lead me down a path and I know I personally really want to believe he is innocent.

lionking 29th December 2015 01:37 AM

Well I'm not going to call him innocent on the basis of a Google search. I've just started to watch the doco.

DragonLady 29th December 2015 03:27 AM

Someone killed the woman. Who? I'm not sure...but I'm forced to conclude it was probably Steven Avery.

SomedayGirl 29th December 2015 08:28 AM

I finished it just before Christmas.

I came away unsure of either Avery's guilt or innocence. Another name for it I suppose is reasonable doubt. I don't think there was enough to convict.

I came away absolutely sure of Dassey's innocence. That kid needs a new trial.

The documentary comes across slanted I think because none of the officers, prosecutors, or family members of Teresa Halbach would speak to the filmmakers. All you see is people from the Avery side. Regardless, there looks like some pretty shady shenanigans went on and honestly I found some of it shocking.

lionking 29th December 2015 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjh01 (Post 11054076)
Just done a google search. The guy is innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery.

How can you say this with such certainty? Innocent of the attempted rape? Without doubt. The murder? This is a very open question. I can't see how anyone can say innocent without doubt.

Matthew Best 29th December 2015 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl (Post 11054576)
I came away absolutely sure of Dassey's innocence. That kid needs a new trial.

I'm only watching Episode 4 at the moment, but I am finding it very distressing - the way Dassey was treated was unbelievable. The amazing thing is that the detectives and investigators obviously had no inkling that what they were doing was wrong as they knew everything they did was being recorded and obviously had no problem with that. And his lawyer was appalling.

SomedayGirl 29th December 2015 08:51 PM

Stick with it, Matthew. You'll be more than distressed.

His first lawyer was fer **** but the investigator for his lawyer...I just can't even express my contempt. And it's legal in many districts but shouldn't be - the theory of the crime proposed by the prosecution is completely different from Avery's to Dassey's trials. Even though they conflict, the result is two convictions. It's mindboggling.
.

lionking 29th December 2015 09:14 PM

What I find fascinating is that the series commenced filming 10 years ago. No trying to cobble together loosely connected sources years after the event, we have real people behaving in real time. Very well made.

lionking 29th December 2015 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 11055489)
I'm only watching Episode 4 at the moment, but I am finding it very distressing - the way Dassey was treated was unbelievable. The amazing thing is that the detectives and investigators obviously had no inkling that what they were doing was wrong as they knew everything they did was being recorded and obviously had no problem with that. And his lawyer was appalling.

The police interrogation of Dassey was disgraceful. It should have been rejected as evidence. And that's only the bit that's recorded! Goodness knows what the kid was subjected to before the cameras were turned on.

Samson 30th December 2015 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caper (Post 11054000)
Anyone else watching this Netflix doc? I'm a few episodes in. I really want to believe this guy is innocent. But right now I can't come up with a plausible case for innocence. Anyone?

After trawling the internet for ideas I discovered this.

Framing is the least of it. Somebody killed this woman. If it wasn't Avery, it was the cops. Everything I have learned about this case tells me it was the cops. They murdered her in cold blood and burned her body. They pinned it on Avery so they could get out from under a massive lawsuit they were sure to lose.

So, I look at it this way: if I lived up there, I'd a hell of a lot rather have Avery on the street than one of those cops in a patrol car, following me on the highway.

lionking 30th December 2015 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11055779)
After trawling the internet for ideas I discovered this.

Framing is the least of it. Somebody killed this woman. If it wasn't Avery, it was the cops. Everything I have learned about this case tells me it was the cops. They murdered her in cold blood and burned her body. They pinned it on Avery so they could get out from under a massive lawsuit they were sure to lose.

So, I look at it this way: if I lived up there, I'd a hell of a lot rather have Avery on the street than one of those cops in a patrol car, following me on the highway.

So what's your view? Did the cops frame Avery? What evidence do you have? Have you watched the documentary or are you just posting the musings of some random bozo on the web?

