Watching the series now. First episode is free on youtube.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=34M2zdLc-2U

Arfcom Gen Disc Thread.

Fuck that psycho.

Just remember that this is a movie made by a person who has an agenda, it's not an unbiased documentary or anything like that.  My sister was on the jury and there is absolutely no doubt in her mind that he is guilty and is where he belongs.  Actually she would prefer that he be executed but that's not an option in Wisconsin.

For the rape or the murder?  He's back where he belongs it seems, now...

+1!

V
OUT

Shortly after Steven Avery's release for the rape of Penny Beernsten, I spoke with a prisoner who had lived with him for a number of years.  He told me that Steven Avery was among the sickest individuals that he had encountered in a prison full of very sick individuals.  He was amazed that Steven Avery was exonerated.  Apparently Steven Avery had all but admitted his previous crimes and would talk at length about the far more heinous crimes he fantasized about committing when he was released.  My personal suspicion is that the test that exonerated him was a false negative and that he is guilty of everything he has been accused of and then some. The fact he killed so soon after his release will likely be Governor Jim Doyle's more enduring legacy.  This "documentary" is nothing more than propaganda intended to muddy the waters to free the Democrats of their public culpability in Teresa Halbach's brutal murder.

Guilty as hell,



 

If you want to believe an entertainment show 10 years after the trial you are fools.

So she wasn't one of the seven who voted not guilty the first time they took a poll?????

No she wasn't, nor does she say that there were ever 7 that voted not guilty.

^^^^^^^^^
Sums it up perfectly.

 
I just watched this series today. The juror that was dismissed was the one giving the defense the supposed number of jurors voting guilty/not guilty. He was also giving interviews and meeting with the Averys. I suspect he was trying to keep his name in the news.

Actually the one I seen was a female who was on a local station.

 
Ah, OK.

Ah, OK.. So what's your IQ? It was on CNN with a clip from some local station..

Personally I think he did it, but they also helped the evidence along and their theory was sh!t. If he had done what they claimed her DNA would be all over br and garage....

Better a guilty man walk than a innocent go to jail... Cause next time might be you...

 
I wasn't being snarky. I was merely acknowledging your statement.

Sorry my meter is out..

 
No problem. It's hard to convey tone in this medium. I should have been more clear.

Pretty much sums up my feelings. I'm not sure what the fuck a little movie has to do with an old trial about a psycho murderer.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/making-murderer-prosecutor-emails-us-9-reasons-steven-233447676.html

I agree.

I don't mean to rain on any parades here, but have any of you guys actually watched this thing, or are you just operating from memory?  I go into every documentary I watch with an assumption of extreme bias of the filmmaker, but it sure seems like the prosecutors and county PD were complete fools in the way they handled this from the absolute beginning.

Granted, I have the benefit of seeing this as an outsider, considering I didn't live in WI at the time at either trial was going on.  Either way, something nasty happened, but I'm somewhat surprised that we're saying Avery did it without a doubt, considering the evidence showing the severe improprieties in the way the local LE handled these two cases.

If we would use the same standard of evidence a court would use, almost every point in The Prosecutor's "10 Reasons", amount to nothing more than hearsay, opinion, or supposition.

I could take all 10 points one by one...  But let me take just one of these for now...  

Avery's DNA in the form of blood was found scattered in a few places inside Halbach's car.  DNA was also found on the hood latch of the Toyota and the key.  

Rebuttal:

** They did not find one of Avery's fingerprints - either inside or on the car.  So, if he's wearing gloves, how did he leave the blood?  If he left the blood, how did he not leave fingerprints?   How did he open a hood latch and leave DNA, but not even a partial fingerprint?  Why open the hood latch, yet leave no prints or other DNA inside the engine compartment? OR on top of the hood from when he closed it?    

** They found ONLY Avery's DNA on the key.  There was no other DNA on the key.  How is that possible?  Halbach touched that key several times per day for years.  There wasn't one bit of her sweat, skin oils, or skin cells in the grooves and crevice's on the key?

** What about the broken evidence seal on the outside box and inside kit that held Avery's blood sample from 1985 - and the hypodermic needle hole in the rubber top -  something the DNA lab said they never do?   Only LE had access to that.  

** How did Officer Lenk find the Toyota key, lying on the mobile home floor in plain view?  All the other police experts, forensic teams, and criminologists had already searched the small trailer 7 times previous - and never saw it sitting there in the open?  (BTW - Lenk was a defendant in Avery's pending lawsuit.)  In addition, the Sheriffs Dept had turned the investigation over to another jurisdiction.  So what was he doing there?  

Anyway you slice it, these items lead up to reasonable doubt.  

Also, consider...  The Insurer for the Sheriffs dept looked at the Wisconsin AG's report, and concluded that they would not be providing coverage for Avery's lawsuit.  (Insurance covers negligence and accidental acts.  Insurance excludes intentional acts.)  This means that the Defendants would be held personally liable for the 36 million if Avery won.  How's that for some motive?  

I don't say that Avery didn't kill her.  I don't know.  But theses facts would be concerning to me as a juror.

