Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer Part 2

Chris_Halkides said:

As long as Mr. Dassey's name remains one of the tags in this thread, I will assume that discussing him is not off topic. You have every right not to participate, if you do not care to do so. I don't recall saying that pointing out his false confession did help Mr. Avery directly. However, before giving a final answer, one might consider Mr. Miskelley's confession in the West Memphis 3 case, which made it in through the back door.

Click to expand...

I am very familiar with that case as well (WM3) and I believe Miskelley also gave a false confession. However these cases (Avery and WM3) are very different as in the WM3 case there was no physical evidence linking any of the accused to the crime, and that made it more likely that Miskelley's confession was not genuine as it did not match the known facts of the crime. Dassey's confession also did not match a lot of the known facts, but one cannot just discount the mountain of physical evidence that links Avery to the crime.

There are other problems with comparing the WM3 case to this one, but the point I was making was not that discussing Dassey is off topic, but that I don't see how a valid argument can be made that Avery is innocent because Dassey likely is.

Chris_Halkides said:

Unless I am missing something, the State of Wisconsin's theory of the crime is that both Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey participated; the fact that they had separate trials does not change the narrative. In 2018 Saul Kassin wrote, "The 7th Circuit cited three arguments in support of Dassey’s confession. First, it noted that Dassey was not subject to physical force or mental exhaustion. He wasn’t handcuffed, yelled at or beaten into submission. This is true. But setting the bar this low represents an incomprehensible step backward."

Click to expand...

There isn't one single narrative...and Dassey's involvement was brought up in Avery's trial in the opening statements. This seems to refute your belief that the State's narrative is that both Avery and Dassey committed the same crime(s). I will also note again that each was convicted of separate charges.

Source: Steven Avery Trial transcript

13 That Steven Avery caused the death of
14 Teresa Halbach or aided and abetted Brendan
15 Dassey in causing the death of Teresa Halbach.
16 As we have indicated throughout the jury
17 selection process and, in fact, in motions before
18 trial, whether Mr. Dassey testifies in this case
19 at all or whether Brendan Dassey is to be
20 referred to at all in this trial is still very
21 much at issue.
22 To highlight or alert the jury that
23 Brendan Dassey is the individual from which
24 Mr. Avery acted in concert, we believe to be
25 inappropriate and would, as some of the jurors

1 quite candidly indicated in jury selection,
2 suggest that the State should, for whatever
3 reason, be calling Mr. Dassey as a witness, not
4 withstanding his Fifth Amendment rights not to do
5 so, or against self-incrimination.
6 We're, therefore, Judge, asking that the
7 elements read that Steven Avery caused the death
8 of Teresa Halbach or aided and abetted another in
9 causing the death of Teresa Halbach. Similar
10 language would be inserted into the second
11 element, again, removing the words Brendan Dassey
12 and inserting the words another.
13 That provides no prejudice to the
14 defense. It is an accurate statement of the law
15 and, again, removes the suggestion that the State
16 in some way has a burden, or obligation, or even
17 practically speaking should call Mr. Dassey or
18 insert Mr. Dassey into this case.

Lerxst said:

I am very familiar with that case as well (WM3) and I believe Miskelley also gave a false confession. However these cases (Avery and WM3) are very different as in the WM3 case there was no physical evidence linking any of the accused to the crime, and that made it more likely that Miskelley's confession was not genuine as it did not match the known facts of the crime. Dassey's confession also did not match a lot of the known facts, but one cannot just discount the mountain of physical evidence that links Avery to the crime.

There are other problems with comparing the WM3 case to this one, but the point I was making was not that discussing Dassey is off topic, but that I don't see how a valid argument can be made that Avery is innocent because Dassey likely is.

Click to expand...

I suggest you study the case of Teina Pora for another 17 year old of low IQ.
Once might be an accident, twice carelessness. What you say about thrice is likely malevolence. Then there is Luke Mitchell....