Not a massive discovery by the way.

Samson 30th December 2015 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11055802)
So what's your view? Did the cops frame Avery? What evidence do you have? Have you watched the documentary or are you just posting the musings of some random bozo on the web?

Not a massive discovery by the way.

I know nothing about the case, but was interested to try to answer Caper.

lionking 30th December 2015 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11055834)
I know nothing about the case, but was interested to try to answer Caper.

Caper asked if you were watching the documentary and if you could come up with anything. But thanks for playing.....

SomedayGirl 30th December 2015 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11055654)
The police interrogation of Dassey was disgraceful. It should have been rejected as evidence. And that's only the bit that's recorded! Goodness knows what the kid was subjected to before the cameras were turned on.

Actually most of his interrogations were taped and they're fascinating, headache- and rage-inducing reading. Both written and video versions can be found here:

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/dasse...ons_links.html

lionking, I don't think officers framed Avery in the traditional sense. I don't believe they killed Teresa Halbach and then placed evidence at his place. I think she was killed by someone, the cops believe it is Avery but the case is flimsy so they augmented it by planting evidence that would point to his guilt. The take down of Dassey is just collateral damage on that path.

Matthew Best 30th December 2015 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl (Post 11056914)
lionking, I don't think officers framed Avery in the traditional sense. I don't believe they killed Teresa Halbach and then placed evidence at his place. I think she was killed by someone, the cops believe it is Avery but the case is flimsy so they augmented it by planting evidence that would point to his guilt. The take down of Dassey is just collateral damage on that path.

I think we had extensive discussion on the "other" thread over what you should call it when police "frame" someone who is guilty. I don't think there was ever a unanimous decision on that.

SomedayGirl 30th December 2015 04:57 PM

Matthew, I'm sorry but I don't know which thread you mean. I was just trying to clarify that I think the officers in Avery's case did plant evidence but not to create a case but rather to enhance one they thought they had.

You may not be there yet but during closing arguments the special prosecutor tells the jury (paraphrasing):

If you don't find that Steven Avery killed Teresa Halbach, you're saying the police did it. I personally don't believe those are the only two options.

Matthew Best 30th December 2015 05:04 PM

It's one of the many sidebar discussions from the Knox/Sollecito thread.

I think I was agreeing with you. It seems to me (I'm only up to Episode 7 so far) that it's conceivable that Avery is in fact guilty, but even more likely that the police planted evidence. Just because the latter is true, doesn't make the former impossible.

SomedayGirl 30th December 2015 05:24 PM

Yikes, THAT thread. lol I've checked into it periodically but it seems very circular and persinickety so I haven't kept up with it.

As I said above, I think Avery may have done it. I don't think so to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. If you disregard the evidence that is most shady (the key, the bullet, and Avery's blood in the vehicle) it's even harder for me to get there.

One bit of evidence the series left out - sweat with DNA matching Avery was found on the hood latch of the RAV4. Personally I put that in the key/bullet/blood pile. There were no prints of Avery's anywhere on the vehicle including there, Avery was clearly not the neatest person, and was apparently quite the sweat-er. A sock or teeshirt from the house rubbed on the spot could account for it.

Modified 30th December 2015 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl (Post 11056914)
I don't think officers framed Avery in the traditional sense. I don't believe they killed Teresa Halbach and then placed evidence at his place. I think she was killed by someone, the cops believe it is Avery but the case is flimsy so they augmented it by planting evidence that would point to his guilt. The take down of Dassey is just collateral damage on that path.

Agreed, except I do think it's possible that the cops don't believe Avery is guilty. The prior case shows that they don't care either way, even when there is much less at stake.

DragonLady 30th December 2015 06:05 PM

Quote:

I don't think officers framed Avery in the traditional sense. I don't believe they killed Teresa Halbach and then placed evidence at his place. I think she was killed by someone, the cops believe it is Avery but the case is flimsy so they augmented it by planting evidence that would point to his guilt.
Yes; this.

