Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer Part 2

they knew what they were doing

Lerxst said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but this is not my position. There is indeed a mountain of evidence, but it all points to Avery and not Dassey. I also acknowledge that there were mistakes made by both the investigators and the prosecutors, but those mistakes don't change the facts of the case.

Is your position that since these mistakes were made we should throw out or ignore all evidence of Avery's guilt? If that is the case, then how is your position any different from what you claim ours to be?
Click to expand...
I would not use the word mistakes; "improprieties" is closer. The problem with saying "perhaps" Mr. Dassey's confession was contaminated, or that the authorities made mistakes is that it minimizes the severity of what they did. Along these same lines, I note that no one took up my challenge regarding negative controls, namely to set forth standards that would apply not just to this case, but to all cases involving DNA profiling.

I would like to see both Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey retried but only after all of the tainted evidence is excluded. IMO this would include Mr. Dassey's statements during and directly after his interrogation. It would also include anything gathered* by Manitowoc. If that evidence is used outside of court for the purposes of discussion, the people discussing it should explain what weight it deserves. MOO.
*EDT, by gathered I mean anything found or identified.
 
Last edited:
Brendan's statements

In a 2007 letter to Jerry Buying, Dr. Lawrence T. White concluded, "Brendan's statements were often inconsistent, ambivalent, and self-contradictory. In sum there are many reasons to question the trustworthiness and voluntariness of Bredan Dassey's so-called 'confession.'"
 
Essexman said:
Since he had a bonfire behind his shed for over eight hours that night and his next door neighbour said he helped Steven Avery place the body onto that fire. I guess you could say that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If the neighbour helped in this way then Steve Avery is guilty.
It will save time on thread to post the links to this neighbour and his assistance.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
I would not use the word mistakes; "improprieties" is closer. The problem with saying "perhaps" Mr. Dassey's confession was contaminated, or that the authorities made mistakes is that it minimizes the severity of what they did. Along these same lines, I note that no one took up my challenge regarding negative controls, namely to set forth standards that would apply not just to this case, but to all cases involving DNA profiling.

I would like to see both Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey retried but only after all of the tainted evidence is excluded. IMO this would include Mr. Dassey's statements during and directly after his interrogation. It would also include anything gathered by Manitowoc. If that evidence is used outside of court for the purposes of discussion, the people discussing it should explain what weight it deserves. MOO.
Click to expand...

The evidence gathered in this case was gathered by CCSO not MTSO. Even if you did omit the mountain of incriminating forensic evidence. A compelling circumstantial case can still be constructed.


The first bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery admitting over the phone he had a bonfire that night. Contradicting all his early police statements.

The second bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery calling the victim twice before she died on *67 and once after she died without the *67. The prosecution explanation is simple. Avery wanted to lure Teresa to his trailer. Having an IQ of just 70 Avery thought that *67 would also hide his number from cell phone company's records. After she has died he calls her again without *67 trying to make it appear he is wondering where she is. I have yet to hear an innocent explanation for this behaviour.

The third bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery seen having a bonfire for at least 7 hours. No need to mention the prosecution narrative for that one. What is the innocent explanation? I have never heard one.

The fourth bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery was seen ALONE by this bonfire at 11:30pm at night.

The fifth bit of circumstantial evidence is that the only Bonfire seen that night that could have cremated a body was Steven Avery's bonfire. Where else could Teresa have been cremated?

The sixth bit of circumstantial evidence is that the Mini Van Teresa photographed for an Auto trader ad, was never placed on display like all the other cars she had photographed in the past. Despite Steven Avery telling Earl that Teresa had done her work and left. The prosecution explanation is simple. Avery knew there would be no Auto trader advert because he has killed the photographer. Thus wont bother putting it on display with the rest of the cars on sale advertised in Autotrader.

The seventh bit of circumstantial evidence is that Brendan knew Teresa had no tattoos, despite being told the contrary, Brendan was adamant he never remembers seeing any Tattoos. Thus he has seen Teresa naked. Why has Brendan seen Teresa naked? No need to mention the prosecution narrative. What is the truther explanation?

The eight bit of circumstantial evidence is the RAV4 being found near the car crusher but not crushed. This shows the suspect intended to crush it but something prevented him from doing so. Lo and behold, Steven Avery did not have a set of keys to start the crusher. Only Earl and Allan did.

The ninth bit of circumstantial evidence is Steven Avery accusing the police of framing him before anyone else knew a crime had even been committed. Steven Avery accused MPD of framing him during a missing persons investigation. Thus he knows a crime has been committed against Teresa. How did he know? He done it.

