Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer Part 2

[Matthew Best]

And round and round we go.

[Lerxst]

Originally Posted by Essexman

He said “I guess they got it all on film or tape or whatever, what we did that night”

And? I've listened to it and I heard what he said. Why don't you explain how this amounts to a confession.

[bobdroege7]

Originally Posted by Essexman

He said “I guess they got it all on film or tape or whatever, what we did that night”

I am curious, how much weight do you give that statement?

On a scale of 0 to 10?

[Samson]

Does anyone know if the prosecution says he burned the body in the pit in one piece or in many pieces?

[Lerxst]

Originally Posted by Samson

Does anyone know if the prosecution says he burned the body in the pit in one piece or in many pieces?

I would encourage you to read the trial transcript yourself:

http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-av....GDQ2E578.dpbs

I'm focusing on closing statements from Kratz, and then Buting and Strang (defense), and then Kratz's rebuttal.

The State does not really state one way or the other. Kratz talks about what they theorize Avery would have needed to do in order to destroy the evidence after the fact and that they believe the burn pit was the primary burn site (implying more than one), but that bones were also found in the Janda's burn barrel. There is also the evidence of her personal effects like cell phone, PDA, and clothing also being found at the same burn site.

Avery's defense team then challenges that by bringing up the fact that the bones were moved but that the State has never explained how. They bring up the quarry as well, which is only a 1/4 mile away.

Kratz's rebuttal concedes that bones were moved, but he argues that regardless, if the bones were burned somewhere else and then moved to both the burn pit and the burn barrel (remember there are no less than 7 different possible burn sites on the Avery property alone) that someone would have had to do that completely undetected. And what an incredibly unlucky coincidence that multiple people witnessed fires in multiple areas right next to Avery's trailer that he of course initially denied.

I have seen supporters of Avery bring up details or ask questions like this, but I have to wonder why does it matter? The State does not have to prove that every single part of their theory is true, they only need to meet the burden of proof for what they have charged him with. In other words, they only need to show that he burned her remains, they do not need to prove what he did to her remains before he burned them, nor do they need to prove there was only one burn site. The only way the defense can explain how her remains were found in his burn pit is to claim they were planted there, and of course nothing in the way of supporting evidence for that has ever surfaced.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Lerxst

I would encourage you to read the trial transcript yourself:

http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-av....GDQ2E578.dpbs

I'm focusing on closing statements from Kratz, and then Buting and Strang (defense), and then Kratz's rebuttal.

The State does not really state one way or the other. Kratz talks about what they theorize Avery would have needed to do in order to destroy the evidence after the fact and that they believe the burn pit was the primary burn site (implying more than one), but that bones were also found in the Janda's burn barrel. There is also the evidence of her personal effects like cell phone, PDA, and clothing also being found at the same burn site.

Avery's defense team then challenges that by bringing up the fact that the bones were moved but that the State has never explained how. They bring up the quarry as well, which is only a 1/4 mile away.

Kratz's rebuttal concedes that bones were moved, but he argues that regardless, if the bones were burned somewhere else and then moved to both the burn pit and the burn barrel (remember there are no less than 7 different possible burn sites on the Avery property alone) that someone would have had to do that completely undetected. And what an incredibly unlucky coincidence that multiple people witnessed fires in multiple areas right next to Avery's trailer that he of course initially denied.

I have seen supporters of Avery bring up details or ask questions like this, but I have to wonder why does it matter? The State does not have to prove that every single part of their theory is true, they only need to meet the burden of proof for what they have charged him with. In other words, they only need to show that he burned her remains, they do not need to prove what he did to her remains before he burned them, nor do they need to prove there was only one burn site. The only way the defense can explain how her remains were found in his burn pit is to claim they were planted there, and of course nothing in the way of supporting evidence for that has ever surfaced.

Interesting. Sounds like a great plan to make sure nothing unusual seems to be going on, despite the natural curiosity fires arouse.

[Samson]

It is not easy being green but blue is the colour of my true love's eyes.
Confusing but a midsized SUV heading in the direction of a cell phone that pings a few miles away is all interesting and captures the attention of Kathleen Zellner.
She has unlimited cash resources and says Steve never left the farm.

[bobdroege7]

We have a dead body, where is the Coroner's report?

Oh....

Where's Quincy?

[Essexman]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

We have a dead body, where is the Coroner's report?

Oh....

No they didn’t have a dead body. They had charred bits of bones and ashes hence a forensic anthropologist was used instead.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Essexman

No they didn’t have a dead body. They had charred bits of bones and ashes hence a forensic anthropologist was used instead.

