Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[Sleuther87]

Rightio.

So planted evidence, inconsistent witness testimony and questionable police behaviour is all perfectly fine with you?

See...it's not fine with me. If I wouldn't want it to happen to me or my family, then I'd have to be stunningly hypocritical to not give a stuff when it happens to someone else.

Unless we all buy into, and support, the principles of justice for everyone...then we have no such thing as justice. And that's a scary thought.

There is no proof of planted evidence. The only thing that's still suspicious to me is the key because of the lack of Teresa's DNA.

I see no reason at all to believe the blood was planted, and if his blood is there, he did it imo.

Regarding the inconsistent testimony, if you mean Brendan's testimony about Steven doing it, that was all thrown out of the Avery case.

A Netflix show has swayed people to believe certain things, but with each new piece of information I see that was misrepresented or wasn't included in the doc, I'm more and more content that those who served on the jury and saw 100 times more than we did got it right in the Avery case. The Dassey case is more complicated imo.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

From my read of the Milwaukee Magazine article, it sounds like the Avery family were regularly involved in illegal and violent behavior (i.e., animal torture, domestic violence, pedophilia and other sex offenses).

What is especially notable with respect to SA, and could arguably could go to "prior bad acts" (i.e., supports the "pattern of behavior" that would be relevant to the prosecution's case) is this bit (also from the Milwaukee Magazine article):

The bad blood thickened between Avery and the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department in January 1985, when Avery ran a deputy’s wife off the road at gunpoint and tried to force her into his car.​

Also, I will admit, I was unsurprised with regard to the charge/conviction. That is, in light of the fact that this man continued to engage in questionable, and arguably, illegal behavior, after he was released, makes that whole "leap" to murder quite plausible. Based upon his criminal record alone, this is clearly a guy who has serious impulse control issues.

That being said, with regard to the the innocence vs guilty bit? I absolutely do not believe it went down as the DA described. Esp considering their scenario was based solely upon the coerced confession of his mentally challenged cousin (who, btw, was the only Avery that did not have a criminal record).

After reading more documents, and I still have tons left to read, I am of the opinion that he killed her elsewhere. That would explain her blood in the trunk of her car. That is, that he brought her body back to the burn pit. I also think that he is simply not that bright, and that he really thought he would get away with it, bc he could just claim they framed him, like they did in 85.

Btw, I would argue that the '85 case was less about framing, and more about tunnel vision. Which unsurprising when you're dealing with a chronic offender. As for his latest conviction? Well, I re-watched the episode where he is arrested for Haibach's murder, mainly so I could focus upon him, what he was saying, body language, voice inflection, etcetera. And, I definitely think he was playing the victim card. And, I definitely think he is guilty. I also think LE may very well have planted the key and bullet. Not to frame him, rather to support the scenario from the coerced confession.

And, the sad thing is? Imho, there was plenty of physical, albeit, circumstantial evidence to have convicted him, without dragging his mentally challenged nephew into that whole morass.

I like your assessment and you could be correct especially with regards to TH being murdered somewhere else, SA being the guilty party.

The only thing I'd like to point out with regards to the deputy's wife, Sandra Morris, she is SA's cousin. By SA's account, she was spreading rumours of his unsavoury habits like exposing his privates when she drove past him on one occasion. SA did pull a gun on her and demanded she stop the gossip. This definitely was over the top and does reveal a hair trigger temper.

SA did set a cat alight which is horrendous and cruel, and he served 10 months in prison.

SA comes from a poor family, is uneducated and is pretty simple minded, definitely not of good character, but neither is Ken Kratz. He was charged with harassing a 25 yr old woman while prosecuting her ex bf for abuse back in 2009, he also harassed social workers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-da-ken-kratzs-law-license-suspended-in-sexting-scandal/

I could see KK fairing better if he were accused of murder over someone like SA. Imo, it shouldn't be this way.

 

[NothingClever]

Thanks this is interesting. I wonder if anyone can think of another murder case where the boyfriend/ex-boyfriend who was still apparently involved in her life - was not considered AT ALL as a suspect? From day one it was SA and only SA all day every day -

Sixty-four percent of the women killed every year are murdered by family members or lovers. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/domestic-violence-murder-stats

BBM - And that is another reason something stinks to high heaven. It's the same as the first case in 1985. They wanted to pin that on SA and they didn't bother investigating any one else even though they had reason to do so. This time around it's the same thing. There are other people that should have been looked in to but once again they just set their sights on SA right off the bat.