The tenth bit of circumstantial evidence is Brendan Dassey crying to himself uncontrollably and losing 40 pounds in weight in the weeks after the murder.

I could go on.

Furthermore Brendan was days away from agreeing to a 15 year plea bargain until his mother and grandfather made him deny all the allegations. If they were both to be re-trialed it wouldn't surprise me if Brendan takes a plea and testifies against Steven.
 
DNA degradation; negative controls

Essexman said:
There was nothing that compromised any of the DNA testing.
Click to expand...
The word "compromised" is so vague as to be useless. One curiousity that has been discussed here more than once is why the bullet profile was essentially complete.

I explained what negative controls were in comment #219. In the next comment I wrote, "If one performs a control experiment and ignores the result, then why perform it? A previous comment of mine should be consulted for what usually happens when a negative control gives a positive result. If you wish to propose a different standard by which the results of all negative control reactions should be assessed, then feel free. Until that new standard is accepted, my point stands."

By "all" I mean every case in which there is DNA profiling. No one has answered my question or offered a suggestion yet.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
I broadly agree with what you wrote. Yet, I have two reservations. The first is that the defense is not required to provide this, nor do they necessarily have the resources to do so. The second is that if the investigators have tunnel vision, they will not develop evidentiary leads that fail to line up with their suppositions. That is why I am in general hesitant to draw strong conclusions based on the apparent absence of alternative explanations.
Click to expand...

I am well aware that the burden of proof was not on the defense at trial. If you believe that Avery is innocent then this burden of proof is on you however.

Like others have already said, we can go on and on about the trial for as long as we want, it won't change anything. Some of us are interested in the facts of the matter. We can cast doubt on some of the evidence, but if we're being honest we should not then doubt ALL of the evidence. The inconvenient truth for those who think he is innocent is that there is a whole lot of physical and circumstantial evidence against him. What is also missing is anything exculpatory, nothing in the evidence excludes Avery, at least not that we've seen yet.

If he's going to get out of prison for the second time, you're going to have to prove that. It's the reason he was released after his first conviction after all.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
I would not use the word mistakes; "improprieties" is closer. The problem with saying "perhaps" Mr. Dassey's confession was contaminated, or that the authorities made mistakes is that it minimizes the severity of what they did. Along these same lines, I note that no one took up my challenge regarding negative controls, namely to set forth standards that would apply not just to this case, but to all cases involving DNA profiling.

I would like to see both Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey retried but only after all of the tainted evidence is excluded. IMO this would include Mr. Dassey's statements during and directly after his interrogation. It would also include anything gathered* by Manitowoc. If that evidence is used outside of court for the purposes of discussion, the people discussing it should explain what weight it deserves. MOO.
*EDT, by gathered I mean anything found or identified.
Click to expand...

I would be fine with a re-trial as well. I can only speculate though that it would go much better for Dassey than it would for Avery. It's also hard to predict what evidence would be allowed and what would not be allowed.

Find something that excludes Avery though and I think you've got a winner.
 
putative control question concerning a tattoo

For what Brendan actually said about the tattoo, start at 2:40 of this video. TL/DW: At one point Brendan in effect says that he does not remember a tattoo, but then he says "I don't know what it [the tattoo] was."
 
Chris_Halkides said:
For what Brendan actually said about the tattoo, start at 2:40 of this video. TL/DW: At one point Brendan in effect says that he does not remember a tattoo, but then he says "I don't know what it [the tattoo] was."
Click to expand...

"FASSBENDER: did she have any scars, marks', tattoos, stuff like that, that you can remember?

BRENDAN: I don’t remember any tattoos. "

-------------------------------

"FASSBENDER: OK. (pause) We know that Teresa had a tattoo on her stomach, do you remember that?

BRENDAN: (shakes head “no”) uh uh"


So much for telling the police what they wanted to hear.
 
Essexman said:
"FASSBENDER: did she have any scars, marks', tattoos, stuff like that, that you can remember?

BRENDAN: I don’t remember any tattoos. "

-------------------------------

"FASSBENDER: OK. (pause) We know that Teresa had a tattoo on her stomach, do you remember that?

BRENDAN: (shakes head “no”) uh uh"


So much for telling the police what they wanted to hear.
Click to expand...
Heh Essexman I don't get this.
Are you finding cogent evidence in that exchange?

What I am grappling with is the bonfire and burning of the body.
Sure Steve was not a congressman but neither did he hava a 70 IQ, that was ascribed to the more leisurely working of Brendan Dassey's mind.