The body was reduced to charred bits of bone in the open pit? At the very least it must have been cut up prior?

[Lerxst]

Just read the transcripts, that would be better than just JAQing:

Quote:

6 Q. Okay. Do you -- Do you agree here with
7 Dr. Eisenberg that it's clear in this case that
8 bones were moved?
9 A. I agree that bones were moved.
10 Q. In the human -- When I say bones, I'm talking
11 about human --
12 A. Human remains.
13 Q. -- human remains.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. You -- you -- you do agree with that?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. Okay. And based on the recovery method that was
18 used here, are you able to offer an opinion, to a
19 reasonable degree of scientific certainty, about
20 where these human remains were burned?
21 A. No, I'm not.
22 Q. Why not?
23 A. Well, the fact is, that because I don't have any
24 records from which to examine that would actually
25 indicate to me that there are bones in the
1 original location, where they were burned, I
2 can't offer an opinion on that.

From Dr. Scott Fairgrieve at Avery's trial. I've tried to point out that it doesn't really matter if the remains were burned entirely in the burn pit or not...it cannot reliably be determined from the evidence. Remains were found there, and that is the problem for Avery.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Lerxst

Just read the transcripts, that would be better than just JAQing:



From Dr. Scott Fairgrieve at Avery's trial. I've tried to point out that it doesn't really matter if the remains were burned entirely in the burn pit or not...it cannot reliably be determined from the evidence. Remains were found there, and that is the problem for Avery.

I believe it is common ground there was a decent long fire in the burn pit. Yes Avery has a problem, but not that he dismembered and burned a body in that pit. The problem is that the Essexmen in this world all believe that he did, yet it is not supported by any known science.

[bobdroege7]

Originally Posted by Essexman

No they didn’t have a dead body. They had charred bits of bones and ashes hence a forensic anthropologist was used instead.

that's not the problem.

Threatening to arrest the coroner is a problem.

[Lerxst]

Originally Posted by Samson

I believe it is common ground there was a decent long fire in the burn pit. Yes Avery has a problem, but not that he dismembered and burned a body in that pit. The problem is that the Essexmen in this world all believe that he did, yet it is not supported by any known science.

Why does it have to be? If it could be proven that he did not dismember her body and burn it in that fire pit, how does that help exonerate him? Explain how the incriminating evidence got there if he did NOT commit the crime.

Occam's razor leads us to what we must conclude. No need to construct a complicated scenario that is not supported by the evidence in the case.

[JTF]

The trial testimony of Forensic Anthropologist Leslie Eisenberg and Arson Expert Rodney Pevytoe basically put a pin in the dubious theory that some, if not all, of the bones found in Avery's burn pit were moved there from another location. No bone breakage due to transport was found, a fragment or more of virtually every bone below the neck was found in the burn pit, and the bones/portions of Teresa Halbach's clothing were found intertwined with debris (e.g., wiring and oils from 5 steel belted tires) in the burn pit. Notice how you didn't hear about any of that pesky evidence in Making of a Murderer? Once you add Halbach's charred personal belongings being found in a barrel and DNA/Ballistics evidence directly linking Avery to this horrific crime, the combo theory (e.g., Halbach murdered by someone else AND the police framed Avery) put forth by the defense becomes nothing more than a fantasy narrative.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by JTF

The trial testimony of Forensic Anthropologist Leslie Eisenberg and Arson Expert Rodney Pevytoe basically put a pin in the dubious theory that some, if not all, of the bones found in Avery's burn pit were moved there from another location. No bone breakage due to transport was found, a fragment or more of virtually every bone below the neck was found in the burn pit, and the bones/portions of Teresa Halbach's clothing were found intertwined with debris (e.g., wiring and oils from 5 steel belted tires) in the burn pit. Notice how you didn't hear about any of that pesky evidence in Making of a Murderer? Once you add Halbach's charred personal belongings being found in a barrel and DNA/Ballistics evidence directly linking Avery to this horrific crime, the combo theory (e.g., Halbach murdered by someone else AND the police framed Avery) put forth by the defense becomes nothing more than a fantasy narrative.

Yes all that is well known
but what is not well known is a sequence that allows for Steven Avery to lure a young woman to a destination, expect no one to be disturbed by this cessation of presence. She could be expected to have concern from employers and social contacts immediately.
Prosecutors are sure she was dead while he had a very loving conversation by phone with Jodi....

Please impress skeptics with a narrative that gets him doing all these things like a celebrity chef, chopping board to stove top to oven to god knows what.

