Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[stephsb]

I am going to preface this with the fact that I don't feel confident in my knowledge of luminol and all the chemicals that can be used to remove blood or make them undetectable to a luminol test. I also don't feel I understand what can make blood unusable for DNA testing. I am making assumptions based on what I read in the dassey trial transcripts :

If you have the dassey trial docs go to the 4/17 doc and start on page 160

I am assuming that this same guy testified in Avery trial, because Dean Strang made a comment on Kelly Files that is related to this testimony, in regards to deer blood.

I do understand that there are two different types of bleach, and my assumption is that chlorine bleach was used because brendan's pants were dyed.

The other kind of bleach, I know doesn't dye clothing. Does that bleach make DNA unusable ? Does that bleach eliminate a potential luminol hit ? I don't know, but not sure it matters as it seems to be accepted by the defense that there was a luminol hit. It also seems to be accepted that chlorine bleach would dye brendan's pants.

In the avery trial, maybe this other type of bleach comes up, but in the dassey trial, I didn't see mention of it. They don't even make a distinction between types of bleach in this document, which is why I assume it is irrelevant.


But, am open to hearing why it would be relevant to a positive luminol hit.

If another type of bleach was used, like oxygen bleach, the blood evidence could have been completely removed. There would have been no luminol hit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheDuchess]

Quick question. Anyone know what has become of Steves ex and kids? I wonder if the kids were there when we saw him released the first time and that maybe the baby that he didn't know who it was may have been a grandchild? I wonder if the kids came back to him when he was released and then maybe distanced themselves after? Or if he has had any contact whatsoever since they were kids?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

If chlorine bleach was used, they should have still been able to get a positive result from the hemoglobin- not a DNA match but as I understand it, it could have been identified as human blood. In addition, if chlorine bleach was dumped on a crime scene to the extent that it splashed up and stained his clothes, that should have been enough to cause the whole area to glow. Chlorine bleach is known to contaminate crime scenes. If it had been used, there should have been arcs of wiping that would have glowed, and indicated the use of bleach, since luminol reacts w. Chlorine bleach

Also, Avery's garage was concrete, and cleaning blood out of concrete is different than cleaning blood out of a shirt or carpet. I read an article about this on gsa.gov, I can try and link when I get home. bleach is not one of the agents used to get blood out of concrete, and certainly gasoline and paint thinner wouldn't be, which Brendan also alleges were used. These chemicals should have been tested for, and as far as I've seen, they weren't, or weren't detected.

Like I said, I don't dispute Brendan's pants had bleach on them, but it could have come from anywhere, on any day.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, I agree completely that the bleach on his pants could have come from anywhere. But when coupled with him telling his mother where the stains came from, that's the only reason why it's in question.

So, my question is still - Did Barb lie about what brendan said ? Did Brendan lie to his mother on 10/31 ?

That's the questions we need to consider. We all understand that his pants could have been bleached at any point in time, and possibly even while trying to do his wash. I did that myself as a child.

So if we didn't have Barb and Brendan making direct reference to these pants and how they got bleached and when, we certainly wouldn't be asking ourselves these questions.

We need to keep in mind that what barb said brendan told her, was BEFORE the police ever coerced him. It was 10/31. That is very significant imo, as it distinguishes these statements from all the interviews.

 

[GigiG]

Quick question. Anyone know what has become of Steves ex and kids? I wonder if the kids were there when we saw him released the first time and that maybe the baby that he didn't know who it was may have been a grandchild? I wonder if the kids came back to him when he was released and then maybe distanced themselves after? Or if he has had any contact whatsoever since they were kids?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know, but I did find it interesting that his ex-wife married Dassey's father. That had to have contributed another dimension to already fraught family dynamics.

 

[stephsb]

Right, I agree completely that the bleach on his pants could have come from anywhere. But when coupled with him telling his mother where the stains came from, that's the only reason why it's in question.

So, my question is still - Did Barb lie about what brendan said ? Did Brendan lie to his mother on 10/31 ?

That's the question we need to consider. We all understand that his pants could have been bleached at any point in time, and possibly even while trying to do his wash. I did that myself as a child.

So if we didn't have Barb and Brendan making direct reference to these pants and how they got bleached and when, we certainly wouldn't be asking ourselves these questions.