I am unclear what the cutoff number is useful to explain inviting someone to your place, with external and comprehensive detail of their itinerary, then shooting them, burning their body a few yards from your digs, and expecting no one will piece this together into some sort of culpable homicide.

To me it does not compute. So your version will help me.
 
What Brendan actually said

Chris_Halkides said:
For what Brendan actually said about the tattoo, start at 2:40 of this video. TL/DW: At one point Brendan in effect says that he does not remember a tattoo, but then he says "I don't know what it [the tattoo] was."
Click to expand...
Fassbinder: "Do you disagree with me when I say that?"
Dassey: "No, but I don't know what it was."

Fassbender reminds me of Culhane. Both perform controls and then ignore the results.
 
Last edited:
From Richard Leo's affidavit

Here is a link to an affidavit from Professor Richard Leo on Mr. Dassey's interrogation. The following paragraph is in the conclusions section.

"6) Mr. Joseph Buckley, in a report dated April 4, 2007, asserts that Brendan offered details in his admissions that corroborate the veracity of these statements. In particular, Mr. Buckley asserts that there are at least seventeen (17) “corroborating details offered by Brendan Dassey” in his statements. As I have demonstrated in great detail above, all of the examples of alleged corroboration cited by Buckley are either the product of prompting, suggestion and contamination by the detectives, contamination by the media (this was one of the most highly publicized cases in the history of Wisconsin, and numerous details of the police investigation were released to the print and the broadcast media), guesses that were statistically probable, incorrect guesses that revealed Brendan’s ignorance of the true crime facts rather than any “inside” or “guilty” knowledge, or truthful statements that are consistent with Mr. Dassey’s version of events, in which he is not culpable for any crime."
 
Last edited:
Essexman said:
"What we did that night"

"it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled"
Click to expand...
This was a phone conversation between Steve and an attorney.

Transcript:

I guess they were talking to Brendan last night, I guess they got it all on film or tape or whatever, what we did that night. So I don't know what they told him, or, what.

Did it relate to the pending case?

I guess so.

Ah, and who's Brendan?

That's Barbie's kid. He's the one who was with me that night, by the fire.

END of Steve's words in their completeness.
I can't get any notion of your point, "what we did that night" (was be by the fire which presumably they stacked and lit, no mention of what they burned)
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
This was a phone conversation between Steve and an attorney.

Transcript:

I guess they were talking to Brendan last night, I guess they got it all on film or tape or whatever, what we did that night. So I don't know what they told him, or, what.

Did it relate to the pending case?

I guess so.

Ah, and who's Brendan?

That's Barbie's kid. He's the one who was with me that night, by the fire.

END of Steve's words in their completeness.
I can't get any notion of your point, "what we did that night" (was be by the fire which presumably they stacked and lit, no mention of what they burned)
Click to expand...

No mention of what they burned? What defendant who intends to plead not guilty is daft enough to mention burning the victims body over a recorded jail call?
 
Essexman said:
No mention of what they burned? What defendant who intends to plead not guilty is daft enough to mention burning the victims body over a recorded jail call?
Click to expand...

It's kind of a problem that the body was burned in one place and moved to another.

I call that exculpatory evidence.
 
Essexman said:
No mention of what they burned? What defendant who intends to plead not guilty is daft enough to mention burning the victims body over a recorded jail call?
Click to expand...
That is a world record circular argument.

If you pull your arms in closer you will spin faster.
 
Essexman said:
The evidence gathered in this case was gathered by CCSO not MTSO. Even if you did omit the mountain of incriminating forensic evidence. A compelling circumstantial case can still be constructed.


The first bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery admitting over the phone he had a bonfire that night. Contradicting all his early police statements.

The second bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery calling the victim twice before she died on *67 and once after she died without the *67. The prosecution explanation is simple. Avery wanted to lure Teresa to his trailer. Having an IQ of just 70 Avery thought that *67 would also hide his number from cell phone company's records. After she has died he calls her again without *67 trying to make it appear he is wondering where she is. I have yet to hear an innocent explanation for this behaviour.

The third bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery seen having a bonfire for at least 7 hours. No need to mention the prosecution narrative for that one. What is the innocent explanation? I have never heard one.

The fourth bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery was seen ALONE by this bonfire at 11:30pm at night.

The fifth bit of circumstantial evidence is that the only Bonfire seen that night that could have cremated a body was Steven Avery's bonfire. Where else could Teresa have been cremated?

