Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[Really?]

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

:silly:

 

[JudyBolton]

There is such a big disconnect in the actions that SA supposedly took to commit this murder and cover it up. First he was *SO* brilliant and talented that he was able to shoot her in the head, in his garage, and remove every trace of blood. (Searched unsuccessfully for photo of his garage but you remember the hundreds of pieces of junk). LE even jackhammed the cement floor and SA somehow removed every speck of blood that may have seeped into the porous concrete.

At the same time - there was the car to dispose of. This is something that he WAS something of an expert at doing - even owned a car crusher. BUT what does he decide to do to make sure nobody finds her car and suspects him of her murder? He places it - right on the edge of acres of property filled with cars - right by a roadway - leans a few flimsy pieces of junk and limbs up against it. AND THAT'S IT!

These two do not compute. Either he was a forensic cover-up genius - or he was a sloppy, boneheaded, blunderer. He CANNOT be both!

 

[Hopeful One]

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.

Just jumping off your post...

I am in southern WI (Madison-ish) and do remember SA and the case but vaguely. For whatever reason at that time, it didn't capture my attention enough to follow it as closely and as I've followed other cases. At this moment, I am REALLY mad at myself for having not followed it from the beginning.

As in loveisinthemoment's post, I too wonder if the case was perceived differently back then. IMO, MSM almost ALWAYS reports in a biased fashion to some degree so they could very well have reported on this case with an anti-SA slant.

I would pretty much guarantee that the average person doesn't follow cases like we at WS do. Most read one or two news articles (four paragraphs long, in general) and form an opinion from that. That's all fine and good because not everyone has time to know everything about everything (I know I don't!). But this why I often take public opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[TheDuchess]

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.

Did they ever say if she had any other appointments after the Averys?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[khaki]

Did SA ever give a reason for the *67 calls and/or has anyone seen it stated that SA's phone records show the calls ? Because we've all read it 100 times now but unless they are ON SA's phone bill, then anyone could have called twice. I 've just been assuming it was him, but do we know that for sure?

I am way behind in the thread today so maybe this has been answered, but I watched an interview with Dean Strang and he was asked that question about the *67. He said at that time in his life, with what had happened and with the lawsuit pending, SA was very protective of his privacy. I will look for the link. It was a Madison TV station a few days ago.

 

[TheDuchess]

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.

Yes. Men of Honor and integrity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GigiG]

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?

As far as I have seen, the petitions for both Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey were directed to President Obama. While people's hearts might be in the right place, those petitions are an exercise in futility. President Obama can't pardon anyone convicted of a state crime, he can only act on those convicted in Federal court.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker could take action, but that wouldn't jibe with his political agenda, so that's not going to happen.

That said, I DO think public outcry can make a difference. I hope people will keep speaking up for those who have no voice aside from us. Injustice should not be silenced under any circumstances. JMO

 

[Oakland CA]

Lawyer Dean and DA Kratz up now on Kelly's Fox show

 

[Hope4More]

As far as I have seen, the petitions for both Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey were directed to President Obama. While people's hearts might be in the right place, those petitions are an exercise in futility. President Obama can't pardon anyone convicted of a state crime, he can only act on those convicted in Federal court.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker could take action, but that wouldn't jibe with his political agenda, so that's not going to happen.

That said, I DO think public outcry can make a difference. I hope people will keep speaking up for those who have no voice aside from us. Injustice should not be silenced under any circumstances. JMO

Have to say I find the urge to overturn a jury verdict by petition frightening.

 

[JudyBolton]

Just jumping off your post...

I am in southern WI (Madison-ish) and do remember SA and the case but vaguely. For whatever reason at that time, it didn't capture my attention enough to follow it as closely and as I've followed other cases. At this moment, I am REALLY mad at myself for having not followed it from the beginning.

As in loveisinthemoment's post, I too wonder if the case was perceived differently back then. IMO, MSM almost ALWAYS reports in a biased fashion to some degree so they could very well have reported on this case with an anti-SA slant.

I would pretty much guarantee that the average person doesn't follow cases like we at WS do. Most read one or two news articles (four paragraphs long, in general) and form an opinion from that. That's all fine and good because not everyone has time to know everything about everything (I know I don't!). But this why I often take public opinion with a grain of salt.

BBM - I suppose my opinion on the case would be different if I had only seen the news or read the papers. I don't believe the interview tactics and questionable behavior were known at the time. Remember how the sheriff from the other county kept sitting at the press conferences and assuring everyone that the Manitowoc officials were NOT involved in the searches or any of the goings on - they were only there to "Assist" and "get them needed equipment" and stuff like that...very innocent it all was. Without those documentary film makers, 99% of this would go unnoticed in my opinion. (except for his family members)

**The number one news article on Google now is about the juror that exposed that some jurors were related to the M. County officials.....this may get interesting!

 

[DexterMorgan]

Quick question. If she was cremated then how did they know that she was raped? Tia

 

[Hopeful One]

Have to say I find the urge to overturn a jury verdict by petition frightening.

I agree. The last thing we need is a mass of uninformed public overturning convictions.

But in rare cases, I also believe they deserve a further look with fresh eyes. I don't think he should be pardoned but he certainly deserves a second trial.

