Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[CD82]

Person 5 Steven Avery
Burned a pet cat to death on a fire after first dousing it in petrol .
He chases a women down with a gun and runs her off the round , she thought he was going to kill her .....obvious lack of self control.
2 rape allegations against him from 2 separate women.
Attacked and tried to strangle his girlfriend calling her names and accusing her of all sorts .
Is the last known person to see Theresa , Theresa mentioned a previous occasion he came to the door in towel which gave her the creeps . Actually requests Theresa to call . Uses different name .....calls twice more from a blocked number and the once more after she is last seen alive from an unblocked number . Is seen at the fire and admits building the fire her remains are then found in . (Accuses cops of planting before anything is found) His gun is used in the killing .....Has a fresh deep cut on his hand that would of bled ...

that is before we look at the planting evidence

Ok, we get it....you think he's guilty!

Can we at least consider possibilities? We're sleuthing. A lot of us don't think he's necessarily innocent, just simply that a better investigation should have been done, including interviewing other potential suspects!

There were 3 or 4 other people on that property in the time she was at the home and that evening. None of them (from my recollection) were asked to provide proof of an alibi.

 

[CD82]

You are basically dictating word for word the rebuttals by sexual predator Ken Kratz.

Maybe it IS Ken Kratz.....Dun dun DUNNNNNN

 

[CoolJ]

Until more jurors come out and verify this, I am taking it w. A grain of salt. Two reasons: first degree murder is life in prison. If the jurors were trying to "send a msg to the appellate courts" (which I've never heard a jury thinking of) why not convict on the lesser charges, and throw out the first degree? A compromise verdict means little when you've convicted him on the charge carrying mandatory life. The second reason is the reasoning of sending a msg to the appellate courts- why in the world would they be thinking of appellate courts when the decision is in their hands? No need to send a msg to an appellate court if you find him not guilty.

If juror misconduct is proven, however, he has a great case for a new trial, and absolutely deserves it (IMO)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because, as two jurors said, they were in fear for their lives!! The jury was tainted with people that had serious conflicts of interest. To me, and the way I know this world to work, that means they were planted to make sure the right verdict was had. Easier to convince someone to find SA guilty if you tell them he will be able to appeal. Especially when it means saving your own behind.

Flabbergasted that there are many who still don't see what went on here.

 

[Safeguard]

You are basically dictating word for word the rebuttals by sexual predator Ken Kratz.

The "God Complex" that an alarming number of sheeple...er... I mean... "people" have for those in positions of authority is disturbing to say the least. This is why criminal misconduct gets to hide behind the bullet proof veneer of "mistakes" and the excuse that the system is, "imperfect". (Notice no move to correct those imperfections though!)

 

[keeponsearching]

I don't think she was killed in the garage or the house. It is to bad that they never really looked to see where it happen. Maybe in some woods nearby. I don't know who killed Teresa but I think it is someone who lives there. I think things were planted. It is really shocking the car and key were wiped clean of prints, but with SA dna... Even if blood was transfered, would there be some type of foreign material, from a qtip? Maybe I just think science could figure this out.

 

[stephsb]

Person 5 Steven Avery
Burned a pet cat to death on a fire after first dousing it in petrol .
He chases a women down with a gun and runs her off the round , she thought he was going to kill her .....obvious lack of self control.
2 rape allegations against him from 2 separate women.
Attacked and tried to strangle his girlfriend calling her names and accusing her of all sorts .
Is the last known person to see Theresa , Theresa mentioned a previous occasion he came to the door in towel which gave her the creeps . Actually requests Theresa to call . Uses different name .....calls twice more from a blocked number and the once more after she is last seen alive from an unblocked number . Is seen at the fire and admits building the fire her remains are then found in . (Accuses cops of planting before anything is found) His gun is used in the killing .....Has a fresh deep cut on his hand that would of bled ...

that is before we look at the planting evidence

Never have I said Steven shouldn't be considered a suspect. I've gotten plenty of criticism on here for that belief. Avery absolutely should have been investigated, just like these 4. That's the problem. Investigators are giving CA inside information on the investigation against Steven. CA is a sex offender, domestic abuser, has a history of aggressive behavior w. Women at the junkyard, has no alibi, knew Teresa was going to be on the property, and is closest in proximity to the location of her car. Steven's fiancée was afraid of him, he had shown up in Steven's house in the middle of the night, threatened Steven w. A shotgun...why is this person not considered just as much of a suspect? It's ridiculous.

As for the cat, I agree it's disturbing, I have said that on here over and over. But ST punched an 11 year old kid and had repeated assault charges. CA forcibly raped his wife and had domestic abuse charges. EA sexually assaulted his daughters. All of these are violent behaviors that should make them great suspects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stephsb]

Concrete source for SA's "drawing" other than hearsay?