And this thread is not concerned with who has to prove what, but rather what happened in time slots and makes sense.
Do we refute cell phone pings far from the site?

[Essexman]

Originally Posted by Samson

Yes all that is well known
but what is not well known is a sequence that allows for Steven Avery to lure a young woman to a destination

He called her down to take photos of a car for sale like he had done in the past (wearing just a towel). On this occasion however the car Teresa took photos of was never put on the display court and a seat from it was taken out and ended up in the burn pit.

Odd thing to do with a car you plan on selling.

[Essexman]

Originally Posted by Samson

The body was reduced to charred bits of bone in the open pit? At the very least it must have been cut up prior?

Avery's bonfire was going for over 7 and a half hours. The last witness to see it was Blane Dassey and Kayla at 11.30pm after coming back from trick or treating. They all went to bed after this. We don't know exactly when it went out but Avery could have kept it going until 5am before anyone woke up.

[Lerxst]

Originally Posted by Samson

Yes all that is well known

Then why do you continually discount it?

Originally Posted by Samson

but what is not well known is a sequence that allows for Steven Avery to lure a young woman to a destination, expect no one to be disturbed by this cessation of presence. She could be expected to have concern from employers and social contacts immediately.

But all of that did happen...she was missed and in fact there was a search for her that ended up in the last place she was known to have been...the Avery property.

Originally Posted by Samson

Prosecutors are sure she was dead while he had a very loving conversation by phone with Jodi....

Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, perhaps you can tell us why this matters which you have failed to do so many times before?

Originally Posted by Samson

Please impress skeptics with a narrative that gets him doing all these things like a celebrity chef, chopping board to stove top to oven to god knows what.

And this thread is not concerned with who has to prove what, but rather what happened in time slots and makes sense.

The narrative is simple and is backed by the evidence. You are the one that claims it is complicated, doesn't make sense, and makes claims that are not backed by any evidence.

Originally Posted by Samson

Do we refute cell phone pings far from the site?

No, but as has been pointed out many times before this does not establish that she was with her phone. You greatly inflate the importance of the cell phone pings while denying all of the other evidence, like where her phone ended up.

[Essexman]

Originally Posted by Lerxst

No, but as has been pointed out many times before this does not establish that she was with her phone. You greatly inflate the importance of the cell phone pings while denying all of the other evidence, like where her phone ended up.

The cell phone pinged a cell tower 7 miles from Avery’s trailer. The cell tower had a 20 mile coverage.

[Lerxst]

Originally Posted by Essexman

The cell phone pinged a cell tower 7 miles from Avery’s trailer. The cell tower had a 20 mile coverage.

Which is probably why this reasoning went nowhere when it was tried by Zellner.

Samson continues to press a fantasy narrative that has no basis in the facts of the case, while simultaneously claiming that the evidence backed narrative is a fantasy because minute, largely irrelevant details "don't make sense". This has been the MO of most though that don't believe he is guilty so I guess I can understand that.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Lerxst

Which is probably why this reasoning went nowhere when it was tried by Zellner.

Samson continues to press a fantasy narrative that has no basis in the facts of the case, while simultaneously claiming that the evidence backed narrative is a fantasy because minute, largely irrelevant details "don't make sense". This has been the MO of most though that don't believe he is guilty so I guess I can understand that.

I said I would change my mind if that is where the evidence leads.
So let's have a narrative that extends from Teresa arriving and the car being discovered after being moved several days into the investigation.
This would include detail like Teresa being persuaded to check Steve's etchings in the garage so he could contact shoot her in the head from behind.

[Lerxst]

Originally Posted by Samson

I said I would change my mind if that is where the evidence leads.
So let's have a narrative that extends from Teresa arriving and the car being discovered after being moved several days into the investigation.
This would include detail like Teresa being persuaded to check Steve's etchings in the garage so he could contact shoot her in the head from behind.

No thanks, I'd rather discuss the actual facts of the case.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Lerxst

No thanks, I'd rather discuss the actual facts of the case.

Yep. That is the idea.

[Essexman]

Originally Posted by Lerxst

Which is probably why this reasoning went nowhere when it was tried by Zellner.

Samson continues to press a fantasy narrative that has no basis in the facts of the case, while simultaneously claiming that the evidence backed narrative is a fantasy because minute, largely irrelevant details "don't make sense". This has been the MO of most though that don't believe he is guilty so I guess I can understand that.

