Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[TheDuchess]

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 there is no proof of that at all.

IMO

Thanks for the input who was aware of the case in real-time. I respect your opinion, and obviously mine is quite different.

That said, I think many of our issues is "reasonable doubt" and with the concept of "reasonable doubt" one must side with the defendant. I don't think the jury allowed any of the reasonable doubt which was clearly stated in what I have seen from the case, to permeate their beliefs. Plus, so much procedural stuff like the fact that Manitowoc was ever allowed anywhere near this investigation. I firmly believe that if they had stayed out of it as they should have, there would be absolutely no case.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Agree, OBE. I'm reading thru the original thread, although the links aren't available anymore, there's some pretty compelling stuff there.

 

[Soulmagent]

OBE,

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.)

Have you seen the Guy Heinze Jr documentary? I have not been able to see it ,I even called BBC to see if I could order it on DVD no luck.

I have always had serious questions about his guilt. I expect we will hear more about his case in the future .

In SA's case it is pretty much accepted across the board the key was planted as they have photo's of the search of the exact spot without the key ,which appeared on the 7th search of the property. They also have video that highlights shoes were a of particular interest to LE officers. The tampered with evidence package from 1985 ,was opened by an unknown person . That is fact . The blood from the vile is not proven but the evidence is leading us to assume someone thought about it.

 

[NothingClever]

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.
IMO

I could have sworn that this happened while officers were still being deposed for the lawsuit? And the documentary had in it where it was pretty much stopped when SA was arrested. He had to settle for 400K to pay for a lawyer. So he hadn't 'won' before the murder....or maybe I misunderstood those parts of the documentary.

 

[NothingClever]

Thanks for the input who was aware of the case in real-time. I respect your opinion, and obviously mine is quite different.

That said, I think many of our issues is "reasonable doubt" and with the concept of "reasonable doubt" one must side with the defendant. I don't think the jury allowed any of the reasonable doubt which was clearly stated in what I have seen from the case, to permeate their beliefs. Plus, so much procedural stuff like the fact that Manitowoc was ever allowed anywhere near this investigation. I firmly believe that if they had stayed out of it as they should have, there would be absolutely no case.

BBM - Yes! That's where I'm at. I watched this past weekend and while I'm undecided on SA's guilt I do think there was entirely too much reasonable doubt to ignore. Things just don't make sense.

I'm pro LE but I also am not an idiot. I know that there are people in those positions who can and do abuse their 'power'. Things happen. And even if SA is guilty of this murder I still think LE planted some evidence to ensure a conviction. There are just way too many questions left up in the air for me and I would have had to side with reasonable doubt and the defense.

 

[Zuri]

I want nothing more than justice for Teresa, as this case is really about her. I just don't know if the actual people responsible for her death are behind bars. I would like to think I could see through a biased or non biased documentary and make up my own mind. I haven't seen the evidence in totality.

However, from what I have seen, there appears to be a lot of questionable manipulation by LE and attorneys. If the verdict was rendered under duress or the confessions coerced, or misconduct of any kind, this case needs to be looked at most closely.

Len Kachinsky is on TMZ now and Harvey is grilling him really well. Len, IMO, is smarmy at minimum. Harvey is making excellent points.

 

[keeponsearching]

I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this documentary, because usually these shows swing to one side and that is just something I am not interested in. I caved and watched it in two days.

I did not follow Teresa's case when it first happened.

Kratz gave me chills. I was really uncomfortable every time he talked. I ended up googling him by episode 8.

My opinion is I don't think Brendan had anything to do with any of this.

I'll need to look at all the evidence for SA. I know things were left out. I am not sure why he would scattered her bones all over his burn pit area, that seems really stupid. I don't know why he would hide the car in the junk yard.

Why wasn't there dna of Teresa on her key, that is just odd. Only blood found in the car, no finger prints. I wonder why no hair or fibers of anything never showed up.

I realize that 4 days went by, so plenty of time for clean up. One thing in the video above, with Nancy Grace, SA mention seeing lights in the junk yard, that was Thursday, which was the third. Would SA know about Colburn calling in the plate numbers on the 3rd when SA made this comment about seeing the lights?


It is hard to find the rest of the evidence, MAM is the only thing coming up on the net..

 

[Tawny]

The documentary seemed to me to be more about the absolutely appalling and shameful actions (and inactions) by Manitowoc police (and others tbh) than SA's guilt or innocence. It is as plain as day that they either at worst planted evidence or at best did not allow for a fair investigation by ignoring honest leads and testimony by witnesses, not only in the murder trial but in the rape trial as well. They made every effort to make sure this guy they didn't like was behind bars, rather than ferreting out the actual truth. I don't know how anyone can watch the show and read court files and not see that.

 

[keeponsearching]

I want nothing more than justice for Teresa, as this case is really about her. I just don't know if the actual people responsible for her death are behind bars. I would like to think I could see through a biased or non biased documentary and make up my own mind. I haven't seen the evidence in totality.

However, from what I have seen, there appears to be a lot of questionable manipulation by LE and attorneys. If the verdict was rendered under duress or the confessions coerced, or misconduct of any kind, this case needs to be looked at most closely.

Len Kachinsky is on TMZ now and Harvey is grilling him really well. Len, IMO, is smarmy at minimum. Harvey is making excellent points.

Len just loves the press. He seem very giddy when he mention all the press calls he got in the doc. Doesn't surprise me one bit to see him back on tv. I felt embarrassed for him, does he not realize how unprofessional he came across.

 

[Tawny]

Len just loves the press. He seem very giddy when he mention all the press calls he got in the doc. Doesn't surprise me one bit to see him back on tv. I felt embarrassed for him, does he not realize how unprofessional he came across.

His stupid grin every time the press was filming him during the trial seemed SUPER unprofessional! Your client is on trial for MURDER and you're smiling like a freakin' idiot??

 

[SCHMAE]

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/nancy-grace/articles/2016/01/05/nancy-grace-questions-steven-avery

Just found this original video of Nancy Grace "grilling" SA. I really wouldn't call it a grilling and his answers seemed quite believable.

SA says he and his brother had to go somewhere with the flatbed to pick up some wood . That's the first I heard of that for that Thursday night . Wonder if whoever they got wood from was interviewed for the timeline or an alibi.

 

[paris_paris]

Something I forgot to mention in my last post.

I believe Brendan's story about going home and playing video games. With that said, none of the other stuff he said was true. There's a good chance that Teresa was not bound to a bed. Not raped. Not stabbed or had her throat slit. She was shot. That's all the evidence shows. It's said that her family thinks that all those other horrific things happened to her.

 

[shadowraiths]

Still trying to read through the documents. In the meantime, I have a couple of questions.

1. The prosecution puts forward Brendan's coerced testimony that lands him with life in prison. One of the pertinent things that the media focuses upon is that SA apparently previously purchased handcuffs & shackles from a sex store. These are not raised in SA's trial, as his defense gets the sexual charges dismissed. They are, however raised in Brendan's trial. Besides the lack of blood on SA's bed... that is, if Haibach's throat was cut, there should have been tons of blood on that bed. Yet, from SA's trial, there was no blood found on the bed. In fact, from SA's trial, the *ONLY* dna found was on the (imnsho) planted bullet. So, my question is, why didn't Brendan's atty raise the lack of blood, as well as lack of DNA evidence on those cuffs/shackles, to poke holes in the DA's case. A case, btw, which rested on a coerced confession of a mentally challenged boy?

2. The defense puts forward in SA's case, a question. Why would SA use Haibach's car to allegedly move her? I guess I'm confused. Did they find evidence that Halbach had been transported in her car, after her murder? If so, I agree with him, and imho, if so, that would seem to be a huge smoking gun pointing to a setup.

Anyway, wanted to throw these questions out there before I forget them. Back to reading court docs.

 

[Lamima]

Still trying to read through the documents. In the meantime, I have a couple of questions.

1. The prosecution puts forward Brendan's coerced testimony that lands him with life in prison. One of the pertinent things that the media focuses upon is that SA apparently previously purchased handcuffs & shackles from a sex store. These are not raised in SA's trial, as his defense gets the sexual charges dismissed. They are, however raised in Brendan's trial. Besides the lack of blood on SA's bed... that is, if Haibach's throat was cut, there should have been tons of blood on that bed. Yet, from SA's trial, there was no blood found on the bed. In fact, from SA's trial, the *ONLY* dna found was on the (imnsho) planted bullet. So, my question is, why didn't Brendan's atty raise the lack of blood, as well as lack of DNA evidence on those cuffs/shackles, to poke holes in the DA's case. A case, btw, which rested on a coerced confession of a mentally challenged boy?

2. The defense puts forward in SA's case, a question. Why would SA use Haibach's car to allegedly move her? I guess I'm confused. Did they find evidence that Halbach had been transported in her car, after her murder? If so, I agree with him, and imho, if so, that would seem to be a huge smoking gun pointing to a setup.

Anyway, wanted to throw these questions out there before I forget them. Back to reading court docs.

AT some point it was mentioned they found her blood in what appeared to be hair smears in the back of the SUV.

 

[Tawny]

Still trying to read through the documents. In the meantime, I have a couple of questions.

1. The prosecution puts forward Brendan's coerced testimony that lands him with life in prison. One of the pertinent things that the media focuses upon is that SA apparently previously purchased handcuffs & shackles from a sex store. These are not raised in SA's trial, as his defense gets the sexual charges dismissed. They are, however raised in Brendan's trial. Besides the lack of blood on SA's bed... that is, if Haibach's throat was cut, there should have been tons of blood on that bed. Yet, from SA's trial, there was no blood found on the bed. In fact, from SA's trial, the *ONLY* dna found was on the (imnsho) planted bullet. So, my question is, why didn't Brendan's atty raise the lack of blood, as well as lack of DNA evidence on those cuffs/shackles, to poke holes in the DA's case. A case, btw, which rested on a coerced confession of a mentally challenged boy?

2. The defense puts forward in SA's case, a question. Why would SA use Haibach's car to allegedly move her? I guess I'm confused. Did they find evidence that Halbach had been transported in her car, after her murder? If so, I agree with him, and imho, if so, that would seem to be a huge smoking gun pointing to a setup.

Anyway, wanted to throw these questions out there before I forget them. Back to reading court docs.

Re: 2. There was a substantial amount of her blood in the cargo hold of her car (the trunk area).

 

[NothingClever]

Still trying to read through the documents. In the meantime, I have a couple of questions.

2. The defense puts forward in SA's case, a question. Why would SA use Haibach's car to allegedly move her? I guess I'm confused. Did they find evidence that Halbach had been transported in her car, after her murder? If so, I agree with him, and imho, if so, that would seem to be a huge smoking gun pointing to a setup.

They found TH's blood in the Rav4 that would be consistent with the marks your hair would leave if it had blood in it. I'm guessing that's where the moving of her body comes in. That and some of her burned bones were found off-site in a quarry. Which is one of the big issues for me. I get that SA isn't all that smart but why would he burn her body off of their property and then bring bones back to the burn pit right outside his house? I haven't seen a good theory yet as to why someone would do that.

 

[Zuri]

Still trying to read through the documents. In the meantime, I have a couple of questions.

1. The prosecution puts forward Brendan's coerced testimony that lands him with life in prison. One of the pertinent things that the media focuses upon is that SA apparently previously purchased handcuffs & shackles from a sex store. These are not raised in SA's trial, as his defense gets the sexual charges dismissed. They are, however raised in Brendan's trial. Besides the lack of blood on SA's bed... that is, if Haibach's throat was cut, there should have been tons of blood on that bed. Yet, from SA's trial, there was no blood found on the bed. In fact, from SA's trial, the *ONLY* dna found was on the (imnsho) planted bullet. So, my question is, why didn't Brendan's atty raise the lack of blood, as well as lack of DNA evidence on those cuffs/shackles, to poke holes in the DA's case. A case, btw, which rested on a coerced confession of a mentally challenged boy?

2. The defense puts forward in SA's case, a question. Why would SA use Haibach's car to allegedly move her? I guess I'm confused. Did they find evidence that Halbach had been transported in her car, after her murder? If so, I agree with him, and imho, if so, that would seem to be a huge smoking gun pointing to a setup.

Anyway, wanted to throw these questions out there before I forget them. Back to reading court docs.

AT some point it was mentioned they found her blood in what appeared to be hair smears in the back of the SUV.

Re: 2. There was a substantial amount of her blood in the cargo hold of her car (the trunk area).

I was just thinking this very same thing. The blood in the back of her car made me wonder if her murder took place elsewhere as I viewed the documentary. That and the bones.

I don't want to be gruesome about this so plz stop here if you don't want to read the rest.

The number of people on that property would have smelled burning flesh. It is distinctive. The stepdad said there was a huge bonfire. My kids have made huge bonfires and they have to use dead tree limbs like a teepee, not a small burn barrel. I didn't understand that part as the stepdad said it was as high as the garage roof and someone else testified it was small.

Do I have this right? Or no?

 

[Tawny]

I was just thinking this very same thing. The blood in the back of her car made me wonder if her murder took place elsewhere as I viewed the documentary. That and the bones.

I don't want to be gruesome about this so plz stop here if you don't want to read the rest.

The number of people on that property would have smelled burning flesh. It is distinctive. The stepdad said there was a huge bonfire. My kids have made huge bonfires and they have to use dead tree limbs like a teepee, not a small burn barrel. I didn't understand that part as the stepdad said it was as high as the garage roof and someone else testified it was small.

Do I have this right? Or no?

ST (Scott Tadych, the step dad) testified the FIRST time that it was small "maybe 3 feet high" but at the trial, testified it was as high as the garage roof.

And yes, flesh would have a distinct smell. Not to be gruesome myself, but it smells like... well... cooking meat... hot dogs. With a side of... sorry... coppery smelling blood. I know that's horrible to think about

ETA: Not to mention, we all know what the smell of burning hair is like.

 

[stephsb]

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

There was no evidence against Dassey except that confession. Say what you want about Avery, but I also followed both these cases closely, and w.o that false confession, they wouldn't have even been able to bring charges against Dassey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AZYaYa]

I wish I could see her phone records for the weeks before and week after her disappearance. If someone was truly calling her excessively (and there's no reason to doubt the co-worker who mentioned in, in my mind), at what time did they stop calling? I noticed the ex-BF, who'd earlier said he was trying to get in touch with her that day to make plans to join her at a bar, where she was supposedly meeting with her family (sorry, I don't know where I saw this), didn't call her anytime after 2:30 at least - and yet he'd said he hadn't heard back from her about that night. So why wouldn't he have called to get in touch with her about that night?
Why wouldn't anyone have called when she didn't show up for her plans that night?

I just don't understand why there was such a delay in reporting her missing. (And do we know she even died on Oct. 31? How do we know it wasn't the 1st of November or beyond?) I would like to see the initial police report of her being reported missing and who was the last known friend/family member to see her or speak with her or try to call her. I'd like to see all the phone records of the family & ex & roommate, actually. It's not that I consider any of them the likely killer, but I just think seeing who they all called when would be pretty interesting.