I did hear the new candidate being appointed to the supreme court saying whenever she reviews a decision she imagines the person who is ruled against being her child. Maybe Trump is a good human being. Maybe she will order the immediate release of Brendan Dassey.

alibi

Lerxst said:

There are other problems with comparing the WM3 case to this one, but the point I was making was not that discussing Dassey is off topic, but that I don't see how a valid argument can be made that Avery is innocent because Dassey likely is.

Click to expand...

If one accepts Mr. Dassey's alibi witnesses or if one were find other support of his alibi (as I have previously mentioned), then it means that the crime did not happen as Mr. Kratz, for example, claimed it did.

Oh my God. Why are people still debating this case? The evidence is overwhelming.

The victims bones and ashes are found hidden behind Avery garage in and around his burn pit. Avery had a 7+ bonfire that night which he would later deny to the police having one.

An accomplice to the crime (Brendan Dassey) describes Steven Avery taking the bones out the burn pit and breaking them with a shovel then hiding them in the quarry. This was before any forensic anthropologist would testify that this is indeed what happened.

An accomplice to the crime (Brendan Dassey) describes Steven Avery shooting her to the left of her head. This was before any forensic anthropologist would testify that this is indeed what happened.

The self confessed accomplice (Brendan Dassey) has his jeans covered in bleach from the night in question. Large amounts of bleach residue was found in Steven Avery's garage.

An accomplice to the crime (Brendan Dassey) describes Steven Avery throwing Teresa's jeans in the bonfire. They find rivets belonging to those Jeans in Avery's burn pit.

Also in the same garage is a fired bullet that was discovered containing the same DNA as the victims bones behind Steven Avery's garage.

The bullet with the victims DNA on was proven to have been fired from the rife that is hung up on the wall in Steven Avery's bedroom.

Hidden behind a bookshelf in Steven Avery's bedroom was the car keys to the victims car.

The victims car is located on Steven Avery's property right next to his old red Jeep.

Steven Avery while driving his Pontiac got bloodstains on the front console due to a cut on his right finger.

Similar Bloodstains were also found inside the victims car. The DNA is traced back to the same person who spilled his blood in his Pontiac around the same time, - Steven Avery.

The victims car was found to have had the power cables pulled from the car battery. Hence someone involved in the victims death must have opened the car hood at some stage. DNA analysis on the hood latch comes back as a match to non other than..... Steven Avery.

The victims phone records show the last person Teresa spoke to was Steven Avery. Auto-trader staff say that Steven would always call them asking for Teresa and that he would greet her wearing nothing but towel. Yet during the 5 day search for this missing person he makes no effort to try and call her.

While Steven does not bother calling this missing person he has an affection for. Witnesses report his accomplice Brendan suddenly being depressed and crying to himself.

The victim met up with Steven Avery as usual to take photos of a vehicle he wanted to sell in Auto Trader. Yet the vehicle never ended up on the front display like all his other cars with Auto Trader ads did. Bits of the victims camera was later recovered from Steven Averys burn barrel.

Avery calling the victim twice before she died on *67 and once after she died without the *67. Having an IQ of just 70 Avery thought that *67 would also hide his number from cell phone company's records. Avery then called Teresa's phone again without *67 trying to make it appear he is wondering where she is or making sure the phone has been destroyed in the fire.

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.

Avery was cleaning his property with a rug doctor machine the day after the murder and returned the machine to wall mart.

Avery confessed to his prison inmate Joe Evans.

Chris_Halkides said:

If one accepts Mr. Dassey's alibi witnesses or if one were find other support of his alibi (as I have previously mentioned), then it means that the crime did not happen as Mr. Kratz, for example, claimed it did.

Click to expand...

Which crime are you referring to? Since you are mentioning Dassey I can only assume you mean the sexual assault? By the time the trial started those charges were no longer present for Avery. Mr Kratz did not make any such argument at Avery's trial and therefore does not carry that burden of proof.

Now had they been tried together or Dassey was called as a witness to provide evidence in Avery's trial you would have a stronger argument IMO. This seems to be the at the core of the issue with this case amongst Avery's supporters...they get their information from Making a Murderer and have never actually looked at the facts presented at trial.