Quote:

As I said above, I think Avery may have done it. I don't think so to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.
I agree. I can see other plausible scenarios well enough to have doubts.

Quote:

If you disregard the evidence that is most shady (the key, the bullet, and Avery's blood in the vehicle) it's even harder for me to get there.
Those things came from somewhere. If we buy the argument the police took Avery's blood from the evidence locker, we still have to ask where they got the key and the bullet with the victim's DNA on it?

Someone killed her. I have a hard time believing the police officers involved would be more afraid of Avery's lawsuit than potential murder charges -or even charges of interferring with justice. If they couldn't pay the judgement they could have filed bankruptcy; but if they were caught tampering with the crime scene, they would face losing criminal charges of their own.

So it seems more likely they were damn sure he did it, and they wanted to make sure he faced the charges.

SomedayGirl 30th December 2015 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonLady (Post 11057037)

Those things came from somewhere. If we buy the argument the police took Avery's blood from the evidence locker, we still have to ask where they got the key and the bullet with the victim's DNA on it?

I am troubled that her key has none of her DNA on it, only Avery's. That seems implausible, as does it not being found until the seventh search of the bedroom where it happens to fall out of hiding when an officer with a conflict of interest is on scene. As for where it came from I'm going to guess the vehicle. Same problem with the bullet...missed thru several sweeps of the garage, happens to turn up when an officer with a conflict of interest is there. The DNA on it was so scanty the test for it could only be run once, and was contaminated by the lab during that one time only test. As for where her DNA came from I'd guess the vehicle again, it had her blood in the back. Pretty sketchy in both instances and without them (the only evidence of her inside the house and garage), Avery's blood in the vehicle, and the sweat on the hood latch the case is considerably less sure.

Quote:

Someone killed her. I have a hard time believing the police officers involved would be more afraid of Avery's lawsuit than potential murder charges -or even charges of interferring with justice. If they couldn't pay the judgement they could have filed bankruptcy; but if they were caught tampering with the crime scene, they would face losing criminal charges of their own.

So it seems more likely they were damn sure he did it, and they wanted to make sure he faced the charges.
This is my belief as well.

lionking 30th December 2015 10:56 PM

The more I'm watching this doco, the angrier I'm getting. Avery may well be guilty, I'm divided. But the way the police and court stitched up the accused was disgusting.

Among the many issues which worry me is that Avery is no Rhodes Scholar, yet he left blood, but no fingerprints in the SUV. Halbach was allegedly butchered in Avery's shack, yet no trace of blood or tissue at all. He was no criminal mastermind. Things just don't add up, and I can't see how he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

lionking 30th December 2015 11:59 PM

Jeez, the quality of the forensics is redolent of the Lindy Chamberlain case.

DragonLady 31st December 2015 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11057374)
The more I'm watching this doco, the angrier I'm getting. Avery may well be guilty, I'm divided. But the way the police and court stitched up the accused was disgusting.

Among the many issues which worry me is that Avery is no Rhodes Scholar, yet he left blood, but no fingerprints in the SUV. Halbach was allegedly butchered in Avery's shack, yet no trace of blood or tissue at all. He was no criminal mastermind. Things just don't add up, and I can't see how he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

(sigh) I agree. I'm really surprised either of them were convicted, as it seems there's enough "reasonable doubt" to drive a steamboat through. :(

SomedayGirl 31st December 2015 07:13 AM

Both cases are pretty stinky but Dassey's is the one that really gets me. For Avery (leaving aside the questionable evidence), he's the last person known to see her alive, her vehicle is found on the Avery salvage yard, and her possessions and remains are found in his burn barrel and burn pit.

For Dassey there's literally nothing - even granting the questionable evidence - except his own very conflicting words, a pair of jeans with bleach stains that police took possession of four months after the crime, and that he was with Avery for a couple hours on October 31. No one ever saw him with Halbach, there's no evidence he ever had any contact with her, and there's no physical evidence of him in Halbach's vehicle or in Steven Avery's house and garage. I just don't see how a jury comes to a unanimous decision that he raped and killed Teresa Halbach with that.

