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?
|
Just done a google search. The guy is innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery.
|
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. |
Well I'm not going to call him innocent on the basis of a Google search. I've just started to watch the doco.
|
Someone killed the woman. Who? I'm not sure...but I'm forced to conclude it was probably Steven Avery.
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Stick with it, Matthew. You'll be more than distressed.
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Not a massive discovery by the way. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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): |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
Jeez, the quality of the forensics is redolent of the Lindy Chamberlain case.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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? |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
Still think Avery might be guilty but not enough to convict, still convinced Dassey is innocent. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.