The sixth bit of circumstantial evidence is that the Mini Van Teresa photographed for an Auto trader ad, was never placed on display like all the other cars she had photographed in the past. Despite Steven Avery telling Earl that Teresa had done her work and left. The prosecution explanation is simple. Avery knew there would be no Auto trader advert because he has killed the photographer. Thus wont bother putting it on display with the rest of the cars on sale advertised in Autotrader.

The seventh bit of circumstantial evidence is that Brendan knew Teresa had no tattoos, despite being told the contrary, Brendan was adamant he never remembers seeing any Tattoos. Thus he has seen Teresa naked. Why has Brendan seen Teresa naked? No need to mention the prosecution narrative. What is the truther explanation?

The eight bit of circumstantial evidence is the RAV4 being found near the car crusher but not crushed. This shows the suspect intended to crush it but something prevented him from doing so. Lo and behold, Steven Avery did not have a set of keys to start the crusher. Only Earl and Allan did.

The ninth bit of circumstantial evidence is Steven Avery accusing the police of framing him before anyone else knew a crime had even been committed. Steven Avery accused MPD of framing him during a missing persons investigation. Thus he knows a crime has been committed against Teresa. How did he know? He done it.

The tenth bit of circumstantial evidence is Brendan Dassey crying to himself uncontrollably and losing 40 pounds in weight in the weeks after the murder.

I could go on.

Furthermore Brendan was days away from agreeing to a 15 year plea bargain until his mother and grandfather made him deny all the allegations. If they were both to be re-trialed it wouldn't surprise me if Brendan takes a plea and testifies against Steven.
Click to expand...

You are right.
 

Attachments

  • Facebook-Like-Button.jpg
    Facebook-Like-Button.jpg
    11.7 KB · Views: 2
Chris_Halkides said:
The word "compromised" is so vague as to be useless. One curiousity that has been discussed here more than once is why the bullet profile was essentially complete.

I explained what negative controls were in comment #219. In the next comment I wrote, "If one performs a control experiment and ignores the result, then why perform it? A previous comment of mine should be consulted for what usually happens when a negative control gives a positive result. If you wish to propose a different standard by which the results of all negative control reactions should be assessed, then feel free. Until that new standard is accepted, my point stands."

By "all" I mean every case in which there is DNA profiling. No one has answered my question or offered a suggestion yet.
Click to expand...

A crime scene tends to be very crude, often gruesome and in places that are far from sterile.

It is not a sixth-form chemistry experiment in a school lab with a beaker, bunsen burner and pipette.

Often there is just one chance to test a speck of blood, a semi fingerprint or a feint DNA trace.
 
Essexman said:
Are you being serious? He is admitting what Brendan said is what they did that night.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am being serious.

They framed him once, without any motive other than putting a guy away, so they can bean count.

The second time they had 36 million reasons to frame him.

Of course since they were framing him, they had exculpatory evidence that they didn't reveal to the defense through discovery.

Lots of problems with their case against Avery.

One being Teresa's burned body parts in two places.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Yes, I am being serious.

They framed him once, without any motive other than putting a guy away, so they can bean count.
Click to expand...

He wasn't framed once. The witness misidentified Avery as her attacker and the Jury believed her.

bobdroege7 said:
Yes, I am being serious.

The second time they had 36 million reasons to frame him.
Click to expand...

The lawsuit was estimated to be anywhere from 2 to 36 million. And the States public liability insurance were the ones paying the bill.

bobdroege7 said:
Lots of problems with their case against Avery.

One being Teresa's burned body parts in two places.
Click to expand...

Avery placing bones in his sisters burn barrel is not a problem.
 
photo line-up and live line-up

Here is a link covering the identification that led to Mr. Avery's 1985 conviction.
 
Essexman said:
No. But he was placed on suicide watch once he found out Brendan was in custody.
Click to expand...

So how can he be "admitting what Brendan said is what they did that night" if he doesn't know what Brendan said?

Someone deciding to put him on suicide watch isn't evidence of anything.

You are struggling here.
 
Essexman said:
Avery placing bones in his sisters burn barrel is not a problem.
Click to expand...

It was the bones that were returned to Teresa's family that were not from the burn barrel, nor from Avery's junkyard nor from his property that is the problem.

It indicates that she was burned somewhere else and the bone were placed on Avery's property, but they missed a few.
 