Zellner never even made the claim to the appellate court anyway. Its something she made up on Twitter and Netflix because she knew her muppet audience would believe it. Same goes for the baseless claim she made on Netflix about cops taking Teresa's chapstick from her apartment to plant her DNA on the bullet. No mention of it in her legal briefs.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Essexman

Zellner never even made the claim to the appellate court anyway. Its something she made up on Twitter and Netflix because she knew her muppet audience would believe it. Same goes for the baseless claim she made on Netflix about cops taking Teresa's chapstick from her apartment to plant her DNA on the bullet. No mention of it in her legal briefs.

Planting never interests courts, so it is kept to the rhetoric.
The dna on the bullet was planted, all but the blind see it.
This does not make Avery innocent, it may be noble cause corruption, but it sure as hell was planted.

[Chris_Halkides]

"The prosecution put a forensic anthropologist on the stand who, it became clear, had been told by the prosecution before she began her assessment what answer she was supposed to give--that the bones hadn't been moved. And, of course, that was the opinion she ultimately gave in her testimony. However, on cross-examination, the defense was able to show not only that her opinion differed from that of the defense's expert witness, but that her opinion had no basis in science and, even worse, contradicted common sense. The forensic anthropologist ultimately seemed to back off from her opinion on cross-examination, admitting, once its fallacies were exposed, that she couldn't really give an opinion either way as to whether the bones had been moved." (p. 102, Blind Justice, by Mark Godsey). The author is a former prosecutor.

[JTF]

Similar to Errol Morris, Godsey is far better at his chosen profession than he is as an author. Rather than examine the bone fragments in person, defense expert Scott Fairgrieve curiously chose to rely on photographs and written reports of the bone fragments found in Avery's fire pit. His tepid response to the expansive landscape of Leslie Eisenberg's testimony was that it was possible that the bones were transported to Avery's burn pit from another location.

[Chris_Halkides]

""They said, 'So you didn't actually see the remains' — which is quite true — I saw all the photographs and all the documentation and everything that was disclosed by them, which is supposed to be a complete record. And I said, 'No, I didn't get a chance to go to the scene ... the scene had been so destroyed [by investigators] by the time I would've been there it just — there was no point," said Fairgrieve." Link1.

"Earlier that year, he had published a book entitled “Forensic Cremation Analysis” that was published by CRC Press in the United States....“There is a process to follow,” he said. “It's much like digging an archaeological site. It, in fact, uses many of the same techniques. But in this case those techniques were not used."" Link2

Chapter 28 in Jerry Buting's book, The Illusion of Justice, deals with the bones.

[Chris_Halkides]

"“You couldn’t tell that she was only burned in the pit location,” Dr. Fairgrieve said. “A conclusion was rendered because the majority of her remains were found there, but it wasn’t a reasonable fact from this case. There were several investigative missteps...There were many forms of evidence that wouldn’t have made it in a courtroom in Canada but did in Wisconsin. There were big problems.”” link3

[JTF]

Godsey and Buting certainly have the right to accept the better without the bitter, but it is clear that the analysis (e.g., Eisenberg, Pevytoe) of the bones/debris in Avery's burn pit was exhaustive. I'm assuming that Fairgrieve stayed clear of the fact that the bones/portions of the victim's clothing were melted and/or intertwined with debris found in Avery's burn pit. If he had looked at this issue, I would bet the farm that the author of “Forensic Cremation Analysis," would agree with the conclusions (e.g., bones, clothing, debris were burned at the same time) put forth by Pevytoe.

[Chris_Halkides]

Jerry Buting wrote, “Whether due to deliberate choice, unwarranted certainty, recklessness, incompetence, or indifference, none of the accepted scientific procedures for collecting burnt remains were followed. And once again, Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Office deputies and officers were at the center of the action.”

He continued, “The crime scene was handled in a shockingly cavalier fashion. No one took any pictures or made videotape of the contents of the burn pit…Dr. Leslie Eisenberg…was not summoned before the scene was irretrievably altered and crucial evidence lost.” This assessment is corroborated by an email from a state forensic scientist, John Ertl, as well as Dr. Fairgrieve’s remarks in the links previously given.

He also wrote [Summarizing Dr. Fairgrieve’s testimony] “If history were a guide, Steven Avery’s backyard was not where Teresa Halbach was cremated.”

From what I can gather Dr. Eisenberg gave an opinion on the cause of death that simply does not follow from the evidence. Her opinion on the primary site was rebutted by someone with at least equal and possibly greater professional expertise, who drew upon empirical knowledge to buttress his testimony. BTW Dr. Fairgrieve had never testified for the defense prior to the Avery case but had testified for the prosecution.