A crime happens in only one way

Lerxst said:

Which crime are you referring to?

Click to expand...

"On March 17, 2007, Dassey was convicted on all three charges facing him: first-degree intentional homicide, mutilation of a corpse, and first-degree sexual assault. (Avery was also convicted of first-degree intentional homicide but not for the mutilation of a corpse.)" Bustle.

With all due respect you appear to be sidestepping the fact that a crime happens in one way only. I am aware that prosecutors sometimes disregard this concept; I recall an example in which a prosecutor argued for a particular sequence of events at the trial, then argued a different sequence of events in the sentencing phase (the reason for doing so is not difficult to guess). However, I prefer to keep this concept in mind even when the state does not. Perhaps my initial choice of words on this subject was imperfect, but you are taking it to mean something that was not my intention. I would just as soon not go further down a rabbit hole, if that is what this is.

The point that I stated before and reiterate here is this: If one were to accept Mr. Dassey's alibi, then it follows that the crime happened differently versus if he were guilty. Both Mr. Dassey and Mr. Avery were convicted of the murder. One might imagine a way in which each is guilty without knowledge of the other person's actions. That sounds like a good parlor game, not like a good discussion of this case.

I never saw Making a Murderer; therefore, I cannot comment on it directly. However the reading I have done has convinced me of problems with this case which, from what I can gather indirectly, MaM did not treat. Some of that reading is reflected in my comments here and elsewhere.

a dash of Gish

Lerxst said:

With all due respect, this is simply not true. Several posters have responded countless times with a list of evidence that cannot be simply explained away due to incompetence or conflict of interest. Essexman posted several of these, again, right after yours.

Click to expand...

My experience with similar lists elsewhere has convinced me that they are usually Gish gallops. I began an examination of one such list in this thread, and found that it fell into the same pattern (for example see comment #451). I invite you to continue the process of uncovering the misstatements.

Affiavit from Bennett Gershman

Here are the conclusions from Professor Bennett Gershman's affidavit:
"7. The following are my opinions based upon a reasonable degree of prosecutorial certainty: a. Kratz's statements at his press conferences constituted professional misconduct;
b. Kratz's charging Steven Avery based on Brendan Dassey's confession constituted professional misconduct;
c. Kratz's attempt to introduce in evidence allegations of Steven Avery's prior wrongful acts constituted professional misconduct;
d. Kratz's pursuit ofinconsistent and irreconcilable theories at the separate trials of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey constituted professional misconduct;
e. Kratz's request for an aiding and abetting instruction in the Avery trial constituted professional misconduct;
f. Kratz' s public dissemination of inflammatory information about Steven Avery constituted professional misconduct; and
g. Kratz's jailhouse contacts with Steven Avery constituted professional misconduct."

a minor clarification

Chris_Halkides said:

Unless I am missing something, the State of Wisconsin's theory of the crime is that both Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey participated; the fact that they had separate trials does not change the narrative.

Click to expand...

When I wrote the passage above, I was only thinking in terms of the fact that both had been convicted, not in terms of any particulars concerning how the crime happened. In retrospect my use of the word "theory" was unintentionally misleading. My link and comment earlier today touched upon Professor Gershman's contention that the state had two irreconcilable theories of the crime. I regret any confusion, and I hope that my present comment clarifies what I previously wrote.

Audio of last weeks Court Conference in Andy Colborns Litigation against Netflix

https://soundcloud.com/user-669514202/19cv484-10-22-20-status1

The two theories of Kratz

Professor Gershman wrote, "33. Kratz's inconsistent contentions at the Avery and Dassey trials violate due process as well as a prosecutor's duty to promote the truth and serve justice. See Stumpf v. Houk, 653 F.3d 426 (6th circuit 2011); Smith v. Goose 205 F.3d 1045 (8th circuit 2000); State v. Gates, 826 So.d 1064 (Fla. App. 2002). A prosecutor may not advance at separate trials theories of guilt which cannot be reconciled factually...His claims are inconsistent and irreconcilable. Such flip-flopping conduct by a prosecutor is inherently unfair, legally and ethically, and undermines the very concept of justice and the duty of a prosecutor to serve truth."