Former Wisconsin prosecutor Ken Kratz's 9 Reasons Steven Avery Is Guilty:

Examples for you to consider:

1. Avery’s past incident with a cat was not “goofing around”.  He soaked his cat in gasoline or oil, and put it on a fire to watch it suffer.

2.  Avery targeted Teresa.  On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.”  On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel.  She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously).  Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.

3. Teresa’s phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel.  Why did the documentary not tell the viewers the contents of her purse were in his burn barrel, just north of the front door of his trailer?

4.  While in prison, Avery told another inmate of his intent to build a “torture chamber” so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released.  He even drew a diagram.  Another  inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to “burn it”…heat destroys DNA.

5. The victim’s bones in the firepit were “intertwined” with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn, as described by Dassey.  That WAS where her bones were burned!  Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere (never identified as Teresa’s) were from this murder was NEVER established.

6.  Also found in the fire pit was Teresa’s tooth (ID’d through dental records), a rivet from the “Daisy Fuentes” jeans she was wearing that day, and the tools used by Avery to chop up her bones during the fire.

7.  Phone records show 3 calls from Avery to Teresa’s cell phone on Oct 31.  One at 2:24, and one at 2:35–both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it him…both placed before she arrives.  Then one last call at 4:35 pm, without the *67 feature.  Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up (his original defense), so tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call.  She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call.

8. Avery’s DNA (not blood) was on the victim’s hood latch (under her hood in her hidden SUV).  The SUV was at the crime lab since 11/5…how did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car?  Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat to “plant” under the hood?

9. Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery’s rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since 11/6…if the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from HIS gun?  This rifle, hanging over Aver’s bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa’s DNA on it.  The bullet had to be fired BEFORE 11/5—did the cops borrow his gun, fire a bullet, recover the bullet before planting the SUV, then hang on to the bullet for 4 months in case they need to plant it 4 months later???

There is more of course.  But I’m not a DA anymore.  I have no duty to show what nonsense the “planting” defense is, or why the documentary makers didn’t provide these uncontested facts to the audience.  You see, these facts are inconsistent with the claim that these men were framed—you don’t want to muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy movie with what actually happened, and certainly not provide the audience with the EVIDENCE the jury considered to reject that claim.

Finally, I engaged in deplorable behavior, sending suggestive text messages to a crime victim in Oct 2009.  I reported myself to the OLR.  My law license was thereafter suspended for 4 months.  I have withstood a boat-load of other consequences as a result of that behavior, including loss of my prosecution career.  However, I’ve enjoyed sobriety from prescription drug use for over 5 years now, and refuse to be defined by that dark time of my life.  All of this occurred years after the Avery case was concluded…I’m unclear why the defense-created documentary chose to include this unpleasantness in this movie, especially if the filmmakers had no agenda to cast me as a villain.  I am not a victim in that whole texting scandal—then again, it’s exceedingly unfair to use that to characterize me as morally unfit.

To identify Lt. Lenk, Sgt. Colburn and myself as being “responsible” for the framing and knowing false murder conviction of Steven Avery is irresponsible, and inconsistent with a consideration of all the evidence presented.  Netflix should either provide an opportunity for rebuttal, or alert the viewers that this series was produced by and FOR the defense of Steven Avery, and contains only the opinion and theory of the defense team.

Thanks for your consideration.

I don't know anything about this that I didn't see in the Netflix series. The series was VERY well put together. At the end of it, I'm no fan of Steven Avery. If you lived next to him he would present as a perpetual problem. I have no doubt that he's a scumbag. Breaking into a closed tavern is forgivable, but cruelty to animals is a major character defect that causes me to consider him as capable of anything.


Why wasn't the key discovered in the seven previous searches of the premises?
Calumet County Sheriff on the stand: "Because it wasn't there." Said in the loud, direct, staring, unwavering, accusing manner that clearly communicates that he's pissed off and has no problem pointing his finger at the guilty parties. This was the single most-damning thing in the entire series; for me. The Calumet county sheriff was fingering Colborn and Lenk from the stand. He was angry with them. It was completely and utterly clear that the men processing the scene believed that it had been compromised by them.
It's a single wide trailer. You think they didn't look behind the night stand the first seven passes through?

Why were you calling in the plates of a missing person's car two days before it was found?
"Well one of the other county's sheriffs must have asked my partner, who must have asked me, and then I called it in, because ......."
My two year old tells better lies.

There is NO WAY that she was raped and murdered in the filthy trash-laden trailer or garage and then evidence technicians turned up zero physical evidence. No way at all. It is not a credible postulation.

Stalker-ish ex boyfriend who guesses passwords and accesses ex-girlfriend's cell phone records online doesn't get interviewed as a suspect. Male roommate doesn't get interviewed as a potential suspect. Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych are each others' alibi as they were separately "going hunting" and they don't get interviewed as suspects.

"We live on the property, were around at the time, and when the murder happened we state that we were just disappearing into the woods where no one can verify anything." Oh okay, can you tell us how tall the flames were on Avery's bon fire?