 

[Tawny]

Quick question. If she was cremated then how did they know that she was raped? Tia

Brendan Dassey's "confession" was the ONLY "evidence" they had of that.

 

[Tawny]

Have to say I find the urge to overturn a jury verdict by petition frightening.

I agree. The last thing we need is a mass of uninformed public overturning convictions.

But in rare cases, I also believe they deserve a further look with fresh eyes. I don't think he should be pardoned but he certainly deserves a second trial.

I feel the petitions should be a re-opening of the case, a re-investigation if possible. If the evidence is destroyed, inaccessible, or there isn't enough to convict, then the conviction needs to be overturned, I think.

Brendan's conviction, however, should be overturned immediately, IMO.

 

[stephsb]

Quick question. If she was cremated then how did they know that she was raped? Tia

Rape came from Dasseys confession. Avery did not face rape charges (they dropped them before trial)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

:clap:

There is such a big disconnect in the actions that SA supposedly took to commit this murder and cover it up. First he was *SO* brilliant and talented that he was able to shoot her in the head, in his garage, and remove every trace of blood. (Searched unsuccessfully for photo of his garage but you remember the hundreds of pieces of junk). LE even jackhammed the cement floor and SA somehow removed every speck of blood that may have seeped into the porous concrete.

At the same time - there was the car to dispose of. This is something that he WAS something of an expert at doing - even owned a car crusher. BUT what does he decide to do to make sure nobody finds her car and suspects him of her murder? He places it - right on the edge of acres of property filled with cars - right by a roadway - leans a few flimsy pieces of junk and limbs up against it. AND THAT'S IT!

These two do not compute. Either he was a forensic cover-up genius - or he was a sloppy, boneheaded, blunderer. He CANNOT be both!

 

[Hopeful One]

Interesting article - interviews with the makers of MaM.

Snip: What did you think was your duty as documentarians?Demos: Here was an opportunity to look with 20-20 hindsight at what had gone wrong in the mid-’80s and then follow a case as it was unfolding in front of our eyes. Challenging ourselves to see—can we recognize if and when the process becomes perverted? And if that happens, why is that happening? It was really to travel through the system with the accused, to see what it’s like to be accused in this country and to offer that experience to viewers.

http://time.com/4167915/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-juror/

 

[dexter75]

I do this a lot! Drives my hubby crazy!!
High school in the 80's eh? I can relate.
Unforgettable for sure:laughing:

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.

 

[CoolJ]

Quick question. If she was cremated then how did they know that she was raped? Tia

Dirty, desperate cops bullied a mentally challenged 16yo and fed him a story about rape. That's how they knew.

 

[Safeguard]

I watched the Documentary. (Twice). The first time, I came away convinced both BD and SA were completely innocent of THIS murder. After reading online, I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt SO strongly, so I watched it again. This time I realized that it was SA himself, that made the biggest impression on me about their innocence. There is just not one single second of footage where he ACTS like a guilty man. Not one. He remains clear and consistent throughout, and you can almost see the wheels in his head spinning, trying to grasp that this is really happening. (AGAIN!).

One thing that is beyond a shadow of a doubt; Making A Murderer exposed the problems in the system
with brutal clarity. I read a comment from a poster on yahoo news that outlined these problems beautifully:

"The documentary wasn't about whether Avery was guilty or innocent. It was about the abuse of authority;

confirmation bias;

mishandled conflicts of interest;

the fiction of presumed innocence;

the self-fulfilling prophecy of criminal suspicion;

the impact of emotional coercion in securing witness testimony;

the indulgence and self-congratulation of white hat press conferences and political posturing;

the saccharine of violence-reporting in the media;

the low quality product of state appointed public defenders;

the difficulty of maintaining a plea of innocence in the face of diffident (and seemingly lazy) counsel whose livelihood would be much simpler if everyone would just plea-bargain;

the dilemmas that poverty and low IQ present in a judicial system which presupposes and requires threshold levels of both money and intelligence in order to yield a just outcome;

the impact of pretrial publicity in prejudicing would be jurors;

the unimpeachable status of police 'character' and 'testimony';

the fraternal devotion that officers harbor primarily for their own;

the moral hazard of paid professional witnesses supplying scientific support as hired and directed by the prosecuting team;

the delivering of awards for securing high-profile convictions;

the cavalier and callous attitude that justice officials and employees often have with regard to the frustrated and broken lives of simple suspects;

the inadequacy of appearances in identifying sexual deviants/predators (Right Kratz?);

the troubling idea that a justice system may sufficiently fulfill it's social/communal purpose by merely providing the illusion of justice.

I think the directors did an excellent job of highlighting those problem elements of criminal litigation that are most relevant to cases beyond Avery. I'm persuaded that these types of problems plague almost all criminal proceedings. Again, the question is not whether Avery was or was not guilty (even though this is the leitmotiv that captivates the audience), it's about whether we can trust every single one of the thousands of other convictions reached in a system that is fraught with all of the above impurities."

I imagine most of us knew there was corruption in the system, but the In-Your-Face depiction of the callous disregard for the lives of those deemed somehow, less deserving of a fair shake, was what knocked the wind right out of me.