 

[NothingClever]

1.Guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt)
2.Guilty (Not Proven)
3.Not Guilty (reasonable doubt)
4.Innocent (Beyond a reasonable doubt)

I'm at #3 - I don't know if he's completely innocent of the crime but there is way too much reasonable doubt in my mind for a conviction. Too many questions...too many things that don't add up and piss poor investigation.

 

[CD82]

I'm at #3 - I don't know if he's completely innocent of the crime but there is way too much reasonable doubt in my mind for a conviction. Too many questions...too many things that don't add up and piss poor investigation.

I'm with you. I'm about to watch the last episode, and between the show and all of the transcripts, I cannot sway my opinion one way or another now. At first I was screaming he was innocent, but now I'm just not so sure.

At the very least he deserves a retrial based on many factors of the case itself- LE's antics, compromised DNA, and lack of consideration for other suspects. JMO

 

[loveisthemovement]

Random question cause I am only ep 7 but have this question burning: If Brenda's story is to believed and TH was retrained in any way, wouldn't the bedposts have marks? Or have I watched too much CSI?

 

[Deeptoad]

Random question cause I am only ep 7 but have this question burning: If Brenda's story is too believed and TH was retrained in any way, wouldn't the bedposts have marks? Or have I watched too much CSI?

I think it's a pretty good question. I would think that, if someone were handcuffed to a bedpost and struggling like hell for their life, the cuffs would have scuffed up the wood a bit. Just an opinion, mind you. It seems that they never really treated the bed as though it was part of a crime scene, however. There are file images of cops actually sitting on the bed, taking notes. Also, the room was not a source of any DNA profiles.

 

[keeponsearching]

I'm not going to say SA is not guilty, I haven't even begun to reach my verdict. I have questions swirling in my head, and I have the answers but they just do not seem to fit. If we took out the people who were not suppose to insert themselves in this case, Lenk and Colburn, things would be quite different. They should of backed off, let the other LE do the job. Now we have to ask why they inserted themselves in this case when they should of known better.

In MAM they showed a clip of SA talking to a news lady at night time, at his trailer. I think this was the day Teresa was called in to be missing. I can't remember but did anyone see his hand? I wondered if it was bandaged?

 

[keeponsearching]

I think if the bed really was where they believe it all happen, it would of been removed. Or was it? If not then this shows they didn't believe Brendans story but wanted him to source SA, all they wanted was SA.. I think if they would of played by the rules, the case would of eventually been solved.

edit to add, I can't remember if the bed was removed....

 

[CoolJ]

There is no proof of planted evidence. The only thing that's still suspicious to me is the key because of the lack of Teresa's DNA.

I see no reason at all to believe the blood was planted, and if his blood is there, he did it imo.

Regarding the inconsistent testimony, if you mean Brendan's testimony about Steven doing it, that was all thrown out of the Avery case.

A Netflix show has swayed people to believe certain things, but with each new piece of information I see that was misrepresented or wasn't included in the doc, I'm more and more content that those who served on the jury and saw 100 times more than we did got it right in the Avery case. The Dassey case is more complicated imo.

You'd be an easy target for a murder frame job if you really believe what you are saying, JMO

Eta - in case you haven't been keeping up with current events.. Reports are leaking out now that this jury that saw 100times more than us, was tainted. 2, possibly 3 jurors have come forward to tell us about manipulation in deliberations AND at least 2 jurors had serious conflicts of interest and should not have been on the jury. This case was a frame job involving corruption from many levels of LE and government. That I am 100% sure of.

 

[CoolJ]

I think it's a pretty good question. I would think that, if someone were handcuffed to a bedpost and struggling like hell for their life, the cuffs would have scuffed up the wood a bit. Just an opinion, mind you. It seems that they never really treated the bed as though it was part of a crime scene, however. There are file images of cops actually sitting on the bed, taking notes. Also, the room was not a source of any DNA profiles.

I'd be willing to bet the bed didn't even have bedposts. This whole case is a fabrication. I question if a murder even took place.

 

[CD82]

I'd be willing to bet the bed didn't even have bedposts. This whole case is a fabrication. I question if a murder even took place.

What? No murder.....so Teresa set herself on fire? Please explain.

 

[TheDuchess]

Bottom line to me:

In this country, it should never be allowed that if a police department is responsible for the wrongful conviction of a person, that same police department should be nowhere near this person ever again. This case should have been immediately turned over to another department EXCLUSIVELY and absolutely NO members of the original police department should be allowed NEAR the persons home.

If the first case that sent him away for 18 years was originally proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then this subsequent case should be proven beyond ANY and EVERY reasonable doubt. If the burden of proof in the original case then the burden should be 99.99999% in the subsequent case. What kind of a country do we live in where this can possibly happen?