Chris_Halkides said:

My experience with similar lists elsewhere has convinced me that they are usually Gish gallops. I began an examination of one such list in this thread, and found that it fell into the same pattern (for example see comment #451). I invite you to continue the process of uncovering the misstatements.

Click to expand...

Except they are not Gish Gallops. These facts are not disputed by either side, and they've been known to everyone for quite some time. They are simply hand-waved away by anyone who feels Avery and Dassey are innocent.

Chris_Halkides said:

Professor Gershman wrote, "33. Kratz's inconsistent contentions at the Avery and Dassey trials violate due process as well as a prosecutor's duty to promote the truth and serve justice. See Stumpf v. Houk, 653 F.3d 426 (6th circuit 2011); Smith v. Goose 205 F.3d 1045 (8th circuit 2000); State v. Gates, 826 So.d 1064 (Fla. App. 2002). A prosecutor may not advance at separate trials theories of guilt which cannot be reconciled factually...His claims are inconsistent and irreconcilable. Such flip-flopping conduct by a prosecutor is inherently unfair, legally and ethically, and undermines the very concept of justice and the duty of a prosecutor to serve truth."

Click to expand...

Look, I think I understand what you are trying to do here. Kratz is a creepy slimeball and certainly on the wrong side of legal ethics, if not worse and on the wrong side of the law. So far though, pointing this out has not worked with the courts, and if it ever does I suspect at best we may someday see a new trial for Avery. I have already stated many times that I would be okay with that.

I can only speculate though that unless and until something exculpatory or strong evidence of some other perpetrator appears the end result will be the same.

Lerxst said:

Look, I think I understand what you are trying to do here. Kratz is a creepy slimeball and certainly on the wrong side of legal ethics, if not worse and on the wrong side of the law. So far though, pointing this out has not worked with the courts, and if it ever does I suspect at best we may someday see a new trial for Avery. I have already stated many times that I would be okay with that.

I can only speculate though that unless and until something exculpatory or strong evidence of some other perpetrator appears the end result will be the same.

Click to expand...

Moreover, Kratz went off the rails in 2009 going through a divorce and started abusing prescription drugs thus becoming an unethical creep two years after Avery was convicted. So the whole argument is totally pointless.

Essexman said:

Moreover, Kratz went off the rails in 2009 going through a divorce and started abusing prescription drugs thus becoming an unethical creep two years after Avery was convicted. So the whole argument is totally pointless.

Click to expand...

Those who advocate for Avery's innocence also conveniently ignore the fact that Kratz did a terrific job at the 2007 trial. His meticulous squashing of conspiracy claims forced the MAM filmmakers to edit and omit trial testimony that inculpated Avery and exculpated MC law enforcement.

Foul blows

Bennett Gershman has the title of distinguished professor of law at Pace University. He has extensive academic credentials in this area, as a quick perusal of his C.V. attests. He is a former prosecutor; therefore, his excoriation of Ken Kratz's behavior carries even more weight that it would otherwise.

Kratz's personal behavior may or may not be relevant to the Avery case. What is relevant are the things that he did before and during the trial, which Professor Gershmann expertly documented and which Essexman and JTF failed to address. Kratz's actions are rightly labeled misconduct for a reason, namely they prevented Mr. Avery from having a fair trial.

Who and where

Having read a good chunk of John Ferak's book Wrecking Crew, I have to question whether MaM went far enough. I am not saying that Mr. Ferak's book is perfect, but it fills in some gaps that have long puzzled me and others in this thread.

For one thing Scott Tadych has a history of violence that makes Steven Avery look like a choir boy. Bobby Dassey's unhealthy interest in violent pornography puts him in stark contrast with Brendan Dassey. They top my list of plausible alternative suspects. In addition Kuss Road strikes me as a plausible alternative location for the murder of Ms. Halbach to the two locations indicated by the State of Wisconsin.