It is entirely possible that Steven Avery is the murderer, but there is no way it happened according to the state's narrative, and that entire dept looks guilty as anything when any of them are being deposed or questioned on the stand.

I don't know how I would vote if put in the position of that jury. I'm sure they heard a lot more than what the Netflix series covered. The series obviously cherry picked the good stuff.  Steven wasn't exactly someone I would want around my neighborhood but I wouldn't want those detectives or sheriffs working in my city either.
I thought it was odd that Teresa's key ONLY had Steven's DNA on it. There was no blood splatter in his room or the garage. Steven perfectly scrubbed both of those places but not her car? He's an expert at tearing down cars, why didn't he? Why was there a pinhole in the vile of blood inside the opened evidence box? There were a lot of unanswered questions which made it good drama for TV.

I don't care what other evidence is presented.  If there is reasonable doubt, you are ethically required to vote "not guilty".  After watching a very biased documentary that has shown nothing but questionable evidence and investigatory tactics, how can you do anything but acquit?

Lastly...  Avery very well could have killed Halbach.  I admit that he could be guilty.  BUT, there were massive amounts of Reasonable Doubt to be had in this trial.  And regardless of whether he did it, that doubt was enough to find him not guilty.  Remember...  The first jury vote had more than half the people voting "not guilty".  They've found that some jury members had connections with Manitowoc County employees.

I've been questioning why they didn't look at the ex-boyfriend from the beginning. I even mentioned it in another thread.

He's an "ex" yet was more zealous in putting together a search team and printing up and placing flyers than her own brother. He claims he wasn't on the property (not sure if I should believe him) but it was his group that actually found her car.

He seemed a bit too eager. I'm curious to know how their relationship ended. Maybe he's just a decent guy and they had an amicable breakup, I don't know, but I find it hard to believe police never considered questioning him or looking into why he was so determined to find her car up there.

It looks bad for Avery but the whole thing looks like amateur hour as far as LEO is concerned.

It was pretty bad when they were facing the original lawsuit, but if he ever gets exonerated I don't see it happening without a couple of cops and the prosecutor going to jail along with a lawsuit of EPIC proportions.

Prosecutor Ken Kratz has been openly criticizing the film makers. I find their response interesting:

"This is coming from a man who argued in closing arguments that reasonable doubts are for innocent people. This is coming from a man who said, “So what if the key was planted?” This is coming from a man who was forced out of office for admittedly sending sexually suggestive text messages to a domestic-violence victim whose case he was prosecuting."

Should a sexual predator be prosecuting a sexual predator?

Texts alone don't necessarily make him a predator, but using his position of authority to exploit and target a domestic-violence victim with unwanted sexual advances does in my eyes.

YOu weren't there, you don't know what evidence was all presented and how it was presented.  The movie (it's not a documentary) was so one sided that it is rediculous.  My sister was on the jury, she said there was no doubt he is guilty.  She also said there was no issues with the jurors being presured into voting one way or the other.

Like I've said before if you knew nothing about Hitler I could make a movie that would make you believe he was a choir boy.

There were way too many people involved in way too many aspects of this case for me to believe a conspiracy took place. Reading the court of appeals decision shine a lot of light on the matter. As for the hole in the blood vile, I would have to think that is from filling the vile. Were mistakes made, probably. Is there a conspiracy, I doubt it. Did the tv show accomplish their agenda, yup. I liken this to the gun grabbing mindset. The media and people with a specific agenda put out information that is skewed in their favor and cherry pick facts that are placed out of context.

There is no allegation that large numbers of people were involved in a giant conspiracy. As soon as the "conspiracy' word is thrown out people stop thinking, but criminals conspire to commit crimes every day. Saying "conspiracy" is to pretend that the allegations are so preposterous that they aren't worth being considered.  That isn't so.

Allegation 1: Lentz and Colburn tampered with evidence.
Allegation 2: Fassbender and Weigert interviewed a mentally handicapped child that generated an impossible "confession." All interviews are coercive by nature. He made up a story and they coached him through it. Confessions need to be verified, and his is contradicted by the physical evidence.
Allegation 3: The investigation was conducted incompetently by not interviewing, validating the stories of, and screening out all of the males in the victim's life or who had access to the scene where her remains were found.
Allegation 4: The state was in possession of forensic evidence that disproves their proposed narrative of the crime and the Dassey 'confession', but still presented them. Used known-false information to secure convictions. Ken Kratz lied to the jury.

These are simple, separate, and common place allegations. People make mistakes, manipulate evidence, and lie every day. They are all strongly substantiated and cannot be dismissed without being addressed.


That said, Steven Avery interacted with Theresa very shortly before her death, has a documented history or running a woman off the road and pointing a rifle at her, and doused a cat with accelerant before he threw it on a fire. The elements of the crime are established in this character and history. He is definitely a good suspect, and very well may be guilty.

Rebuttal of a Murderer

I got through 3 pages of that.  Its just someone trying  to explain away the defense arguments.  Nothing that really refutes anything from an evidetiary standpoint.