I believe the restraint items being found there was proven to be false? Anybody have that info at hand?

Restraints were found in the home as stated in Brendan's criminal complaint


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

This "making a murder bandwagon" everyone speaks of is very annoying. First of all, the documentary doesn't make any claims with regards to SA's guilt or innocence. They are showing us the corruption that went on to get the guilty verdict in both cases. This isn't about guilt or innocence. It's about corruption and the apparent ease with which LE and government officials can put anyone they want away for life.
Apparently there are some who either
1) can't see it (don't believe people in positions of trust and authority can be corrupt)
2) don't care (SA is substandard human and belongs in jail)

If it's not about guilt or innocence then why would anyone have a problem with someone questioning any number of details about the case, that don't support Avery's innocence ?

I think your 1&2 are not consistent with what most think - bandwagoneers or not.

#1 - I think that most believe that the trial was unfair and wouldn't be surprised if evidence was planted.

#2 - If someone just believes #2 -- what reason is there to question anything ?


I think everyone gets the point of the film, but I think it's a quite logical that the audience's impression of Avery's guilt/innocence is paramount to getting a desired emotional response.

You can make a point about corruption without misrepresenting how blood gets transferred into a vial, but instead present it as a smoking gun.
You can make a point about corruption and note what brendan told his mother about cleaning a avery's garage floor that night.
You can make a point about corruption and note that avery had called teresa several times the day of the murder and specifically requested her with the name B. Janda.
You can make a point about corruption and not snip out conversations barb had with brendan that seem to suggest Avery had molested brendan and others in the famliy.
You can make a point about corruption and not mention the answering machine message on barb's phone that says she wasn't coming to the property unless contacted first.


None of these amount to a smoking gun or proof of guilt. But if your goal is to make it seem crazy that anyone would take more than a second to evaluate whether avery is guilty or not, because that would lessen the emotional reaction, it's a damn good reason to leave it out.

But what is going on right now on this forum, is that people are evaluating the case itself -- not the point of the documentary. So when people arrive who have no idea that any of those things I noted above, do they have a fully informed perspective on the case itself ? imo, no.

Majority of people here aren't debating whether law enforcement and the system are corrupt or not. They are here debating the evidence of the case itself.

Or am I missing something ?

 

[LunaticFringe]

The key.That damn key!

Has anyone from Teresa's family or friends/roommate ever said that was the actual key that she used for her car?Did she have a separate set for other keys like for her home?

In one of shadowwraith's posts..there was an article that said that the key had fallen on the floor after investigators had shuffled through some books on the nightstand.

The damned blessed key is so confusing!No DNA on it from Teresa.Could it have been a spare key hidden somewhere in the RAV4 and Steven found it?
I am going to dream about that key tonight people!

 

[stephsb]

Because, as two jurors said, they were in fear for their lives!! The jury was tainted with people that had serious conflicts of interest. To me, and the way I know this world to work, that means they were planted to make sure the right verdict was had. Easier to convince someone to find SA guilty if you tell them he will be able to appeal. Especially when it means saving your own behind.

Flabbergasted that there are many who still don't see what went on here.

The defense has a say in who is struck from the jury, they didn't strike the jurors w. The conflicts of interest. The defense is given peremptory strikes. This juror had ten years to come forward w. His allegations, I'm sure Steven's attorneys would have been overjoyed to hear from him. It could have been done anonymously, as it was this time. Until more jurors come forward and say they were in "fear for their lives" I am going to question his story.

As for the conflict of interest, during James Holmes' trial (the Aurora shooter) there was a member of the jury who was a victim of the Columbine shootings. That has not yet been determined to be a conflict of interest, and the defense allowed the juror on. Was this juror "planted" by the prosecution? It's difficult to plant jurors when you have the other side watching you, unless of course the defense attorneys are incompetent.

As I said, if other jurors verify the misconduct, absolutely Steven should get a new trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NothingClever]

The key.That damn key!

Has anyone from Teresa's family or friends/roommate ever said that was the actual key that she used for her car?Did she have a separate set for other keys like for her home?

In one of shadowwraith's posts..there was an article that said that the key had fallen on the floor after investigators had shuffled through some books on the nightstand.

The damned blessed key is so confusing!No DNA on it from Teresa.Could it have been a spare key hidden somewhere in the RAV4 and Steven found it?
I am going to dream about that key tonight people!

BBM - It could have been. But it also could have been wiped by LE and then rubbed on SA's toothbrush to make sure his DNA was on there for sure. The key bugs me too. Doesn't add up and too many variables.

 

[CoolJ]

Maybe it IS Ken Kratz.....Dun dun DUNNNNNN

Unlikely, but I don't doubt for one second there are paid trolls scouring the various forums about this case to make sure a certain narrative stays alive. JMO

 

[stephsb]

Ok, we get it....you think he's guilty!

Can we at least consider possibilities? We're sleuthing. A lot of us don't think he's necessarily innocent, just simply that a better investigation should have been done, including interviewing other potential suspects!

There were 3 or 4 other people on that property in the time she was at the home and that evening. None of them (from my recollection) were asked to provide proof of an alibi.

Two of them provided alibis (they were mutual alibis) but no one else can verify their whereabouts or moments during the time they alibi'd each other. That was ST and BD (not Brendan) CA had no alibi, as he lived alone, and I guess LE thought that was good enough. EA's alibi was I believe that he was hunting rabbits on the golf cart with Fabian, but don't quote me on that. I know at some point during Oct 31, he had been doing that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CD82]

I saw a VERY interesting theory on twitter today, and since it's just a theory, I'm going to share it:
NOTE- I DID NOT MAKE THIS THEORY, I SAW IT. I found it interesting because the spare key is explained a bit, and it might make a little bit of sense.
This was the post (pardon the grammar):

The three Amigos like stealthy ninjas search the car yard looking for their beloved Teresa armed with flashlights.

They embark on a journey that will change the course of history.

Why? Because they love their friend dearly and Mike is in a panic to find her, after all its his sister I would be too.
*They search going from car to car until they see it they know it.
*Mike pulls the spare key from his pocket and unlocks the door. Ryan moves the fence post and cuts his hand when helping.
*They search the car no Teresa they are really scared adrenaline pumping.

They either call or go to Manitowoc County Sheriff's office unknown to them is a 36 million dollar lawsuit.
Colborn is the one who acoompanies them to the lot half believing the story the three amigos just told him.
They get to the yard its real late maybe 2am 3am or so Colborn asks whats her plate number.
Ryan respons SWCH982 he says one sec gets his cell phone out.
Calls dispatch he is looking at the car and asks run these numbers and tell me who owns this car.
It comes back to a one Teresa Halbach she says.
He replies a 1999 Rav4 she says that's right Andy.

Andy just realizes its Steve Avery his nemesis in the lawsuit he calls James Lenk.
Andy tells him these guys just got in the car I am out here with no proper authority.
He tells the boys give me the key and speak to no one they agree he tells them its of the essence this is done right your sisters life depends on it. I will call you tonight when I have more information for you.

 

[Soulmagent]

I don't think she was killed in the garage or the house. It is to bad that they never really looked to see where it happen. Maybe in some woods nearby. I don't know who killed Teresa but I think it is someone who lives there. I think things were planted. It is really shocking the car and key were wiped clean of prints, but with SA dna... Even if blood was transfered, would there be some type of foreign material, from a qtip? Maybe I just think science could figure this out.

I just have a hard time with processing this-because if she were killed by someone who lived there ,why would they need to plant evidence ?

Why would they not have all the evidence they needed to gain a conviction without having to plant anything?
Why did the Helicopter search not reveal the car ?
Why did they not have a fire expert investigate on scene?
Why is there not blood evidence ?
Why did they not suggest she was killed in her truck?
Why did they not have ballistics?
Why did they not photograph the property from the choppers ,since they were flying over it because it was her last know location?
Why were they sitting on the bed without tyvec suits?
Why, if she wasn't shot in the garage was the bullet with her DNA found in the garage?
Why were the steel tire belts in the photo shown on TV not covered in soot?
They did show burnt wires ,but that was not tires it was a ball of wires.
Why are the bones looking like they were in an incinerator when they were not even thought there was an incinerator?

It just leads me to believe if they had to plant any evidence at all ,then SA or anyone ON the property couldn't have committed any of the crime ON the property and it HAD to have been all off site. IMO. I dunno but what is not presented looks as fishy as what is presented.

 

[CD82]

Two of them provided alibis (they were mutual alibis) but no one else can verify their whereabouts or moments during the time they alibi'd each other. That was ST and BD (not Brendan) CA had no alibi, as he lived alone, and I guess LE thought that was good enough. EA's alibi was I believe that he was hunting rabbits on the golf cart with Fabian, but don't quote me on that. I know at some point during Oct 31, he had been doing that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know who gave verbal alibis, but nobody PROVED their alibis. Nobody.

 

[CD82]

I saw a VERY interesting theory on twitter today, and since it's just a theory, I'm going to share it:
NOTE- I DID NOT MAKE THIS THEORY, I SAW IT. I found it interesting because the spare key is explained a bit, and it might make a little bit of sense.
This was the post (pardon the grammar):

The three Amigos like stealthy ninjas search the car yard looking for their beloved Teresa armed with flashlights.

They embark on a journey that will change the course of history.

Why? Because they love their friend dearly and Mike is in a panic to find her, after all its his sister I would be too.
*They search going from car to car until they see it they know it.
*Mike pulls the spare key from his pocket and unlocks the door. Ryan moves the fence post and cuts his hand when helping.
*They search the car no Teresa they are really scared adrenaline pumping.

They either call or go to Manitowoc County Sheriff's office unknown to them is a 36 million dollar lawsuit.
Colborn is the one who acoompanies them to the lot half believing the story the three amigos just told him.
They get to the yard its real late maybe 2am 3am or so Colborn asks whats her plate number.
Ryan respons SWCH982 he says one sec gets his cell phone out.
Calls dispatch he is looking at the car and asks run these numbers and tell me who owns this car.
It comes back to a one Teresa Halbach she says.
He replies a 1999 Rav4 she says that's right Andy.

Andy just realizes its Steve Avery his nemesis in the lawsuit he calls James Lenk.
Andy tells him these guys just got in the car I am out here with no proper authority.
He tells the boys give me the key and speak to no one they agree he tells them its of the essence this is done right your sisters life depends on it. I will call you tonight when I have more information for you.

This theory could also possibly explain why Teresa's DNA wasn't on the key. Maybe she gave the key to her brother or Ryan for safekeeping. I don't know. I just found it very interesting.

 

[Deeptoad]

This theory could also possibly explain why Teresa's DNA wasn't on the key. Maybe she gave the key to her brother or Ryan for safekeeping. I don't know. I just found it very interesting.

No one's DNA was on that key except Avery's. To me, that says the key was scrubbed or never used, Avery's DNA introduced and the key planted in the home. It is inconceivable that a key, used by her, would not have her DNA on it.

 

[CD82]

No one's DNA was on that key except Avery's. To me, that says the key was scrubbed or never used, Avery's DNA introduced and the key planted in the home. It is inconceivable that a key, used by her, would not have her DNA on it.

My thoughts exactly. She may have never used that key except to put it in safekeeping just in case. And when she went missing, someone went and grabbed it. Then someone scrubbed the devil out of it.

 

[CoolJ]

If it's not about guilt or innocence then why would anyone have a problem with someone questioning any number of details about the case, that don't support Avery's innocence ?

I think your 1&2 are not consistent with what most think - bandwagoneers or not.

#1 - I think that most believe that the trial was unfair and wouldn't be surprised if evidence was planted.

#2 - If someone just believes #2 -- what reason is there to question anything ?


I think everyone gets the point of the film, but I think it's a quite logical that the audience's impression of Avery's guilt/innocence is paramount to getting a desired emotional response.

You can make a point about corruption without misrepresenting how blood gets transferred into a vial, but instead present it as a smoking gun.
You can make a point about corruption and note what brendan told his mother about cleaning a avery's garage floor that night.
You can make a point about corruption and note that avery had called teresa several times the day of the murder and specifically requested her with the name B. Janda.
You can make a point about corruption and not snip out conversations barb had with brendan that seem to suggest Avery had molested brendan and others in the famliy.
You can make a point about corruption and not mention the answering machine message on barb's phone that says she wasn't coming to the property unless contacted first.


None of these amount to a smoking gun or proof of guilt. But if your goal is to make it seem crazy that anyone would take more than a second to evaluate whether avery is guilty or not, because that would lessen the emotional reaction, it's a damn good reason to leave it out.

But what is going on right now on this forum, is that people are evaluating the case itself -- not the point of the documentary. So when people arrive who have no idea that any of those things I noted above, do they have a fully informed perspective on the case itself ? imo, no.

Majority of people here aren't debating whether law enforcement and the system are corrupt or not. They are here debating the evidence of the case itself.

Or am I missing something ?

The evidence of the case is irrelevant. That can be discussed when these men get another trial. The corruption that went on, and is going on all over the world is what is important. Thankfully, people are opening their eyes and connecting the dots. How many cases of corrupt government officials and people in positions of trust and authority do there have to be before people realize that more often than not, people rise to the top by cheating, stealing, lying and bribing their way.

I want my leaders, police and politicians to be the cream of the crop. Ya know? Honest people with integrity and in their line of work to help others. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Some are going to think SA is guilty and some not. That is human nature. But as long there are serious questions regarding the investigation and trial. He should not be rotting jail. JMO