Essexman said:

Oh my God. Why are people still debating this case? The evidence is overwhelming.

Click to expand...

I agree. However I do have some concerns about some of the evidence you have listed

For example this:

The victims phone records show the last person Teresa spoke to was Steven Avery. Auto-trader staff say that Steven would always call them asking for Teresa and that he would greet her wearing nothing but towel. Yet during the 5 day search for this missing person he makes no effort to try and call her.

Click to expand...

Seems at least partly contradicted by this:

Avery calling the victim twice before she died on *67 and once after she died without the *67. Having an IQ of just 70 Avery thought that *67 would also hide his number from cell phone company's records. Avery then called Teresa's phone again without *67 trying to make it appear he is wondering where she is or making sure the phone has been destroyed in the fire.

Click to expand...

Further one does not have to have an IQ of 70 to believe that *67 would hide a cell number it could just has easily be some misinformation Avery heard and believed.

Then there is this:

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.

Click to expand...

Well Teresa could have told him she had no tattoos. Did Brenden ever say he had seen her naked?

As for this

Avery was cleaning his property with a rug doctor machine the day after the murder and returned the machine to wall mart.

Click to expand...

Not exactly convincing evidence of guilt in my opinion at all.

Avery confessed to his prison inmate Joe Evans.

Click to expand...

I have a very low opinion of this sort of thing. Snitches reporting confessions are in my opinion very poor evidence, at least in terms of legal proof in trials. The Guy Paul Morin case in Canada is an outstandingly unpleasant proof of the dubious value of such reports.

But has for the rest of the points. I have little doubt that Avery is guilty and where he belongs.

Is there a rug doctor in the house?

Lerxst said:

Except they are not Gish Gallops. These facts are not disputed by either side, and they've been known to everyone for quite some time. They are simply hand-waved away by anyone who feels Avery and Dassey are innocent.

Click to expand...

I went through a few points of one such gallop in comment #451, and showed why they were misleading. When I got to Essexman's carpet cleaner (see for example comment #485 and also #375), I decided that I had had enough. It seems that the rug doctor (carpet cleaner) was seized as evidence, but I could find no indication that any forensic evidence was ever obtained from it. Maybe it was not tested; maybe it was tested and nothing was found. It was still a nothing burger, no matter how one sliced it. It took time for me to look into this, just like it took time for me to learn that Mr. Avery's niece had recanted in court. That each point takes time to chase down and rebut it is what makes such a list a Gish gallop in my opinion. YMMV; we can use a different term if you like.

Burden Of Proof

At trial, the burden was on Kratz to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven Avery murdered Teresa Halbach. He succeeded in meeting that burden, so for the past 13 years, the burden has shifted to Avery's defense team. If one places an emphasis on results, Kratz is a rousing success whereas Avery's defense team has done little to move the needle in regards to proving that MC law enforcement conspired to railroad Avery. In addition, the defense team has yet to present evidence that definitively links an alternative suspect or suspects to this crime.

a one-time occurrence, at best

" Auto-trader staff say that Steven would always call them asking for Teresa and that he would greet her wearing nothing but towel." Saying that "he would greet her" makes it sound as if it happened more than once. The towel incident happened no more than one time (all we have is a second-hand account), and the person to whom Ms. Halbach spoke did not know when it happened (my guess was that it was in the summer). More irrelevant chaff.

Chris_Halkides said:

" Auto-trader staff say that Steven would always call them asking for Teresa and that he would greet her wearing nothing but towel." Saying that "he would greet her" makes it sound as if it happened more than once. The towel incident happened no more than one time (all we have is a second-hand account), and the person to whom Ms. Halbach spoke did not know when it happened (my guess was that it was in the summer). More irrelevant chaff.

Click to expand...

It only happened once according to the friend that testified at trial. She does remember about the time that it occurred. It's not evidence that he killed her, but it is relevant to establishing that:

1. The victim knew Steven Avery and has visited the salvage yard before.
2. It's part of understanding Steven Avery's character and what kind of contact they have had in the past.

