Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/entertain...-364234661.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CHBrand

"The two filmmakers, Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, said on NBC's "Today" Tuesday that the juror believes Avery, who was convicted of murdering a 25-year-old woman in 2005, was not proven guilty in his trial. The juror, who voted to convict Avery, only did so out of fear for his/her personal safety, Demos said.
‘Making a Murderer’ Petitions Near 200K Signatures
"(The juror believed) Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion it should take place far away from Wisconsin," Ricciardi said."


Source: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nati...avery-not-guilty-364234661.html#ixzz3wOPqf4iC
Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook
 
More from the article:

he juror who contacted the documentary's filmmakers also said that the verdict reached in Avery's trial was a "compromise."
"The juror contacted us directly ... and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said.
9-Year-Old Boy Mauled to Death by 3 Pit Bulls
The juror told the filmmakers that they hoped a split verdict would send a message to the appellate courts to give Avery a new trial.
"That was sort of their plan but obviously it didn’t work out that way," Ricciardi said.


Source: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nati...avery-not-guilty-364234661.html#ixzz3wOQBoHNV
Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook
 
CD82 said:
It's crazy the difference between that thread and this one. The posts in that thread all thought he was guilty.
Click to expand...

Two things I find interesting:

1) The public reaction to the media before (let him rot in prison!) compared to now (free him!). We may have been a little younger back in 2005 but why did perceptions change? Is it the way the facts are portrayed in the media? In what light they are portrayed?

2) The media in the documentary (I am in Ep 5) almost seem to be on the side of Avery. Video of their news conferences is almost funny. When the one reporter asks SA's lawyer "What the hell happened?" she was questioning the testimony of a prosecution witness, as if it was laughable. I wonder why the media coverage seemed to direct the audience in the other direction.
 
loveisthemovement said:
Two things I find interesting:

1) The public reaction to the media before (let him rot in prison!) compared to now (free him!). We may have been a little younger back in 2005 but why did perceptions change? Is it the way the facts are portrayed in the media? In what light they are portrayed?

2) The media in the documentary (I am in Ep 5) almost seem to be on the side of Avery. Video of their news conferences is almost funny. When the one reporter asks SA's lawyer "What the hell happened?" she was questioning the testimony of a prosecution witness, as if it was laughable. I wonder why the media coverage seemed to direct the audience in the other direction.
Click to expand...

I live in Northern Illinois and I never heard about this case, ever. And I have been a WS member for a very long time and a court tv member prior to that. Obviously, there was not a lot of coverage of the case outside of northern Wisconsin. The media coverage in Wisconsin was far more intense and concentrated primarily on that community, who was well aware of the Stevens family and all of the gossip and rumors surrounding them. I would be willing to bet there are people who still believe he committed the first rape even though he was fully exonerated by DNA evidence. (There was a cop on the stand that basically admitted he still believed he was guilty!)

That said, there was also a tremendous amount of pressure on the cops and the county to make this lawsuit go away. Miraculously, it did. Now, if someone still feels that SA could have and would have committed this vile crime during the process of getting $36 million (possibly) and was capable of leaving no blood or DNA evidence in his home or garage of the victim, but managed to keep the dirt and filth that was all around, then fine. Take it back to a new process leaving out the obviously tainted evidence obtained by false confessions,suspiciously obtained evidence and the involvement of Manitowoc who had already been established as a conflict of interest from the beginning.
 
loveisthemovement said:
Two things I find interesting:

1) The public reaction to the media before (let him rot in prison!) compared to now (free him!). We may have been a little younger back in 2005 but why did perceptions change? Is it the way the facts are portrayed in the media? In what light they are portrayed?

2) The media in the documentary (I am in Ep 5) almost seem to be on the side of Avery. Video of their news conferences is almost funny. When the one reporter asks SA's lawyer "What the hell happened?" she was questioning the testimony of a prosecution witness, as if it was laughable. I wonder why the media coverage seemed to direct the audience in the other direction.
Click to expand...

Also, as far as #2 I don't believe the media pointed anyone in one direction other than their obvious disbelief that any of this was actually happening. I would imagine that they were all shocked to hear a not-guilty verdict.
 
TheDuchess said:
More from the article:

he juror who contacted the documentary's filmmakers also said that the verdict reached in Avery's trial was a "compromise."
"The juror contacted us directly ... and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said.
9-Year-Old Boy Mauled to Death by 3 Pit Bulls
The juror told the filmmakers that they hoped a split verdict would send a message to the appellate courts to give Avery a new trial.
"That was sort of their plan but obviously it didn’t work out that way," Ricciardi said.

Source: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nati...avery-not-guilty-364234661.html#ixzz3wOQBoHNV
Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook
Click to expand...

If what this juror is saying is true, Avery should get a new trial based on this alone. Forget all the other reasons, this isn't what you're supposed to do as a juror. I wonder if any of the jurors brought this behavior to the attention of the judge.
 
3202d77f.gif

Submitted 11 days ago by Fred_J_Walsh

[...]

I've now been granted access to the trial transcripts of the complete Dassey trial, Days 1 through 9. [Edited to Add: My source for the docs had been using a publicly accessible online service called PACER.]

Day 1 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/c9ow4lwzec007mi/dassey_4_16_07.pdf?dl=0
Day 2 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/s4jyyith9lwpstx/dassey_4_17_07.pdf?dl=0
Day 3 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/mrlpwg8i7ijgl40/dassey_4_18_07.pdf?dl=0
Day 4 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/sd61m0fi8scvalq/dassey_4_19_07.pdf?dl=0
Day 5 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/rgzsfpayoeexuc9/dassey_4_20_07.pdf?dl=0
Day 6 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihqb4nsa96b5grd/dassey_4_21_07.pdf?dl=0
Day 7 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/mghew07qa5c9gry/dassey_4_23_07.pdf?dl=0
Day 8 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/ae9ms03070j5423/dassey_4_24_07.pdf?dl=0
Day 9 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/wh68grcgefr6vo2/dassey_4_25_07.pdf?dl=0

Additionally here is the transcript of O'Kelly speaking with Brendan Dassey (05-12-06)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zwkqpsq58wio3cm/dassey_okelly_5_12_06.pdf?dl=0

and a transcript of a phonecall from Brendan Dassey to his Mom Barb Janda (05-13-06)https://www.dropbox.com/s/ubsv7f29l7j4e1b/dassey_mom_5_13_06.pdf?dl=0​

EYESR_zps1dff9e53.gif

Reddit

Comment: The links are all pointing to dropbox, if you want to archive these documents, the download links allow you to copy the document to your dropbox account. Pacer is a great resource.
 
MyTinkieGirl said:
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail...ffset=1&mode=details&submit=View+Case+Detailshow many lawyers he went thru...
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean: Seems to me that he had a few teams of lawyers. I believe the first 2 were likely his court appointed ones (Loy & Johnson) and then of course Buting and Strang. Then after that 4 more over the course of 8 years of appeals, all of which I believe were court appointed, if I am not mistaken. I don't think that is quite surprising.

Loy, Erik R.
11-15-2005
02-24-2006
Johnson, Craig Robert
11-18-2005
02-24-2006
Strang, Dean A.
02-24-2006
08-03-2007
Buting, Jerome F
03-10-2006
08-03-2007
Hagopian, Suzanne Lois
08-03-2007
04-12-2013
Askins, Martha
04-16-2008
04-12-2013
Hoff, Philip L
07-12-2013
08-20-2014
Aquino, Thomas Brady
08-20-2014
09-21-2015
 
TheDuchess said:
I live in Northern Illinois and I never heard about this case, ever. And I have been a WS member for a very long time and a court tv member prior to that. Obviously, there was not a lot of coverage of the case outside of northern Wisconsin. The media coverage in Wisconsin was far more intense and concentrated primarily on that community, who was well aware of the Stevens family and all of the gossip and rumors surrounding them. I would be willing to bet there are people who still believe he committed the first rape even though he was fully exonerated by DNA evidence. (There was a cop on the stand that basically admitted he still believed he was guilty!)

That said, there was also a tremendous amount of pressure on the cops and the county to make this lawsuit go away. Miraculously, it did. Now, if someone still feels that SA could have and would have committed this vile crime during the process of getting $36 million (possibly) and was capable of leaving no blood or DNA evidence in his home or garage of the victim, but managed to keep the dirt and filth that was all around, then fine. Take it back to a new process leaving out the obviously tainted evidence obtained by false confessions,suspiciously obtained evidence and the involvement of Manitowoc who had already been established as a conflict of interest from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Just want to point out Manitowoc County is in southeast, not northern Wisconsin. Manitowoc is about 75-80 minutes north of Milwaukee. This case was covered extensively by the Journal Sentinel out of Milwaukee, the Sheboygan Press, the Post Crescent (Appleton), herald times (manitowoc) and the Green Bay press-gazette. I'm sure it was covered in other cities in Wisconsin (Madison papers have done a lot of coverage lately, not sure if they did at the time) but not as much as it was by the press in southeastern Wisconsin. I've wondered why they moved it to Calumet, and not to a county further removed from the media coverage. Getting it out of Southeastern WI should have been key to ensure a fair trial.

Edit: there are people, at least in the Sheboygan area, who believe he was guilty of the original rape. I've only spoke to one personally, her family grew up knowing the Avery's. She moved to Sheboygan County from Manitowoc County after the Halbach murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SCHMAE said:
So is it your ' expert opinion' ( i know you're not a verified insider on blood, but you may want to consider doing so ) that the blood in the rav 4 on the dash board was NOT several years old ? TIA
Click to expand...

The blood by the ignition has bothered me too. Arterial blood is bright red, venous blood is darker red. When exposed to air, venous blood darkens more. I looked at the photo of SA left hand healing wound which is on the inner aspect of the finger. The ignition is on the right. If that wound was responsible for the blood by the ignition, there should have been SA DNA all around it as in skin cells. I don't recall hearing that was found. Also, the ignition being on the right would more than likely be used by the right hand.

I have seen many wounds in the ER with dried venous blood. Most of those wounds were pretty fresh. By looking at the blood by the ignition, I couldn't have told whether the source was "recent" or "old". The smear itself didn't look like it was from an actively bleeding person. It looked like it came from a q tip to me.

Years ago, lab techs would do a smear on a glass slide and look at the blood smear under the microscope to count white cells. That is what that blood smear on the ignition looks like to me. Turning the key is active and the blood just doesn't look like it dripped from a swift action.

Was there blood found on the key in SA bedroom?

NB: I am not a blood expert. I have only drawn blood and started IVs for years. And cleaned many wounds.
 
Zuri said:
The blood by the ignition has bothered me too. Arterial blood is bright red, venous blood is darker red. When exposed to air, venous blood darkens more. I looked at the photo of SA left hand healing wound which is on the inner aspect of the finger. The ignition is on the right. If that wound was responsible for the blood by the ignition, there should have been SA DNA all around it as in skin cells. I don't recall hearing that was found. Also, the ignition being on the right would more than likely be used by the right hand.

I have seen many wounds in the ER with dried venous blood. Most of those wounds were pretty fresh. By looking at the blood by the ignition, I couldn't have told whether the source was "recent" or "old". The smear itself didn't look like it was from an actively bleeding person. It looked like it came from a q tip to me.

Years ago, lab techs would do a smear on a glass slide and look at the blood smear under the microscope to count white cells. That is what that blood smear on the ignition looks like to me. Turning the key is active and the blood just doesn't look like it dripped from a swift action.

Was there blood found on the key in SA bedroom?

NB: I am not a blood expert. I have only drawn blood and started IVs for years. And cleaned many wounds.
Click to expand...


I hadn't even considered the location of that blood smear and the fact the cut was on his LEFT hand. Why was there NO blood on the steering wheel?
 
stephsb said:
Just want to point out Manitowoc County is in southeast, not northern Wisconsin. Manitowoc is about 75-80 minutes north of Milwaukee. This case was covered extensively by the Journal Sentinel out of Milwaukee, the Sheboygan Press, the Post Crescent (Appleton), herald times (manitowoc) and the Green Bay press-gazette. I'm sure it was covered in other cities in Wisconsin (Madison papers have done a lot of coverage lately, not sure if they did at the time) but not as much as it was by the press in southeastern Wisconsin. I've wondered why they moved it to Calumet, and not to a county further removed from the media coverage. Getting it out of Southeastern WI should have been key to ensure a fair trial.

Edit: there are people, at least in the Sheboygan area, who believe he was guilty of the original rape. I've only spoke to one personally, her family grew up knowing the Avery's. She moved to Sheboygan County from Manitowoc County after the Halbach murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

LOL - thanks so much for the clarification. I guess when you are from Illinois, anything north of Milwaukee is "northern Wisconsin." LOL!

But yes, I think they should have moved the trial much farther away. As I said, I am pretty up to date on these types of cases and don't recall it being covered much in our local news here in Chicago and certainly never saw it covered nationally. I did see an excerpt from Nancy Grace in there somewhere, but don't recall her discussing it specifically.
 
With Manitowoc being one of those super rural counties, there was no way he was going to get a fair trial after those prosecutors told that gruesome horror story to the press. They KNEW the press would take that and run with it, painting a picture of absolute mayhem and terror.
 
Tawny said:
With Manitowoc being one of those super rural counties, there was no way he was going to get a fair trial after those prosecutors told that gruesome horror story to the press. They KNEW the press would take that and run with it, painting a picture of absolute mayhem and terror.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You can't unring a bell.
 
I probably have a minority opinion on this case, but I really detest manipulated films which are labeled a 'documentary.' They are usually as fair minded as the ones Michael Moore puts out. Documentaries imo seem to always be agenda driven.

I remember this horrific case when it happened. I kept up with it from the minute we learned TH was missing, through them finding her burned remains. Then the arrest of Avery and his nephew. Once it went to trial I kept up with the case closely like so many others.

I do not believe any of the evidence was planted. To me there was just too many things for LE to have a chance to plant.

I believe what happened is once Avery won his lawsuit he thought he was untouchable. After then he stupidly thought no matter what he did in that pile of junk place where he lived.... LE would leave him alone... thinking they would be too afraid to arrest him again.

The evidence against them was overwhelming imo. She had even told someone that when she had come there two weeks prior he opened the door with nothing on but a towel iirc. What business man does that to a young woman he doesn't even know? TH went there to do a photoshoot for an ad. He was the one who summoned her there and she was never seen alive again.

I remember them doing one by a filmmaker from the UK on Guy Heinz Jr. who murdered 8 family members promoting his innocence. It too was one sided and never amounted to anything. GHJrs still remains in prison (LWOP.)

I believe this film was released now because the time is ripe. In the last couple of years or so police officers and law officials have all been painted with the same wide brush as if they all are guilty when they aren't. But to many who may already have deep biases against police officers or DAs in general will probably believe this. Others who never even heard of the case before now nor kept up with all of the evidence entered at trial probably also believe Avery is innocent.

I do not think this film will get him a new trial. But if it does, I don't have a problem with that, and I believe he will be convicted again. Its easy to say something was planted but for that to be true it must be proven. So far I have seen no proof of that at all.

IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 97 more.
Total: 307 (members: 98, guests: 209)

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
209
Total visitors
307
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,708
Messages
18,244,397
Members
234,434
Latest member
ProfKim
Back
Top