I find it particularly galling that prosecutors use two very different theories of the crime to obtain the two convictions (ex., they say Avery acted alone at his trial but that Dassey acted with Avery at Dassey's trial). They can't both be true. I don't see how it's even legal to do such a thing but in many places it is.

Samzilla 31st December 2015 01:21 PM

What I find most interesting is how the DNA was allowed. It was admittedly contaminated and it was acknowledged by the state that they broke protocol to pronounce it as a match and not inconclusive. To top it all off, the lady who testified to all this did not state in her report that protocol was broken to pronounce it as a match.

Regardless of Avery's innocence or guilt, how was this allowed to fly?

Of course, if I've misunderstood this DNA situation, please correct me.

DragonLady 31st December 2015 02:57 PM

Quote:

Regardless of Avery's innocence or guilt, how was this allowed to fly?
I don't understand that, either. It speaks to a very broken system, IMO. :(

Modified 31st December 2015 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl (Post 11057741)
For Dassey there's literally nothing - even granting the questionable evidence - except his own very conflicting words

Not to mention, from the interrogations it's quite clear that you can get him to say anything you want, and possibly to believe it himself.

lionking 31st December 2015 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Modified (Post 11058650)
Not to mention, from the interrogations it's quite clear that you can get him to say anything you want, and possibly to believe it himself.

It was said early in the doco, if I remember correctly, that Avery's IQ was 70. If anything Dassey's seems lower. This looks not to have been taken into account.

Modified 31st December 2015 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11058689)
It was said early in the doco, if I remember correctly, that Avery's IQ was 70. If anything Dassey's seems lower. This looks not to have been taken into account.

IIRC they mentioned a 70 IQ for both, and a slightly lower verbal IQ (whatever that is) for Dassey. Dassey is obviously far more malleable though.

Ampulla of Vater 31st December 2015 09:30 PM

You guys need to understand it is not a documentary. It was produced by Avery's defense and many facts from the trial were left out. Avery called Halbach's phone multiple times during that day. He used *67 so she could not tell who was calling her. Then he called her late in the afternoon, presumably to make it look like he was looking for her when she didn't show up. That is the one time he did not block his number. The implication is it was because he knew she wasn't going to see it anyway.

I was surprised to read about the prosecution's evidence which was never mentioned in the series. That said, I think what they did to Brendan was a travesty.

DragonLady 31st December 2015 10:50 PM

Quote:

Then he called her late in the afternoon, presumably to make it look like he was looking for her when she didn't show up.
??? But she DID show up. His house was the last place she was known to be.

As I said upstairs, I believe he probably killed her. But "probably" isn't supposed to be enough to convict someone.

Is there a really good site somewhere that tells both sides of the story, or where the whole court transcript can be read?

Ampulla of Vater 1st January 2016 01:32 AM

I've found transcripts and articles, including a soundcloud interview with Krantz by looking through the links here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/

There are court briefs, CoA opinions and trial transcripts on one of the links on this site. I have saved them all to my dropbox so I'd rather not link you directly to what I've saved. If you don't see it though, let me know and I will PM you the links to my personal dropbox files.

Ampulla of Vater 1st January 2016 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonLady (Post 11058946)
??? But she DID show up. His house was the last place she was known to be.

As I said upstairs, I believe he probably killed her. But "probably" isn't supposed to be enough to convict someone.

Is there a really good site somewhere that tells both sides of the story, or where the whole court transcript can be read?

The theory is he was going to claim she didn't show up. That was before it was known there were witnesses to her vehicle being at his place.

I agree with you. He probably did kill her but the evidence shown in the Netflix series is quite thin. Keep looking though, there is more evidence against him which doesn't look good, aside from the "planted" evidence.