Not completely irrelevant and this sort of character testimony happens all the time at trial.

Here is the transcript if you are interested:

21 Q. Ms Pliszka, this is not your testimony before the
22 Court, but this is -- excuse me -- before the
23 jury, but this is simply retrieving from you some
24 very narrow information about a conversation that
25 you had with Teresa; do you understand that?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You were a receptionist with Auto Trader during
3 the fall of 2005; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what kind of relationship did you have with
6 Teresa; in other words, did you and Ms Halbach
7 have occasion to discuss matters of a more
8 personal nature?
9 A. Yes, we did.
10 Q. During the course of those discussions, did Ms
11 Halbach ever describe for you a contact or
12 incident that she had with the defendant, Steven
13 Avery?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you describe, first of all, the words that
16 she used and then we will describe the
17 circumstances surrounding that. So first tell us
18 what she told you.
19 A. After she was out there, around October 10th, it
20 was like about a week or so after that, she had
21 stated to me that he had come out in a towel.
22 Q. He meaning whom?
23 A. Steven Avery.
24 Q. Had come out where?
25 A. She didn't specify, she just said that he had

1 come out, just in a towel.
2 Q. All right. Did Ms Halbach describe for you
3 anything else about that, any other details about
4 seeing Mr. Avery in a towel?
5 A. The only -- I just said, really, and she said,
6 yeah, and she said, yeah, and she laughed and
7 just said kind of, ewww, you know.
8 Q. Okay. You said kind of what?
9 A. Ewww.
10 Q. Ewww.
11 A. Yeah, just that.
12 Q. I guess not in a positive way?
13 A. Not in a positive way, no.
14 Q. Did Ms Halbach -- or was she seeming to describe
15 a specific event; in other words, was she
16 remembering that event when she was describing it
17 for you?
18 A. Yes.

Click to expand...

no specific date

Here is the cross-examination:

Q. Hi. Do you think this was a week or more after October 10th?
A. Yes, that I talked to her. I don't know when the incident exactly was.
Q. Okay. But you're probably talking to Teresa Halbach October 17, or some time shortly after that?
A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
Q. She did not say that this had happened on October 10 or any specific date?
A. She did not specify the date, no.
Q. She didn't call you to tell you about this incident?
A. Not specifically, no, it just came up in conversation.

Based on this passage, I would say that Teresa talked to her friend about a week after she was at the Avery salvage yard, but that this is not necessarily when the towel incident happened.

Chris_Halkides said:

Here is the cross-examination:

Q. Hi. Do you think this was a week or more after October 10th?
A. Yes, that I talked to her. I don't know when the incident exactly was.
Q. Okay. But you're probably talking to Teresa Halbach October 17, or some time shortly after that?
A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
Q. She did not say that this had happened on October 10 or any specific date?
A. She did not specify the date, no.
Q. She didn't call you to tell you about this incident?
A. Not specifically, no, it just came up in conversation.

Based on this passage, I would say that Teresa talked to her friend about a week after she was at the Avery salvage yard, but that this is not necessarily when the towel incident happened.

Click to expand...

Okay so now it's up to you to explain why:

1. The whole incident is irrelevant if
2. The exact date that it occurred is relevant

Shakespeare

Lerxst said:

Okay so now it's up to you to explain why:

1. The whole incident is irrelevant if
2. The exact date that it occurred is relevant

Click to expand...

Why isn't it up to the person who brought up this incident to explain why it is relevant?

As I said, I think probably happened in the summer, and Steven had been lounging by his pool. If so, then Teresa continued to shoot photos at his yard after it occurred. If it bothered her at all, then it could not have bothered her that much. That is why the date matters.

If I were in the shower and I heard the doorbell ring, I would think nothing of answering the door wearing a towel. What's the big deal? That people are still talking about it is a testament to Mr. Kratz's ability to make much ado about nothing.

Another go-around on Fassbinder's control question

"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."

This was discussed several months ago and shown to be a...misrepresentation...of what Brendan actually said.

Fassbinder: "Do you disagree with me when I say that?"
Dassey: "No, but I don't know what it was."