 

[LemonMousse]

There is no proof of planted evidence. The only thing that's still suspicious to me is the key because of the lack of Teresa's DNA.

I see no reason at all to believe the blood was planted, and if his blood is there, he did it imo.

Regarding the inconsistent testimony, if you mean Brendan's testimony about Steven doing it, that was all thrown out of the Avery case.

A Netflix show has swayed people to believe certain things, but with each new piece of information I see that was misrepresented or wasn't included in the doc, I'm more and more content that those who served on the jury and saw 100 times more than we did got it right in the Avery case. The Dassey case is more complicated imo.

Inconsistent testimony = bus driver/propane truck driver vs Bobby Dassey

You see no reason to believe the blood was planted? None at all? Not even the clear tampering with the boxes?

And you are willing to accept that the key is suspicious, but unable to understand that ANY suspicious evidence provided by the police must necessarily call into question the rest of it?

And I am tired of this superior attitude from some people that they are too clever to have been swayed by the documentary...the rest of us just foolish, manipulated sheep.

I also see the evidence that was left out and it is almost entirely conjecture....and unconvincing conjecture at that.

 

[loveisthemovement]

I think if the bed really was where they believe it all happen, it would of been removed. Or was it? If not then this shows they didn't believe Brendans story but wanted him to source SA, all they wanted was SA.. I think if they would of played by the rules, the case would of eventually been solved.

edit to add, I can't remember if the bed was removed....

Well, the bed wouldn't have even come into play until March, when Brendan was interrogated.

 

[CD82]

Bottom line to me:

In this country, it should never be allowed that if a police department is responsible for the wrongful conviction of a person, that same police department should be nowhere near this person ever again. This case should have been immediately turned over to another department EXCLUSIVELY and absolutely NO members of the original police department should be allowed NEAR the persons home.

If the first case that sent him away for 18 years was originally proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then this subsequent case should be proven beyond ANY and EVERY reasonable doubt. If the burden of proof in the original case then the burden should be 99.99999% in the subsequent case. What kind of a country do we live in where this can possibly happen?

I sometimes feel like, when watching LE address the public and all, that LE feels the residents of this county are stupid and/or uneducated, and they're far superior. That they can dupe the public into feeling a certain way if that's what they want, because they think stupid people will believe anything. That's just a vibe I get.

 

[Sleuther87]

Inconsistent testimony = bus driver/propane truck driver vs Bobby Dassey

I don't see those inconsistencies having a big impact on the case at all.

You see no reason to believe the blood was planted? None at all? Not even the clear tampering with the boxes?

Yes, the box was opened/poorly taped. That is the extent of that.

And you are willing to accept that the key is suspicious, but unable to understand that ANY suspicious evidence provided by the police must necessarily call into question the rest of it?

I've called into question the rest of it, and haven't seen any reason to believe the rest of it was planted. I'm sure the jury did the same.

And I am tired of this superior attitude from some people that they are too clever to have been swayed by the documentary...the rest of us just foolish, manipulated sheep.

I also see the evidence that was left out and it is almost entirely conjecture....and unconvincing conjecture at that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

[angiefly2]

The way you worded this has me thinking. If the cops ' believed' every word Brendan said and he has said SA molested him, why didn't they pursue that line of questioning farther and charge SA with molesting a child ? He was a very minor child at the time. :thinking:

I mean they want to get SA so badly and a child relative of his is in their office saying he's been molested! Why not charge SA with that ? Why just ignore it ? The county IGNORED an outcry from a victim of sexual assault in their presence on camera and nothing was ever said about it again by LE .

Because they wanted/needed Brendan to be viewed as an adult IMHO to advance their case against SA.

 

[Dogface]

141: Suspicious explanation of movements on Oct 31. Claimed to have gone hunting, said ST would say they passed on the highway- that he would be able to verify "precisely the time" but did not explain why that time would be so important. Stated he took a shower before going hunting, Barb Janda stated he took one when returning home.
142: Physical examination found scratches on his back, he told LE they came from a puppy. The physician said the scratches looked recent, and were unlikely to be more than a week old.

RSBM.

I know a lot of hunters. I don't know any hunters who shower BEFORE going hunting. My hinky meter is buzzing.

 

[mcwhit]

I'm with you. I'm about to watch the last episode, and between the show and all of the transcripts, I cannot sway my opinion one way or another now. At first I was screaming he was innocent, but now I'm just not so sure.

At the very least he deserves a retrial based on many factors of the case itself- LE's antics, compromised DNA, and lack of consideration for other suspects. JMO

I am also at #3.