One cannot go back in time and undo the damage of a mismanaged crime scene. This alone limits what the prosecution can assert. If Diogenes with his lamp can find one piece of evidence in this case that is utterly untainted by incompetence or conflict of interest or both, he is skillful indeed.

[Chris_Halkides]

Jonathan Mignealt wrote, "He bases that opinion on how police handled the site of the remains — poorly, said Fairgrieve. So poorly, he said it was impossible to determine with certainty where Halbach's remains were cremated.

“There is a process to follow,” he said. “It's much like digging an archaeological site. It, in fact, uses many of the same techniques. But in this case those techniques were not used.

“In the time I've been working with police in Ontario, I certainly have never seen a site handled like that. I've never come across anything where a scene has been handled like that."" Link

[Chris_Halkides]

All quotes from Jerry Buting's book, The Illusion of Justice.

"Thus nudged, the FBI lab came up with results with only days to go before the end of the trial. Its report on the results was very a brief and conclusory summary that was misleading in crucial ways."

"Even though I was able to expose significant holes and floats in both LeBeau's opinion and the newly created FBI testing protocol, Judge Willis denied our motion to exclude Lebeau's testimony and ruled that all of it could be presented to the jury. (Wisconsin's law changed a few years later and the FBI test may not have been admissible under current requirements)"

"...but the machinery had proven the limits of its power only with laboratory samples--pure quantities of EDTA, precisely known and fed into the device--and not with bloodstains first dabbed up from the dashboard of a RAV4 by a wet cotton swab and then diluted further in a solution before being run through the machine, all after an unknown period in her car, exposed to the elements of late October and early November Wisconsin weather."

Taking into account the very quick turn-around between when the testing was requested and when the tests were performed, I consider it a virtual impossibility that the testing was sent out to a peer-reviewed journal before being presented. Given this and the FBI's dismal record in compositional bullet lead analysis, it should not have been heard by the jury.

"In Front of the jury the following day, LeBeau was assured and confident when he was being questioned by the prosecution, and then contentious, even argumentative, when I was examining him."

The demeanor of a forensic expert witness is not supposed to change depending upon who is doing the questioning. He or she is supposed to be an educator, not an advocate.

"I asked her [Janine Arvizu] what she thought about LeBeau's opinion that, by testing three stains, he could determine with confidence whether any of the other staines in the RAV4 did or did not have the preservative...'I'm in the business of analytical chemistry, and we're not in the business of just making guesses about what might be in samples,' Arvizu replied."

[Chris_Halkides]

From Mark Godsey's book Blind Justice.

The FBI originally said it would take months to run such a test, because these tests had been abandoned years earlier due to concerns about their reliability, and thus a new testing mechanism would have to be created specifically for that case. But when the prosecution needed results immediately, the FBI was somehow miraculously able in a matter of a few weeks to run the test and get a result that favored the prosecution...The evidence submission sheet stated the purpose of the tests was o'eliminate the allegation' that the police had planted blood."

"Furthermore, the defense expert noted that the FBI's results could not be subjected to scrutiny, because the FBI had refused to turn over the details and processes of the new test it had created just for that particular case. But juries usually don't get these nuances."

[Chris_Halkides]

Here is another viewpoint: "The method does not appear to be “thrown together”, but is based on a previous method reported some years earlier (Miller et al., 1997). However, it would have been desirable if control samples absorbed to variety of absorbents (metal surfaces, wall paper, etc.) had been investigated, to demonstrate the validity and robustness of the total method."

[Essexman]

In Jerry Butings book, does he ever mention Avery telling him about blood getting stolen from his bathroom sink?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Essexman

In Jerry Butings book, does he ever mention Avery telling him about blood getting stolen from his bathroom sink?

An alternative route to the same destination, blood that looks like it is applied with an applicator rather than a bleeding thumb smudge.

[Essexman]

Originally Posted by Samson

An alternative route to the same destination, blood that looks like it is applied with an applicator rather than a bleeding thumb smudge.

That does not answer my question.

The smudges of Avery's blood in the Rav4 are very much the same as in Avery's Pontiac Grand-AM (Blood that he admits he left there)

[Chris_Halkides]

"His [Dr. Mark LeBeau's] conclusions would have been more convincing had he reached them without knowing the consequences for Avery’s case in advance. Someone at the FBI should have intervened between the police and the scientific staff, so that the questions posed for scientists could have been stated in a neutral manner that did not indicate the preferred outcome." Link