See also this video, starting at about 2:40.

Chris_Halkides said:

Why isn't it up to the person who brought up this incident to explain why it is relevant?

As I said, I think probably happened in the summer, and Steven had been lounging by his pool. If so, then Teresa continued to shoot photos at his yard after it occurred. If it bothered her at all, then it could not have bothered her that much. That is why the date matters.

If I were in the shower and I heard the doorbell ring, I would think nothing of answering the door wearing a towel. What's the big deal? That people are still talking about it is a testament to Mr. Kratz's ability to make much ado about nothing.

Click to expand...

I already explained that in the previous posts. It establishes that this was not just a random encounter as well as gives us insight into Avery's character. You don't agree obviously, and that's fine.

From her testimony it bothered Teresa enough to mention it to her friend, and the situation was described differently than your hypothetical situation in that she is implying Avery came out of his house and was outside in a towel. That's not something that most people would do.

It's not something that should be cherry picked and viewed out of context IMO. Taken together with other behaviors by Avery it is still relevant, not completely irrelevant as you have claimed.

Lerxst said:

I already explained that in the previous posts. It establishes that this was not just a random encounter as well as gives us insight into Avery's character. You don't agree obviously, and that's fine.

From her testimony it bothered Teresa enough to mention it to her friend, and the situation was described differently than your hypothetical situation in that she is implying Avery came out of his house and was outside in a towel. That's not something that most people would do.

It's not something that should be cherry picked and viewed out of context IMO. Taken together with other behaviors by Avery it is still relevant, not completely irrelevant as you have claimed.

Click to expand...

The Towel incident happened on October 5th.

Avery claimed he was at the pool swimming.

https://youtu.be/Xs3CZ6yCnTY?t=255

Which is a rather odd thing to do in 40 degree weather and expecting a business associate to visit. It’s clearly a lie as Teresa never mentioned this despite claiming he told Teresa about the pool.

Chris_Halkides said:

If it bothered her at all, then it could not have bothered her that much.

Click to expand...

Couldn't it have? Women get creeped on daily. If women acted on every danger sign they'd never be able to leave the house. The problem is those danger signs are downplayed by everyone else *until* the danger takes her out, then she should have realized she was in danger and acted.

I see no satisfactory answer to why Steven Avery expected to get away with killing Teresa when the whole world knows he invited her to his residence.
It does not compute. A low IQ does not explain.

warning signs

Silly Green Monkey said:

Couldn't it have? Women get creeped on daily. If women acted on every danger sign they'd never be able to leave the house. The problem is those danger signs are downplayed by everyone else *until* the danger takes her out, then she should have realized she was in danger and acted.

Click to expand...

My initial thinking is that Ms. Halbach might have refused to shoot photos there any more. Yet your interpretation is also reasonable, and there is a third explanation, namely that she did feel concerned but lacked the leverage to refuse to work there. Then again, maybe people missed the warning signs regarding Bobby Dassey.

Chris_Halkides said:

Why isn't it up to the person who brought up this incident to explain why it is relevant?

As I said, I think probably happened in the summer, and Steven had been lounging by his pool. If so, then Teresa continued to shoot photos at his yard after it occurred. If it bothered her at all, then it could not have bothered her that much. That is why the date matters.

If I were in the shower and I heard the doorbell ring, I would think nothing of answering the door wearing a towel. What's the big deal? That people are still talking about it is a testament to Mr. Kratz's ability to make much ado about nothing.

Click to expand...

This must be a guy thing. I’d rather have hot pokers plunged into my eyes than to answer the door in nothing but a towel.

I can totally see why TH was grossed out by this. Unless the door was opened by one of those guys from that Australian Firefighters calendar, it would likely not sit well with any woman.

did the jury even hear it?

I have done some casual reading on this subject, and from what I can gather, the judge did not let the jury hear Dawn's testimony about the towel incident. Scroll down to Point 8 in the linked article.
EDT
"As for her fear of Avery following the towel incident, Dean Strang, an attorney for the defense, explained that this assertion was “blown up” by a receptionist for ‘AutoTrader,’who testified that the subject came up during a short conversation about unusual or funny things that have happened on the job. “[Halbach’s] reaction when [Avery] came from his little splash pool in a towel was ‘ew,’ but not that she was unwilling to go back there,” Strang said. Ultimately, this evidence was excluded by the judge and never presented to the jury." link

Samson said:

I see no satisfactory answer to why Steven Avery expected to get away with killing Teresa when the whole world knows he invited her to his residence.
It does not compute. A low IQ does not explain.

Click to expand...

A low IQ does explain. It might be difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to fathom since they cannot put themselves in the shoes of someone that stupid.

Moreover criminals have committed dumber acts of murder, Michael Danaher for example.

Serial Fabricator

Much has been made about how MAM omitted most of the inculpatory evidence presented at trial, but for whatever reason, Avery's laundry list of contradictory statements has received far less publicity. It's not surprising that a sociopath or psychopath would lie on a consistent basis, but it appears that Avery's limited intellect has provided him with convenient excuses for some of his false statements.

Essexman said:

A low IQ does explain. It might be difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to fathom since they cannot put themselves in the shoes of someone that stupid.

Moreover criminals have committed dumber acts of murder, Michael Danaher for example.

Click to expand...

A low IQ does not get across the line.
He delivered an ambiguous crime scene and a fire that did as well as a crematorium.
He persuaded a girl to repair to his garage so he could shoot her execution style.
Not so dumb.
I am keen to discuss what he did.

Samson said:

A low IQ does not get across the line.

Click to expand...

You can contend that as much as you like. But it wont alter the evidence that shows Avery committed the crime.

Samson said:

He delivered an ambiguous crime scene and a fire that did as well as a crematorium.

Click to expand...

Ambiguous? The victims charred remains are in his burn pit where he was seen having an 8 hour bonfire the night she died. The murder weapon is hanging up on his wall. His blood and DNA is inside the victims car. The victims car keys are in his bedroom and the victims belongings are in his burn barrel. He invited his door neighbor to participate and would admit they both raped and killed her. How is that ambiguous?

As for a crematorium. According to a text book written by the fire expert hired by Zellner, its not that difficult at all.

"Observations of open-air cremations in India indicate that a well-ventilated wood or coal fire with sufficient fuel can destroy most of an adult body in a few hours. A fully involved, wood-frame structure fire lasting one hour resulted in reduction of an adult male body to large bone fragments."

Samson said:

He persuaded a girl to repair to his garage so he could shoot her execution style.
Not so dumb.

Click to expand...

He never asked anyone to repair anything. Where do you get this stuff from?

Definition of repair

intransitive verb
1a : to betake oneself : go
//repaired to the judge's chambers

Essexman said:

You can contend that as much as you like. But it wont alter the evidence that shows Avery committed the crime.



Ambiguous? The victims charred remains are in his burn pit where he was seen having an 8 hour bonfire the night she died. The murder weapon is hanging up on his wall. His blood and DNA is inside the victims car. The victims car keys are in his bedroom and the victims belongings are in his burn barrel. He invited his door neighbor to participate and would admit they both raped and killed her. How is that ambiguous?

As for a crematorium. According to a text book written by the fire expert hired by Zellner, its not that difficult at all.

"Observations of open-air cremations in India indicate that a well-ventilated wood or coal fire with sufficient fuel can destroy most of an adult body in a few hours. A fully involved, wood-frame structure fire lasting one hour resulted in reduction of an adult male body to large bone fragments."




He never asked anyone to repair anything. Where do you get this stuff from?

Click to expand...

Additional evidence that inculpated Avery in this murder...

1) The victim's DNA was found on a bullet located in Avery's garage.

2) A portion of that garage lit up like a christmas tree when sprayed with Luminol.

3) Avery's DNA is found under the hood of the victim's vehicle.

This is an open and shut case, but with the help of Zellner and those who didn't watch MAM with a critical eye, the carnival barking will continue at a steady pace.