Here is a link to an email supposedly authored by Krantz:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7nnb9xngy...f%202.png?dl=0

Here is the soundcloud interview with Krantz:
https://soundcloud.com/jake-tanner-s...ing-a-murderer

Here is a timeline of events being constructed by a redditor:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...ventsnew_info/

These are just some of the various posts available at reddit. Obviously many are just opinions, but there is some official information mixed in between.

lionking 1st January 2016 02:03 AM

Why no DNA of the victim in the trailer? This is one of the biggest problems in the prosecution case. This borderline intellectually disabled person somehow cleaned up every trace of DNA in a professional forensic manner? Yet was careless enough to leave blood, but no fingerprints, in the SUV? I don't think so.

SomedayGirl 1st January 2016 11:47 AM

One of the first things they did was go to Avery's house when she was reported missing. He said she'd been there. They asked to go in the trailer and Avery let them. The 4:35 call as misdirection doesn't make much sense considering what Avery actually did, which was say she'd been there.

Kratz is a fetid sack of weasel testicles and there's no reason anyone should believe anything he says.

1) in his email has nothing to do with whether or not he killed Halbach and it's in the documentary.

2) is nothing particularly strange. She'd been to his house before and done a good job so he wanted her to come back. The part about the receptionist and the towel are not in context and were not provided at the trial because she couldn't remember when it was said. (Funny Kratz has an exact date though, huh?) The sister's name was used because it was the sister's vehicle but Halbach would have known it was the Avery property, as mentioned she's been there before and the address is Avery Road. If she was bothered by him it's reasonable to assume she wouldn't have gone there.

3) There were remains in the burn barrel and that was in the doc, why does it matter if the filmmaker mentioned the phone? Remains identified as hers were also found at a quarry a half mile away.

4) was not presented at trial.

5) What does intertwined even mean? The bits of bone were generally small and were so meticulously removed...with a shovel, per testimony at trial shown in the doc...that they are probably over, under and around lots of things burned before and possibly after.

6) Okay. Nobody is saying those weren't her remains so why does it matter that evidence further confirming that weren't mentioned?

7) the calls should have been included in the documentary, no idea why they weren't. *67 calls are strange but if she was running late he might have been calling to find out where she was and trying to get her to not avoid his calls. During the 4:35 call he'd have been murdering her but Kratz wants you to believe Avery's clever enough to take a break from that to place misdirecting call but too dumb to get the car off of his property, her body out of his backyard, and her key out of his bedroom.

Point is what Kratz's email characterizes as "omitted evidence" was by and large redundant, not presented at trial, or actually in the documentary.

To me the most interesting thing the filmmakers left out was the DNA on the hood latch of the RAV4.

SomedayGirl 1st January 2016 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11059028)
Why no DNA of the victim in the trailer? This is one of the biggest problems in the prosecution case. This borderline intellectually disabled person somehow cleaned up every trace of DNA in a professional forensic manner? Yet was careless enough to leave blood, but no fingerprints, in the SUV? I don't think so.

Also sweat on the SUV but still no fingerprints. If he's wearing gloves how does that happen? If he's not, how does that happen? The forensics in this case are pretty squirrelly to say the least. No evidence of Theresa where it should be (the bedroom, the garage floor/ walls/ piles of junk, her own key), no evidence of Dassey anywhere. And as shown by the contaminated test of the bullet it's incredibly easy to leave traces of yourself behind everywhere you've been even when you're being careful.

Still think Avery might be guilty but not enough to convict, still convinced Dassey is innocent.

lionking 1st January 2016 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl (Post 11059629)
Also sweat on the SUV but still no fingerprints. If he's wearing gloves how does that happen? If he's not, how does that happen? The forensics in this case are pretty squirrelly to say the least. No evidence of Theresa where it should be (the bedroom, the garage floor/ walls/ piles of junk, her own key), no evidence of Dassey anywhere. And as shown by the contaminated test of the bullet it's incredibly easy to leave traces of yourself behind everywhere you've been even when you're being careful.

Still think Avery might be guilty but not enough to convict, still convinced Dassey is innocent.

This is my view as well.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.