Interesting thought on the wash, I never even considered that (I am terrified of using bleach and ruining my clothes lol)

I don't put a ton of thought into whether or not what Brendan told Barb was true, because the statement is hearsay, and therefore much less likely to be a true description of what Brendan said. I don't think we'll ever determine what Brendan told Barb. We've seen that Brendan will say pretty much anything to get out of a situation, I don't doubt he'd just tell Barb what he thinks she wants to hear so he won't get in trouble for ruining his pants. Without the context of Barb's statements, it's impossible to evaluate how useful it is, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[catswhiskers]

Quick question. Anyone know what has become of Steves ex and kids? I wonder if the kids were there when we saw him released the first time and that maybe the baby that he didn't know who it was may have been a grandchild? I wonder if the kids came back to him when he was released and then maybe distanced themselves after? Or if he has had any contact whatsoever since they were kids?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The young blond woman with glasses who was with Avery in the footage of him being released from prison is his daughter.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

Interesting thought on the wash, I never even considered that (I am terrified of using bleach and ruining my clothes lol)

I don't put a ton of thought into whether or not what Brendan told Barb was true, because the statement is hearsay, and therefore much less likely to be a true description of what Brendan said. I don't think we'll ever determine what Brendan told Barb. We've seen that Brendan will say pretty much anything to get out of a situation, I don't doubt he'd just tell Barb what he thinks she wants to hear so he won't get in trouble for ruining his pants. Without the context of Barb's statements, it's impossible to evaluate how useful it is, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. I think that is a fair explanation as well. Brendan made up a lie to appease his mother. Kids do that kind of thing.

Much the same that I agree that Kayla could have easily made up that story about what Brendan told her.

But in terms of what we can evaluate in this case, there isn't much that you couldn't create an explanation for.

I don't think of my questions as binary where I must confirm they are true or false, but rather looking at them in terms of probability and plausibility.

Spending time around Brendan and his mother and getting an idea of how often he might lie or not lie about something of this nature, then we might adjust the probability of it being accurate.

Does it sound plausible and probable to me that a mother would question her child over bleached pants ? sure.
Do I think it'd be an odd thing for her to lie about ? sure. -- why would she say she noticed this, if she didn't ?
Do I think it's plausibe that Brendan would tell his mother the truth, if he had no reason to believe it would implicate him in something ? sure.
Do I think it's plausible that Brendan would lie because he didn't want his mother to know the truth that he might have messed up with the wash and it was easier to say he was helping someone. sure

So, theres alot of plausibility in many directions. Probability is something that we can evaluate, but definitely we an gain greater confidence in probability by understanding more about these individuals. If they are a proven liar, then probability goes out the window.

None of us can prove anything. But you, me, and everyone else, use plausibility and probability as something to base our opinions on.

There's a probability and a plausibility you are using to assess brendan's statements being coerced. If someone is told details about a crime and they are cognitively disabled, there is a higher probability that they are giving a false confession. But there is no way you can prove that any given detail that he gives is true or false. You can just point out inconsistencies, which lower your assessed probability of their truthfulness.

You cannot factually prove them correct or incorrect, but just that one or the other is false if you find a inconsistency. You can't really prove which is true/false.

What you can say to a high degree of probability is that whatever he said to police, cannot be trusted as facts.

So that is the light in which I pose these questions. Nothing I say can be proven. It's about what do I believe is most probable. That is how we all will form opinions and theories.

I currently believe it is more probable that Barb told the truth about that night than lied. Lying would have protected her child.

I currently believe that brendan helped cleaned steves garage floor because he told his mother that, and he was over at steve's that day, and he had bleach on his pants. Am I positive ? nope.


But I think it's more probable than Barb lying and Brendan lying about something that on 10/31 they had no idea was of significance in a murder case. I think that it was of so little of significance in Barb's mind that on the day she was originally questioned by police when halbach was found, she likely didn't even remember it. Maybe she did remember, but chose not to say at that point. plausible as well. but I find it more probable that Barb would never have spoke of those pants and that story if she knew it would implicate her son.

 

[MaxManning]

http://fox6now.com/2016/01/07/february-27-2007-another-nephew-of-steven-avery-takes-the-stand/

wanted to post this because it contradicts Bobby Dassey's testimony in both trials.

Blaine is Bobby and Brendan's brother.

He came home that day on the bus with Brendan and states Bobby was still sleeping downstairs at that point. -- 3:45-ish is when Brendan and Blaine got home from school that day.

Yes, I find it plausible that Bobby is lying and highly probable that he is lying. His testimony is contradicted by both the bus driver and Blaine.

What is more likely ? That Blaine or bus driver have reason to lie about such a small detail regarding Bobby, or Bobby lying about where he was at the time?

Would be good to know when Blaine gave this statement originally. If it was the first week or 5-6 months later.

 

[TroyinTX]

So it is true that DNA from Avery's SWEAT was found on the latch of her RAV 4 hood and that Brendan had stated in one of his confessions that Steven had opened her hood to remove the battery cable? Also, the DNA found on the car key was also from his sweat? How can sweat be planted? Also, he made THREE phone calls to Theresa that day: two using *67 and one much later in the evening not using *67? And her palm pilot and something else (can't remember) was found in his burn barrel? Also, reading through Brendan's entire confession (the transcripts can be found online), he wasn't as "led" to answers as was insinuated and actually gave some details that turned out to be accurate on his own

I did watch the entire documentary and, yes, there are several huge issues with the evidence against him. However, I keep in mind that the documentary obviously has a bias, as they left out some important details and evidence against him. I just cannot grasp the idea that LE went through this process of framing him to the extent of planting bones in his own burn pit, etc. So what is the thought here: Police killed her? Or they happened upon her dead body and thought "oh great...an opportunity to frame Steven Avery again!" It seems to me if they wanted to shut him up, there were other ways they could have done it without going through this very risky process of framing him and his 16 year old nephew.

I honestly do not know what to think, but after looking at some of the evidence that was not presented in the documentary, I am not as quick to say he is innocent as others seem to be. The biggest thing for me in not declaring him 100% guilty though is the lack of blood evidence found on his property. Very very puzzling case. I honestly do not know what to think!

 

[MaxManning]

So it is true that DNA from Avery's SWEAT was found on the latch of her RAV 4 hood and that Brendan had stated in one of his confessions that Steven had opened her hood to remove the battery cable? Also, the DNA found on the car key was also from his sweat? How can sweat be planted? Also, he made THREE phone calls to Theresa that day: two using *67 and one much later in the evening not using *67? And her palm pilot and something else (can't remember) was found in his burn barrel? Also, reading through Brendan's entire confession (the transcripts can be found online), he wasn't as "led" to answers as was insinuated and actually gave some details that turned out to be accurate on his own

I did watch the entire documentary and, yes, there are several huge issues with the evidence against him. However, I keep in mind that the documentary obviously has a bias, as they left out some important details and evidence against him. I just cannot grasp the idea that LE went through this process of framing him to the extent of planting bones in his own burn pit, etc. So what is the thought here: Police killed her? Or they happened upon her dead body and thought "oh great...an opportunity to frame Steven Avery again!" It seems to me if they wanted to shut him up, there were other ways they could have done it without going through this very risky process of framing him and his 16 year old nephew.

I honestly do not know what to think, but after looking at some of the evidence that was not presented in the documentary, I am not as quick to say he is innocent as others seem to be. The biggest thing for me in not declaring him 100% guilty though is the lack of blood evidence found on his property. Very very puzzling case. I honestly do not know what to think!

Lots of things can be answered by reading back on this thread. But what I bolded in particular, is a very large misconception that I had myself. I am fully convinced now that they fed him just about everything. Take a look at excerpts pinpointed by users on this thread, and you can see where things are introduced before he repeats them.

I originally wasn't aware of all the interviews which is what led to much of my confusion. Also important to note that Brendan was interviewed in a police car just a day or two after the rav4 was found. That interview also had the same examples of coercion and feeding details.

 

[TroyinTX]

Thanks for the response. I'll reread some of the information and check out the past posts.

However, I am still curious as to what people who 100% believe Avery is innocent and was framed think happened? Do they believe LE actually came upon Theresa and murdered her just to frame Avery? Or they came across her body somewhere (which would require a bit of luck in terms of the "right" LE official hellbent on getting back at Avery finding her) and decided to burn her and dump the bones on his property?

 

[MaxManning]

Thanks for the response. I'll reread some of the information and check out the past posts.

However, I am still curious as to what people who 100% believe Avery is innocent and was framed think happened? Do they believe LE actually came upon Theresa and murdered her just to frame Avery? Or they came across her body somewhere (which would require a bit of luck in terms of the "right" LE official hellbent on getting back at Avery finding her) and decided to burn her and dump the bones on his property?

It's all in the thread!

There are so many facets to this case and theories.

Maybe a poll of some sort to get an indication of how people feel right now, would be interesting.

But based on my own observations of what others post, I'd say :

Most have overwhelming belief that Dassey is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

Most believe that at minimum the investigation and trial were unfair for both avery and dassey

Most are at minimum willing to entertain that evidence was planted. - ie blood, moving of bones, key, dna on rav4 latch

Some believe everything was planted

Some believe things were planted to "enhance" the case

Some believe that police could have planted everything and Avery could still be guilty

Some/Many believe that Chuck, Earl, Tadych, or Bobby could be murderer

Some believe ex boyfriend or roommate were involved in murder

EVERYONE hates Kratz

EVERYONE hates Kachinsky


I use Some, Many, Most and they are just my opinions based on posts I see. But the EVERYONEs' I use are likely factual.

EDIT - adding another.

Most believe there is more than enough reasonable doubt in Avery case , so the verdict should have been Not Guilty. -- I am one of these.

 

[TroyinTX]

It's definitely a complex and intriguing case. I am just trying to wrap my head around it and consider all possibilities. Thanks for the input though!!

 

[CoolJ]

When the investigators asked BD why he didn't say earlier about shooting TH in the head. He says "cause I couldn't think of it"
He didn't say "I forgot" or "i didn't remember" but "I couldn't think of it".

To me that is a clear indication he was either making it all up or was fed a story of what happened and they were trying to get him to regurgitate what they told him happened.

Remember, what is in the video interview and transcripts is not the totality of their conversations with him. I would guess they spent considerable time with him "off the record" in which they fed him details they wanted him to "think of" when they were "on the record"
jmo

 

[Tawny]

When the investigators asked BD why he didn't say earlier about shooting TH in the head. He says "cause I couldn't think of it"
He didn't say "I forgot" or "i didn't remember" but "I couldn't think of it".

To me that is a clear indication he was either making it all up or was fed a story of what happened and they were trying to get him to regurgitate what they told him happened.

Remember, what is in the video interview and transcripts is not the totality of their conversations with him. I would guess they spent considerable time with him "off the record" in which they fed him details they wanted him to "think of" when they were "on the record"
jmo

Biggest red flag for me regarding his interviews. That kid was guessing what they wanted to hear so he could go back to class.

 

[missy1974]

In regards to the bleached pants. I'm not sure if it's in documents or if it was rumour, but I remember reading that Scott was "concerned" about having blood on his clothes because they were washed with some of the kids' clothes. It was one of the things that he said that have made people question him. If 'anyone' in that household had blood on their clothes, it's reasonable to think they would use bleach in the wash?

The key..... take away that it was found in odd circumstances, and that it was Lenk that found it.... I find it extremely questionable that it had no other DNA on it, just SA's. That's what I can't get past.

MaxManning.... thanks for the probability and plausibility post.... next time wait until I'm on my 2nd cup of coffee though!!! :happydance: I had to read it twice, way too many big words when only on first cup ;-)

 

[Tawny]

The key..... take away that it was found in odd circumstances, and that it was Lenk that found it.... I find it extremely questionable that it had no other DNA on it, just SA's. That's what I can't get past.

RSBM Right? Where is Teresa's DNA? Did SA cleanse it and then... touch it? Why would he do that? That key being in his room makes zero sense all the way around. He could have hidden it anywhere and he puts it IN his room? K.

 

[Really?]

Thanks for the response. I'll reread some of the information and check out the past posts.

However, I am still curious as to what people who 100% believe Avery is innocent and was framed think happened? Do they believe LE actually came upon Theresa and murdered her just to frame Avery? Or they came across her body somewhere (which would require a bit of luck in terms of the "right" LE official hellbent on getting back at Avery finding her) and decided to burn her and dump the bones on his property?

I think LE killed her, sorry. Sad to think that a group could take a life rather than pay the price. So yeah, whether they knew SAs routine..by phone .....or saw TH leaving his property and followed her.

 

[MaxManning]

Ok, posting this because I think it's troubling to me about who was harassing teresa. Clearly we have phone records, why can police not pinpoint this person?

Do they know who it was and chose not to divulge ?

http://jonsjailjournal.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/making-murderer-update-7-suspicious.html

When I first saw that phone log, I asked about that pesky CPNA code. This post speculates some about the meaning.

The blog also has more articles about this case that I haven't read yet.

 

[missy1974]

It's definitely a complex and intriguing case. I am just trying to wrap my head around it and consider all possibilities. Thanks for the input though!!

Keep reading There is a ton of opinions out there, but it sounds like you are willing to look for the facts and then decide!
This site had a lot of links to transcripts/documents:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...ments_in_the_avery_and_dassey_cases/?sort=new

Also... it is Kratz that says it was sweat. That is his theory. Someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but my understand is that it was epithelial DNA, or touch DNA, which could be sweat, but it could be skin cells, saliva, etc. There has been much debate about it here and elsewhere. Could it have been planted too? Rub a toothbrush on it or an article of SA's clothing, and Strang even said recently on the Kelly File on Fox that it could have come from an officers rubber glove if they had touched anything of SA's before opening that latch. As far as I know.... they never tested the battery connectors for additional DNA, odd? maybe.