Only the perpetrator would know

"Researchers have closely examined confessions that have been proven to be false with DNA evidence, and they find that well over 90% of these false confessions contain details that supposedly only the perpetrator (and the police) could have known 11,12. We currently have little empirical research on why so many false confessions contain so many accurate details – but one proposed method is called “contamination,” by which police divulge accurate details during questioning, and the suspect later repeats them back in a confession. Alternatively, suggestive questioning can lead a suspect to speculate and guess details of the crime, many of which might turn out to be accurate." link
 
Last edited:
bobdroege7 said:
It's kind of a problem that the body was burned in one place and moved to another.

I call that exculpatory evidence.
Click to expand...

Why? Can it be proven that Steven Avery couldn't have done that? If you can, then by all means please do so. So far no one has been able to do that.
 
Lerxst said:
Why? Can it be proven that Steven Avery couldn't have done that? If you can, then by all means please do so. So far no one has been able to do that.
Click to expand...
There are many things he could do if he invited a woman to his property with the full knowledge of her employer, then raped her, shot her, and burned her body and distributed cremains to 3 locations, 2 on his own property.
One of the things he could not do is pretend he knew nothing about it. They just wouldn't believe him. He would not expect them to.
 
Lerxst said:
Why? Can it be proven that Steven Avery couldn't have done that? If you can, then by all means please do so. So far no one has been able to do that.
Click to expand...


The burden of proof is on the prosecution and they are required to release exculpatory evidence to the defense.
 
bobdroege7 said:
The burden of proof is on the prosecution and they are required to release exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Click to expand...

You claimed the fact that remains were burned somewhere else and brought back to Avery's burn pit is exculpatory, so the burden of proof is on you.
 
Lerxst said:
You claimed the fact that remains were burned somewhere else and brought back to Avery's burn pit is exculpatory, so the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

There is nothing exculpatory in the first place. Avery's burn pit is the primary burn location and he moved some bones into his sisters burn barrel in the following days. This was all in the prosecutions closing arguments quoted below.


"Bones were moved in this case. There's no question of that. Who moved the bones? To the State, or for the theory of the prosecution is easy. Mr. Avery moved the bones. He moved the big bones. He moved the big bones, the ones he could identify as human bones, from his burn pit, over to his sister's burn barrel. All right. That's a couple hundred feet away. If you think about the selfishness involved in that particular act, that I think is one factor. But I guess more importantly is directing attention away from himself. Might be that first night, might be the 31st, might be the 1st or the 2nd, because he has got a couple of days, as it turns out, before the police officers actually start the investigation."

"She was called there by Mr. Avery. And the number one reason why this is the primary burn location is that on October 31st, Mr. Avery had a big whopping fire there, on the 31st of October. And we haven't heard any evidence of a big whopping fire, the kind that would consume, fully consume a human body, anywhere else on that property. That's the primary burn location, ladies and gentlemen. You can find that, and you should find that, beyond a reasonable doubt. That shouldn't be a question."
 
Essexman said:
There is nothing exculpatory in the first place. Avery's burn pit is the primary burn location and he moved some bones into his sisters burn barrel in the following days. This was all in the prosecutions closing arguments quoted below.


"Bones were moved in this case. There's no question of that. Who moved the bones? To the State, or for the theory of the prosecution is easy. Mr. Avery moved the bones. He moved the big bones. He moved the big bones, the ones he could identify as human bones, from his burn pit, over to his sister's burn barrel. All right. That's a couple hundred feet away. If you think about the selfishness involved in that particular act, that I think is one factor. But I guess more importantly is directing attention away from himself. Might be that first night, might be the 31st, might be the 1st or the 2nd, because he has got a couple of days, as it turns out, before the police officers actually start the investigation."

"She was called there by Mr. Avery. And the number one reason why this is the primary burn location is that on October 31st, Mr. Avery had a big whopping fire there, on the 31st of October. And we haven't heard any evidence of a big whopping fire, the kind that would consume, fully consume a human body, anywhere else on that property. That's the primary burn location, ladies and gentlemen. You can find that, and you should find that, beyond a reasonable doubt. That shouldn't be a question."
Click to expand...
There is no such thing in an open pit.
 
Samson said:
There is no such thing in an open pit.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that despite what was said in the closing arguments that Avery's primary motivation to moving the "bigger pieces" to the burn barrel would be to allow the fire to consume them more thoroughly. ;)
 
Elagabalus said:
I'd argue that despite what was said in the closing arguments that Avery's primary motivation to moving the "bigger pieces" to the burn barrel would be to allow the fire to consume them more thoroughly. ;)
Click to expand...

I remain curious why it is a great plan. The body ends where she has a well known appointment. It does not compute and his IQ is far better than 70 despite the myth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom