Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer Part 2

Why did Colborn use his cell phone?

"In fact it was entirely skipped by ‘Making a Murderer’ but it was important enough for Dean Strang to question Lt. Lenk at length, and for the inferences to be mentioned by Kratz in his closing arguments. This is the fact that Andrew Colborn called in the Teresa Halbach plate numbers over a cell phone and not the police radio." link
 
Essexman said:
Everyone in Wisconsin who followed events from 2005 to 2007 knew he was guilty and the evidence was overwhelming. Steven Avery had zero supporters before this show aired.
Click to expand...

None of which has any bearing on how our criminal justice system works.

If MaM has proved anything. Its proved that modern documentary makers and Netflix have zero ethics and put profit and entertainment before facts.

Those who continue to insist Avery didn't murder Halbach are either too proud to admit they got duped by TV show full of cheap editing tricks or cannot bare the thought of defending a murdering incestial rapist on their conscience.
Click to expand...

What “cheap editing tricks”? Please be specific and cite your evidence.

Also, Avery’s guilt or innocence isn’t the issue so much as the way the investigation was performed.

Do you deny it was mishandled and that protocols were violated during the course of it?
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
So you reject circumstantial evidence as a means of determining fact?
Click to expand...

No. Considering my post was in response to a direct question from Chris Halkides, if you have a point in your response to my post then please make it.

I will say that if that was my position then I would be firmly in the Avery is innocent camp.
 
Eyewitness evidence and forensic evidence suggests Teresa left the Avery property driving her car, turned left and drove some distance to where her cellphone last pinged. What fits is that she was lured out of her car, shot twice in the back of the head and rolled into her car.
I do not see how that fits with her being raped, moved to a garage and shot.
Avery simply did not have the logistical opportunity to do one thing and simulate another.
I am as puzzled as Essexman by wilful refusal to accept the blindingly obvious.
 
direct vs. circumstantial evidence

Lerxst said:
No. Considering my post was in response to a direct question from Chris Halkides, if you have a point in your response to my post then please make it.

I will say that if that was my position then I would be firmly in the Avery is innocent camp.
Click to expand...
Lerxst,

Johnny karate asked the question that was on my mind as well. Here is a link to a brief discussion of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. ABA here. Something from New York here. I am not a lawyer, but I am tempted to opine that video falls into the direct evidence category, whereas DNA falls into the circumstantial category.

Upon rereading your answer to my question, I would say that the first two answers you offered are clearly direct evidence, but I am not sure about the third.
 
Gage County, Nebraska compared with Manitowoc County

The county in Nebraska associated with the Beatrice Six case was facing bankruptcy a few years ago after the six sued for 28.1 million dollars. Link1 "Both insurers denied the county’s claims...The Times reports that officials are considering raising property taxes, borrowing money for the pension fund, delaying long-awaited public works or even taking back money from retirees."

Manitowoc County is larger than Gage County, but it is not many times larger.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Eyewitness evidence and forensic evidence suggests Teresa left the Avery property driving her car, turned left and drove some distance to where her cellphone last pinged. What fits is that she was lured out of her car, shot twice in the back of the head and rolled into her car.
I do not see how that fits with her being raped, moved to a garage and shot.
Avery simply did not have the logistical opportunity to do one thing and simulate another.
I am as puzzled as Essexman by wilful refusal to accept the blindingly obvious.
Click to expand...

What eyewitness evidence? Post links to these statements please. I'm well aware of the hearsay evidence from Bryan Dassey who claims Bobby told him he saw Theresa leave the property. I'm also aware of the forensic evidence as to her cellphone pings, but that does not prove Theresa left the property with her phone, and it does not explain how that same phone ended up back in Avery's burn pit.

I've often been entertained by your ideas of what "fits", but those ideas do not constitute evidence. You cannot unfortunately prove that she was "lured out of her car, shot twice in the back of the head and rolled into her car".

Although Avery was charged with sexual assault he was not convicted of that charge, and we know those charges came from Brendan Dassey's dubious confession. So at least we agree on the fact the evidence does not show that Avery raped her.
 
Lerxst said:
What eyewitness evidence? Post links to these statements please. I'm well aware of the hearsay evidence from Bryan Dassey who claims Bobby told him he saw Theresa leave the property. I'm also aware of the forensic evidence as to her cellphone pings, but that does not prove Theresa left the property with her phone, and it does not explain how that same phone ended up back in Avery's burn pit.

I've often been entertained by your ideas of what "fits", but those ideas do not constitute evidence. You cannot unfortunately prove that she was "lured out of her car, shot twice in the back of the head and rolled into her car".

Although Avery was charged with sexual assault he was not convicted of that charge, and we know those charges came from Brendan Dassey's dubious confession. So at least we agree on the fact the evidence does not show that Avery raped her.
Click to expand...
I like many others spent many hours a few years ago, so work from strong research lodging as memory.
I do not have time right now to go foraging, but surely the lpg driver was a credible witness describing times and movements of her car?
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Lerxst,

Johnny karate asked the question that was on my mind as well. Here is a link to a brief discussion of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. ABA here. Something from New York here. I am not a lawyer, but I am tempted to opine that video falls into the direct evidence category, whereas DNA falls into the circumstantial category.

Upon rereading your answer to my question, I would say that the first two answers you offered are clearly direct evidence, but I am not sure about the third.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response, albeit seems a bit patronizing. I'm well aware of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. I find it ironic that "rejecting circumstantial evidence as a means of determining fact" is exactly what those who believe Avery is innocent are doing. You cannot claim that circumstantial evidence proves his innocence while simultaneously rejecting any circumstantial evidence that shows his guilt.

ETA: Since the recent discourse prior to this was at least in my mind about proving that the evidence against Avery was planted, I was assuming your question was in reference to that, i.e. What would you consider as evidence that the evidence against Avery was planted? If that was not your question then please clarify.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I like many others spent many hours a few years ago, so work from strong research lodging as memory.
I do not have time right now to go foraging, but surely the lpg driver was a credible witness describing times and movements of her car?
Click to expand...

If anyone can find a link to that I would be happy to go read it. I would be interested to hear exactly what the driver saw, and if it was only her vehicle or someone that could be positively identified as Theresa Halbach.
 
Lerxst said:
If anyone can find a link to that I would be happy to go read it. I would be interested to hear exactly what the driver saw, and if it was only her vehicle or someone that could be positively identified as Theresa Halbach.
Click to expand...

It’s been dishonestly portrayed on the series that some truck driver saw Teresas car after she went missing. However the witness saw no such thing.

This is from the trial transcript -

Q: Okay. Now, you can't -- As you sit here today, you can't really tell us whether you saw the vehicle that the people were concerned about on that day, can you?
A: No.

You can real the whole witness testimony in the link below

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-19-2007Mar08.pdf

You will also find that he mentions seeing a green SUV whereas Teresa had a blue SUV.
 
no bright line

Lerxst said:
Thanks for the response, albeit seems a bit patronizing. I'm well aware of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. I find it ironic that "rejecting circumstantial evidence as a means of determining fact" is exactly what those who believe Avery is innocent are doing. You cannot claim that circumstantial evidence proves his innocence while simultaneously rejecting any circumstantial evidence that shows his guilt.

ETA: Since the recent discourse prior to this was at least in my mind about proving that the evidence against Avery was planted, I was assuming your question was in reference to that, i.e. What would you consider as evidence that the evidence against Avery was planted? If that was not your question then please clarify.
Click to expand...
It was not my intent to be patronizing, and I regret that this was the impression that I gave. Yet not everyone uses the word circumstantial in the same way. I did indeed want to know what you would accept as evidence of planting, and it is still not entirely clear to me what circumstantial evidence you would take.

I have never offered an opinion on Mr. Avery's factual innocence or guilt. The question is somewhat less interesting to me than whether or not the circa 1985 investigation was slipshod or worse, and especially whether or not the circa 2005 investigation was corrupt. These would be tough questions, even if we had more facts. When I was a graduate student, my advisor said that there is no bright line between sloppy science and fraudulent science. Perhaps the same is true of investigations.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
It was not my intent to be patronizing, and I regret that this was the impression that I gave. Yet not everyone uses the word circumstantial in the same way. I did indeed want to know what you would accept as evidence of planting, and it is still not entirely clear to me what circumstantial evidence you would take.

I have never offered an opinion on Mr. Avery's factual innocence or guilt. The question is somewhat less interesting to me than whether or not the circa 1985 investigation was slipshod or worse, and especially whether or not the circa 2005 investigation was corrupt. These would be tough questions, even if we had more facts. When I was a graduate student, my advisor said that there is no bright line between sloppy science and fraudulent science. Perhaps the same is true of investigations.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification, and I will also add that what I provided was not an all inclusive list. I will accept circumstantial evidence as well, but I still maintain that neither direct nor circumstantial evidence exists yet that convinces me ALL of the evidence against Avery was planted.

I also appreciate your admission that these are tough questions, as it seems to be a foregone conclusion to some.
 
Lerxst said:
Thank you for the clarification, and I will also add that what I provided was not an all inclusive list. I will accept circumstantial evidence as well, but I still maintain that neither direct nor circumstantial evidence exists yet that convinces me ALL of the evidence against Avery was planted.

I also appreciate your admission that these are tough questions, as it seems to be a foregone conclusion to some.
Click to expand...

It is truly remarkable any evidence might need planting when a young woman makes an appointment to visit Avery at his property, and on the same day is raped, shot in his garage, then burned in a pit by his back door.
One might imagine the evidence would shout from the rooftops.
 
Samson said:
It is truly remarkable any evidence might need planting when a young woman makes an appointment to visit Avery at his property, and on the same day is raped, shot in his garage, then burned in a pit by his back door.
One might imagine the evidence would shout from the rooftops.
Click to expand...

Good thing it does shout from the rooftops.

You're still being dishonest though, he was not convicted of rape and both sides concede that the remains were not burned in a pit by his back door.
 
Lerxst said:
Good thing it does shout from the rooftops.

You're still being dishonest though, he was not convicted of rape and both sides concede that the remains were not burned in a pit by his back door.
Click to expand...

The state did not concede on that issue. The state relied on the fact that Avery had a huge 8 hour bonfire in the burn pit the night Teresa died. And no other fire was seen in the area that night. And that Avery denied having that bonfire.
 
Essexman said:
The state did not concede on that issue. The state relied on the fact that Avery had a huge 8 hour bonfire in the burn pit the night Teresa died. And no other fire was seen in the area that night. And that Avery denied having that bonfire.
Click to expand...

Not directly, but indirectly they admitted even at trial that bones were moved. Their theory at the time was that they were moved by Avery FROM his burn pit TO his sister's burn barrel. From Kratz's closing argument:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Trial-Transcript-Day-24-2007Mar15.pdf#page=54

"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."

And later about the quarry bones:

"17 The bones were moved, but they were
18 moved by Mr. Avery. These bones in the quarry,
19 I'm going to take about 20 seconds to talk about,
20 because the best anybody can say is that they are
21 possible human. What does possible human mean?
22 Well, it means we don't know what it is. "

So at trial the State was trying to argue the bones in the quarry should not even be considered evidence as he goes on after this to say "whether they are human or not, could not, even by the FBI, be determined. "

However, in Zellner's latest brief she correctly IMO argues that the State implies those bones were not only human but also Theresa Halbach's by giving them to her family. I already posted this and it can be easily read in her latest brief so I'm not going to post a link to it again.

This would make it harder for the State to try and argue that the burn pit was the only burn site, so I highly doubt they will do that if in fact there is a new trial or even evidentiary hearing. Doesn't mean they won't though.

My issue with Samson's post though is the creation of a strawman, actually two, in order to make it easier to refute the case against Avery.
 
Lerxst said:
Not directly, but indirectly they admitted even at trial that bones were moved. Their theory at the time was that they were moved by Avery FROM his burn pit TO his sister's burn barrel. From Kratz's closing argument:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Trial-Transcript-Day-24-2007Mar15.pdf#page=54

"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."

And later about the quarry bones:

"17 The bones were moved, but they were
18 moved by Mr. Avery. These bones in the quarry,
19 I'm going to take about 20 seconds to talk about,
20 because the best anybody can say is that they are
21 possible human. What does possible human mean?
22 Well, it means we don't know what it is. "

So at trial the State was trying to argue the bones in the quarry should not even be considered evidence as he goes on after this to say "whether they are human or not, could not, even by the FBI, be determined. "

However, in Zellner's latest brief she correctly IMO argues that the State implies those bones were not only human but also Theresa Halbach's by giving them to her family. I already posted this and it can be easily read in her latest brief so I'm not going to post a link to it again.

This would make it harder for the State to try and argue that the burn pit was the only burn site, so I highly doubt they will do that if in fact there is a new trial or even evidentiary hearing. Doesn't mean they won't though.

My issue with Samson's post though is the creation of a strawman, actually two, in order to make it easier to refute the case against Avery.
Click to expand...

There was no fire seen in the quarry gravel pit. Avery told Dassey that he hid some of Halbachs bones up there.

"Dassey also stated that Steven Avery told him he used a pail and removed some of her bones from the burn pit and dumped them in the gravel pit to the west of Steven Avery's property."

However Dassey chose not to testify and the state had to peruse a different narrative. Any reasonable jury would still find Avery guilty had the states narrative been that Avery hid the bones in the quarry.
 
Last edited:
Essexman said:
There was no fire seen in the quarry gravel pit. Avery told Dassey that he hid some of Halbachs bones up there.

"Dassey also stated that Steven Avery told him he used a pail and removed some of her bones from the burn pit and dumped them in the gravel pit to the west of Steven Avery's property."

However Dassey chose not to testify and the state had to peruse a different narrative. Any reasonable jury would still find Avery guilty had the states narrative been that Avery hid the bones in the quarry.
Click to expand...
Is there audio or transcript of hilited?
 
Samson said:
Is there audio or transcript of hilited?
Click to expand...

"FASSBENDER: Heard it from who?

BRENDAN: Him.

FASSBENDER: Oh. So he told you that he used the shovel to break up bones?

BRENDAN: Yeah, (nods “yes”)

FASSBENDER: And then buried some of the bones? (Brendan nods “yes”) Did he take some of her bones some, anywhere else?

BRENDAN: On the other side of the, like that, there was like in the back of the yard, there was like this steep hill there, like in the pit, there was some there that he threw there.

FASSBENDER: OK, we’re gonna, we’re in a little bit, we’re gonna have you draw on some sketches and stuff and we’re a, we’re gonna wanna these places. How do you know that there were some bones there?

BRENDAN: He told me that he threw some there.

FASSBENDER: Did he tell you how he did that?

BRENDAN: He had ‘em in a bucket.

FASSBENDER: And what I’m understanding is then in the back of both your yards or his yards, down toward into the pit, over that area?

BRENDAN: In like Radandt’s pit.

FASSBENDER: Oh, Radandt’s pit? (Brendan nods “yes”)"
 
Last edited:
Essexman said:
There was no fire seen in the quarry gravel pit. Avery told Dassey that he hid some of Halbachs bones up there.

"Dassey also stated that Steven Avery told him he used a pail and removed some of her bones from the burn pit and dumped them in the gravel pit to the west of Steven Avery's property."

However Dassey chose not to testify and the state had to peruse a different narrative. Any reasonable jury would still find Avery guilty had the states narrative been that Avery hid the bones in the quarry.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree on the highlighted part, which is why I have always maintained that even if there is a new trial, unless key parts of the evidence are discredited or not allowed the result will most likely be the same.

Those that believe in Avery's innocence however will build strawmen around inaccuracies in the State's case, like the sexual assault charges (which came from Dassey's confession) and the remains in the burn pit. This way it's easier to poke holes in the State's narrative .
 
Lerxst said:
I tend to agree on the highlighted part, which is why I have always maintained that even if there is a new trial, unless key parts of the evidence are discredited or not allowed the result will most likely be the same.

Those that believe in Avery's innocence however will build strawmen around inaccuracies in the State's case, like the sexual assault charges (which came from Dassey's confession) and the remains in the burn pit. This way it's easier to poke holes in the State's narrative .
Click to expand...
I find the shackle and rape confession more credible than the bones and bucket confession. Reducing a body to bones is not possible in a shallow open pit.
 
Samson said:
I find the shackle and rape confession more credible than the bones and bucket confession. Reducing a body to bones is not possible in a shallow open pit.
Click to expand...

Thanks for demonstrating my point. The State did not then, and does not need to now demonstrate that she was shackled and sexually assaulted. Same goes for reducing a body to bones in a burn pit. At least if we're talking about Avery's conviction. If you want to talk about Dassey's conviction then by all means.

Why do you consider Dassey's confession credible?
 
Lerxst said:
Thanks for demonstrating my point. The State did not then, and does not need to now demonstrate that she was shackled and sexually assaulted. Same goes for reducing a body to bones in a burn pit. At least if we're talking about Avery's conviction. If you want to talk about Dassey's conviction then by all means.

Why do you consider Dassey's confession credible?
Click to expand...
I was making a simple point.
It is believable she was shackled and raped but unbelievable her body was reduced to bones that night in a shallow open pit.

Of course I am quite certain neither happened.

Modal logic lets one through the gate.
 
Lerxst said:
Thanks for demonstrating my point. The State did not then, and does not need to now demonstrate that she was shackled and sexually assaulted. Same goes for reducing a body to bones in a burn pit. At least if we're talking about Avery's conviction. If you want to talk about Dassey's conviction then by all means.

Why do you consider Dassey's confession credible?
Click to expand...

For one (mentioned above). They found human bones where Brendan said Avery hid some of them (the quarry). Brendan volunteered that information, nobody in the questioning suggested it to him.
 
Experts on the conflict of interest problem

Journalist John Ferak wrote, "“By acknowledging a conflict right at the start, you have to walk the walk and live by that,” said Gregg McCrary, a prominent retired FBI agent who teaches policing at Marymount University in Arlington, Va. “It’s not just something to say, but something to do. The one overriding issue is the integrity of this investigation. You can’t compromise that. This goes to public perception of law enforcement.”"
And
"“Initially, it was quite appropriate for them to recuse themselves from the case,” said Jim Trainum, a nationally recognized crime consultant and former homicide detective in Washington, D.C. “However, it appears they were more interested in the public perception than the reality of it.”"
And
"Trainum said the Halbach investigation makes a compelling case study for other police professionals to analyze whether the murder investigation “was done fairly.”

“There’s doubt and a lot of doubt, so how can we learn in the future to prevent this from happening again?” he asked. “Other people allowed these things to happen. Where were both of the sheriffs? Where was the (investigation’s) supervisors? Shame on them. They should have all said, ‘Sorry, guys, I’m not going to let you in.'”"

The entire article is worth reading.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I find the shackle and rape confession more credible than the bones and bucket confession.
Click to expand...

They found human bones in the quarry where Brendan said Avery hid some.

They found a bullet with the victims DNA on where Brendan said the victim was shot.

The bullet was matched to the gun that Brendan said Avery used.

Brendan said the victim was shot in the left side of the head and they found bullet holes to the left of the victims skull.

Samson said:
Reducing a body to bones is not possible in a shallow open pit.
Click to expand...

Of course its possible. They do it in India all the time.
 
Essexman said:
For one (mentioned above). They found human bones where Brendan said Avery hid some of them (the quarry). Brendan volunteered that information, nobody in the questioning suggested it to him.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I was quite sure this would be your response as you have made your position clear. I was curious as to why Samson now feels Dassey's confession is credible when he hasn't had this opinion in the past.
 
Samson said:
I was making a simple point.
It is believable she was shackled and raped but unbelievable her body was reduced to bones that night in a shallow open pit.

Of course I am quite certain neither happened.

Modal logic lets one through the gate.
Click to expand...

What point would that be?
 
affidavit of Richard Leo; link to 7th circuit decision

"Once Fassbender and Wiegert elicited Brendan’s admission that he had seen the body (February 27 interrogation, p. 458), they used highly suggestive post- admission interrogation techniques in which they relied on leading questions, prompted Brendan with desired answers, corrected him, and pressured him to agree to and provide an account that matched their theory of how the crime occurred. For example, in the February 27 interrogation, Fassbender and Wiegert suggested to Brendan that he saw Teresa Halbach’s bones and body parts in the fire and later suggested specific body parts not included in his account, and he agreed." At paragraph 39 of the affidavit of Richard Leo, previously linked.

There is a helpful table starting on p. 49 in a dissenting opinion at the 7th circuit which explains some of the information that Mr. Dassey was fed. link
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Thanks, but I was quite sure this would be your response as you have made your position clear. I was curious as to why Samson now feels Dassey's confession is credible when he hasn't had this opinion in the past.
Click to expand...

Just catching up and I thought I was lucid.
Brendan Dassey's "confession" is obviously false but the best thing to consider is Fassbender and Weigert laìd a curate's egg.
 
Samson said:
Just catching up and I thought I was lucid.
Brendan Dassey's "confession" is obviously false but the best thing to consider is Fassbender and Weigert laìd a curate's egg.
Click to expand...

How is Dassey's confession false? It reflects the facts of the crime and lead to more evidence unknown to law enforcement. He confessed to Kayla before Fassbender and Weigert questioned him. His admissions to Kayla is why they questioned him in the first place.
 
Essexman said:
How is Dassey's confession false? It reflects the facts of the crime and lead to more evidence unknown to law enforcement. He confessed to Kayla before Fassbender and Weigert questioned him. His admissions to Kayla is why they questioned him in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well said. Dassey is guilty of the charges. He participated with the torture, rape and murder. Samson will never grasp that.
.
 
Essexman said:
How is Dassey's confession false? It reflects the facts of the crime and lead to more evidence unknown to law enforcement. He confessed to Kayla before Fassbender and Weigert questioned him. His admissions to Kayla is why they questioned him in the first place.
Click to expand...

Who is Kayla?
I appreciate you bringing important data to the thread as I am interested in the case. Unlike Chris I am currently not open minded but am prepared to consider essaying that status.
 
Samson said:
Who is Kayla?
I appreciate you bringing important data to the thread as I am interested in the case. Unlike Chris I am currently not open minded but am prepared to consider essaying that status.
Click to expand...

Kayla Avery is Brendans niece. She is the one who alerted the police to Brendan.

She testified at Brendan's Trial.


Q: You also told the officers that Brendan told you he saw Teresa alive and pinned up, didn't you?
A: Yes.
Q: All right. And you love Brendan; right?
A: Yes. Very much.
Q: And you wouldn't tell -- You wouldn't say anything like that to get him in trouble, would you?
A: No. Not really.
Q: All right. But yet you told the officers that those were the conversations you had with Brendan; isn't that right?
A: Yes.
Q: All right. You told -- You told the officers that Brendan told you he had seen Teresa pinned up in Steven's trailer, didn't you?
A: Yes.

She also told the school staff who also testified at Dassey's trial.

Q: Directing your attention to January of 2006, early January, did you have occasion to have contact with a student by the name of Kayla Avery?
A: Yes.
Q: Urn, would you describe for us, urn, first and foremost, how that contact occurred?
A: Kayla came into the counseling office and asked to speak to a counselor.
Q: All right. And, urn, who was present when she came in and asked to speak with a counselor?
A: It was myself and Karen Baumgartner.
Q: Tell us what happened?
A: Kayla came in, urn, to the office, and, urn, she was asked by Ms. Baumgarner -- Ms. Baumgartner if she minded that I was there, and Kayla aid, no. And she said she was there because she Was feeling scared.
Q: All right. Let me stop you there, first, and ask who else, if anyone, was present for this conversation?
A: No one else.
Q: All right. So there's just the three of you?
A: Correct.
Q: All right. And did Kayla reveal to the two of you why she was feeling scared and why she wanted to talk?
A: Yes.
Q: And what did she tell you?
A: She told us that she was scared, urn, because her uncle, Steven Avery, had asked one of her cousins to help move a body.
 
More discussions of the confession

Here is a link to a Cornell course that discussed the Dassey confession. Here is a link to a different discussion (I probably provided them previously). As is true of Professor Kassin, the individuals associated with the links have no affiliation with the cases. These are the headings of the three columns in the dissent from members of the Seventh Circuit. The 4-page table itself is too long to reproduce here, but I provided a link to this table in a previous comment, and I made a Word document out of it.

“Critical” Fact; Why It Is Not Critical; How It Was Coerced;
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Here is a link to a Cornell course that discussed the Dassey confession. Here is a link to a different discussion (I probably provided them previously). As is true of Professor Kassin, the individuals associated with the links have no affiliation with the cases. These are the headings of the three columns in the dissent from members of the Seventh Circuit. The 4-page table itself is too long to reproduce here, but I provided a link to this table in a previous comment, and I made a Word document out of it.

“Critical” Fact; Why It Is Not Critical; How It Was Coerced;
Click to expand...

None of what you have provided grapples with the following facts

He confessed to his cousin Kayla pior to talking to police.

They found human bones in the quarry where Brendan said Avery hid some.

They found a bullet with the victims DNA on where Brendan said the victim was shot.

The bullet was matched to the gun that Brendan said Avery used.

Brendan said the victim was shot in the left side of the head and they found bullet holes to the left of the victims skull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom