Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[TheDuchess]

Question:

Who would you rather have on your side:

 

[Tawny]

Question:

Who would you rather have on your side:



View attachment 86674

No contest. Strang and Buting.

 

[Zuri]

Duchess, what a great collage! The bottom two demonstrated despicable behavior IMO and would be the last people I would let near me or anyone I cared about. I thought the SA defense attorneys were really good and worked hard for their client.

 

[Lamima]

Question:

Who would you rather have on your side:



View attachment 86674

None of them actually.

 

[trigger]

Sorry if already posted but The Kelly File on Fox will have SA Attorney on tonight.


BBL

 

[AZYaYa]

What I don't understand is if there was his blood on/near the ignition, it implies he was doing something with the ignition, like yanking the keys from it or starting the car or something. And bleeding, enough to leave blood. Why, then, didn't those keys found in his bedroom have his blood on them?

 

[Aleph]

If you read SA's own motion from the end of the last thread that some fabulous ws'er whose name escapes me posted, you will find he seems pretty dang smart but probably most of the motion was copy / pasted from other motions he had read but I was really impressed with it knowing he had prepared it himself.

ETA Went to find the link and hats off to Rain Check for finding and posting this.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ntary-on-Steven-Avery&p=12270467#post12270467

A friend of mine pointed out that SA's prison letters to his ex-wife all had good spelling and punctuation. He even got "you're" right. He and BD purportedly have the same IQ but SA seems much more on the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aleph]

Someone on Reddit is responsible for this logic win, but it impressed me so much that I'm going to try to mention it here. Their hypothesis was as follows: if you believe that the key was planted (as I do), then SA is factually innocent. Full stop. If he were guilty of the crime, he would have had her car key. The police wouldn't have had it to plant.

The only hole I can see in that theory is if Theresa had a second set of keys. I'm not sure what the evidence is for that. Maybe it was a spare key since it was by itself on a lanyard? Does anyone know anything more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stephsb]

Someone on Reddit is responsible for this logic win, but it impressed me so much that I'm going to try to mention it here. Their hypothesis was as follows: if you believe that the key was planted (as I do), then SA is factually innocent. Full stop. If he were guilty of the crime, he would have had her car key. The police wouldn't have had it to plant.

The only hole I can see in that theory is if Theresa had a second set of keys. I'm not sure what the evidence is for that. Maybe it was a spare key since it was by itself on a lanyard? Does anyone know anything more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Police could have found the car keys outside the car or inside the car, or elsewhere on Avery property, and put them in Avery's bedroom to strengthen the case against him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Oakland CA]

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.

Only DNA evidence they'd find on that bed would be from the rear end of the lazy cop who thought it was a good idea to park his *advertiser censored* on the bed while the others collected (manufactured) evidence in other parts of the bedroom

 

[paris_paris]

Someone on Reddit is responsible for this logic win, but it impressed me so much that I'm going to try to mention it here. Their hypothesis was as follows: if you believe that the key was planted (as I do), then SA is factually innocent. Full stop. If he were guilty of the crime, he would have had her car key. The police wouldn't have had it to plant.

The only hole I can see in that theory is if Theresa had a second set of keys. I'm not sure what the evidence is for that. Maybe it was a spare key since it was by itself on a lanyard? Does anyone know anything more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The key in the bedroom was a spare car key. It's a different shape from the master key. The spare key will not open the glove box. Weren't you surprised there was no house key with it?

 

[Dogface]

I just finally started watching. A production complaint as I'm half way through the first episode: why on earth do they play such loud music at the same time as recorded conversation? I have above average hearing, and it's hard for me to discern what is being said. Thankfully they put subtitles up for most of it, but I'm trying to put up my Christmas stuff and keep getting distracted because I keep reading!

 

[Hope4More]

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

I think you may be right about Avery feeling untouchable. After all, what most folks find outrageous from the start of the documentary is that LE would " dare" to go after him again. It would be almost impossible for LE in those circumstances to convince the public they're not out for revenge.

I'm also willing to believe SA is guilty. The fact he doused a family cat with oil and threw it alive on a fire where it burned to death gives me a sense of the man. Seems to me there was a fair amount of violence in general going on at the Avery compound. They weren't perceived as different and outsiders just because they dressed down and played in their junkyard.

That said, based on what LE did the first time around and how deeply personal was the sheriff's animosity towards SA, I'm willing to believe LE did plant evidence. Not to frame an innocent SA, but to strengthen their case against him because they knew what going after him would look like. And sadly, based on the fact there is zero evidence of his nephew's involvement other than a coerced confession, I think LE was willing to take down an innocent boy in order to convict SA.

 

[ChasingMoxie]

Someone on Reddit is responsible for this logic win, but it impressed me so much that I'm going to try to mention it here. Their hypothesis was as follows: if you believe that the key was planted (as I do), then SA is factually innocent. Full stop. If he were guilty of the crime, he would have had her car key. The police wouldn't have had it to plant.

The only hole I can see in that theory is if Theresa had a second set of keys. I'm not sure what the evidence is for that. Maybe it was a spare key since it was by itself on a lanyard? Does anyone know anything more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I actually think that if he were guilty, he would have had her actual set of car keys, instead of the single spare that was "found" several days after the initial searches in his bedroom. Here are some photos I saw online when I was looking into this very thing:

Closeup from the photo of TH with her vehicle, holding what appears to be more than one key (like most people have on their keyring, I would think):



Screencap of Rav4 driver's manual key descriptions, wherein the "sub key" is the less square of the two:



Closeup of the key in the "discovered" position, also a less square-shaped key:



Those all together indicate to me that the key found in the bedroom was not her original master vehicle key, unless I'm missing something. I certainly could be, as this is all a lot of information to digest in a short time period (for me, as I'm new to the case). So while I also agree that the key was planted, I think the planted key was not the master key for the Rav4, I think it was the backup key.

 

[Lamima]

I don't see keys.

 

[Tawny]

I actually think that if he were guilty, he would have had her actual set of car keys, instead of the single spare that was "found" several days after the initial searches in his bedroom. Here are some photos I saw online when I was looking into this very thing:

Closeup from the photo of TH with her vehicle, holding what appears to be more than one key (like most people have on their keyring, I would think):

View attachment 86683

Screencap of Rav4 driver's manual key descriptions, wherein the "sub key" is the less square of the two:

View attachment 86684

Closeup of the key in the "discovered" position, also a less square-shaped key:

View attachment 86685

Those all together indicate to me that the key found in the bedroom was not her original master vehicle key, unless I'm missing something. I certainly could be, as this is all a lot of information to digest in a short time period (for me, as I'm new to the case). So while I also agree that the key was planted, I think the planted key was not the master key for the Rav4, I think it was the backup key.

All of the above. Where are her house keys?!

 

[GigiG]

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.

BBM:

As I recall (sorry, I can't cite the source), both Steven and his sister Barb bought these sex toys on the same shopping trip. I also believe that they were referred to as fur-lined? Clearly not things designed to truly "restrain" a partner. In fact, I would think they are designed specifically so that the participant could escape the "restraints" if need be. I'm thinking more velcro than metal chains and locks.

I also take exception to the fact that many people (starting with Kratz) refer to them as "leg irons," especially during Brendan's questioning. He probably had no clue as to what "leg irons" were before then, but he certainly did after having to wear them daily after his arrest. Leg irons are used by law enforcement, not run-of-the-mill sexual partners.

Only the most hard-core sex shop would call them "leg irons." Most would classify them simply as "restraints."

ETA: Sorry not an answer to your questions, but this is stuff that's been bothering me.

 

[SCHMAE]

When I was in high school, one of my teachers ( maybe government) made us write a for and against paper. We moaned and groaned because how could one possibly write a paper FOR something they were against ? I cannot remember the topics but this was the 80's so not the same as today's topics for sure. It was so hard . But now I can see how that assignment was good for the future. Because with this case I am constantly looking at for and against. I do not know if Avery is guilty or not! Each new revalation or post from one of you all changes my mind again. So , I implore you all, think ' for and against' as if you had to write a paper on this for a grade. Step outside of your own made up mind, if you have one , and try to see it from the other side and see if that gives you any new insight or new ideas. You might surprise yourself. It makes for fascinating conversation anyway.

 

[Zuri]

I just watched CBS Nightly News with Scott Pelley. It had a short report on this case and the mass response to the documentary. The reporter spoke of the 250K signatures collected calling for SA release. Sound bite from Kratz said SA was exactly where he needed to be. Also, the Governor can pardon anyone, but is not expected to do so in this case.

I didn't hear anything about Brendon. Is there no petition for him?

 

[trigger]

BBM:

As I recall (sorry, I can't cite the source), both Steven and his sister Barb bought these sex toys on the same shopping trip. I also believe that they were referred to as fur-lined? Clearly not things designed to truly "restrain" a partner. In fact, I would think they are designed specifically so that the participant could escape the "restraints" if need be. I'm thinking more velcro than metal chains and locks.

I also take exception to the fact that many people (starting with Kratz) refer to them as "leg irons," especially during Brendan's questioning. He probably had no clue as to what "leg irons" were before then, but he certainly did after having to wear them daily after his arrest. Leg irons are used by law enforcement, not run-of-the-mill sexual partners.

Only the most hard-core sex shop would call them "leg irons." Most would classify them simply as "restraints."

ETA: Sorry not an answer to your questions, but this is stuff that's been bothering me.

OMG you are so right about "leg irons" is a term police use. Poor Brendan.