Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[angelainwi]

Ooh. Hearing date 11th Feb by the looks of it, unless I'm reading it wrong.

Unfortunately, I do not think that is a hearing or court date. I believe it is just when they anticipate receiving something. IF there is a hearing date it is normally on the main page of the case near the bottom.

 

[missy1974]

I guess I should have also mentioned that there is another entry for yesterday

Status: OCCD
Court: CA
Filing Date: 01-11-2016
Activity: Other Papers
Comment: exhibits F, G, and H from circuit court record; placed in file

I'm not sure what that means.... exhibits that were filed with the other motions maybe? someone smarter than me probably has a better idea

 

[oceanblueeyes]

No doubt, but I guess the point is, point out something that suggests it could/couldn't have been tampered with. That's what everyone will find relevant.When someone notes that the key found was a valet key, that's a detail that is curious. Why ? because it's not the key that someone typically uses, but often keeps in glovebox or at home or with a friend/family in case they lock themselves out of a car.

But to just start posting that the plates were found in a given location by someone. We all accept that. So not sure why it needs to be posted. We can all refer to the documents and post something if we need to point out something we find curious or to clarify to someone about a given point.

But to my knowledge, no one was questioning if the plates were found. If so, just reply to their question.

I apologize if someone has requested that information, but I think images is overkill if you can just say - plates were found crumpled in a car near the rav4 or whatever.

I believe everyone here has a right to put up whatever they think may be relevant to the case. I actually appreciate being able to read the exact testimonies no matter the subject matter. It helps me to refresh my memory since this case happened years ago.

I read an article that another poster linked for us (sorry, I cant remember which thread it was in now since there are multiple threads) but anyway even one of Avery's attorneys said they need evidence to prove things were planted and they needed any witnesses to come forward if they know anything.

BBM

If evidence wasn't planted then all those who believe Avery is innocent are really trying to prove a negative which isn't doable. Perhaps that is why his own attorneys couldn't prove it. Its impossible to prove something if it never happened.

If there isn't any evidence/proof of tampering and planting evidence (admitted by his own attorney he doesn't have the evidence needed) then how will Avery expect to get a new trial? Wasn't the jury told by the defense lawyers in the trials they thought evidence had been tampered with or planted? I did keep up with the trial at that time but its been 10 years so I cant remember if the DT entered anything in their CIC that proved tampering and planting evidence happened.

I have seen several cases where the DT did make that same claim, but couldn't produce any evidence to back it up so it was not believed by the juries.

IMO

 

[Soulmagent]

I believe everyone here has a right to put up whatever they think may be relevant to the case. I actually appreciate being able to read the exact testimonies no matter the subject matter.

I read an article that another poster linked for us (sorry, I cant remember which thread it was now since there are multiple threads) but anyway even one of Avery's attorneys said they need evidence to prove things were planted and they needed any witnesses to come forward if they know anything.

BBM

If evidence wasn't planted then all those who believe Avery is innocent are really trying to prove a negative which isn't doable.

If there isn't any evidence/proof of tampering and planting evidence (admitted by his own attorney he doesn't have the evidence needed) then how will Avery expect to get a new trial? Wasn't the jury told by the defense lawyers in the trials they thought evidence had been tampered with or planted? I did keep up with the trial at that time but its been 10 years so I cant remember if the DT entered anything in their CIC that proved tampering and planting evidence happened.

I have seen several cases where the DT did make that same claim, but couldn't produce any evidence to back it up so it was not believed by the juries.

IMO

I don't think the attorneys would be asking for evidence to prove things were planted if they did not think those things existed. In fact it seems very likely that who ever was in change of the clerks office would knows something they could choose at any moment to disclose.

 

[Mosby]

I guess I should have also mentioned that there is another entry for yesterday

Status: OCCD
Court: CA
Filing Date: 01-11-2016
Activity: Other Papers
Comment: exhibits F, G, and H from circuit court record; placed in file

I'm not sure what that means.... exhibits that were filed with the other motions maybe? someone smarter than me probably has a better idea

I also saw this just now. Anyone know what if anything to make of these?

RECV CA 01-11-16
Motion for Release on Bond
Filed by: Steven Avery
Submit Date: 1-11-16

RECV CA 01-11-16
Motion for Relief
Filed by: Steven Avery
Submit Date: 1-11-16

 

[stephsb]

I don't think the attorneys would be asking for evidence to prove things were planted if they did not think those things existed. In fact it seems very likely that who ever was in change of the clerks office would knows something they could choose at any moment to disclose.

The Avery jury was given instructions to consider if police planted evidence, if that helps anyone. MOO, but I think juror misconduct or new evidence will be what it takes to get Avery a new trial


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[redheart]

I apologize in advance if this has been brought up or discussed, but did anyone find the videos of TH in the documentary, a bit curious? Maybe I stepped away or mentally checked out a moment (sadly happens too often), but was there any reference/context given to those snippets in the documentary itself or media? Iirc she spoke of if she died that she wanted her mom/family(?) to know she was happy with her life, etc. Were those self filmed or was someone filming and asking her specific questions?

How did the doc people attain it? TIA!

I've only come across an explanation of Teresa's video here: http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/201...-celebrates-men-who-kill-and-abuse-women.html

In a related vein, Making a Murderer uses footage of Teresa Halbach, talking about what would happen if she were to die, without putting it in context, namely that it was a university video project. As a result, Teresa’s mental health has been questioned and it’s been suggested she might have killed herself although how that would cause her cremains to end up in the Avery salvage yard is never explained. Hashtag more victim blaming.

 

[pleasestandby]

So the two accused clean up the garage to hide some of the evidence but leave some of the other evidence in the garage and house and the vehicle and park the vehicle on the property and "hide" it nearby with a few branches, pallets and debris so no one could find it? Sounds logical to me. ullhair:

It's pretty obvious that he was framed and whoever did it, didn't think it through when they planted the overkill of evidence that just didn't fit the crime scene.

I should have said plywood, not pallets. Here's a picture of the "hidden" SUV, evidence photo courtesy of the Calumet County District Attorney's Office.

Again, the prosecution said that Dassey and Avery carried the body from the house or garage to the burn pit or the burn barrel, ten feet from the house. So why did blood and hair evidence end up in the SUV?

 

[missy1974]

Avery says the jurors were tainted, because one juror made repeated comment that he was "*advertiser censored**ing guilty." Avery says the juror in question also told the other jurors, "If you can't handle it why don't you tell them [the judge] and just leave."

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2016/01/12/steven-avery-prison-appeal-conviction/#ixzz3x421WL5s

Not sure if tmz has copies of what was filed yesterday, or if this is from previous documents. I haven't seen those comments about the jury before.

 

[Madeleine74]

the prosecution said that Dassey and Avery carried the body from the house or garage to the burn pit or the burn barrel, ten feet from the house. So why did blood and hair evidence end up in the SUV?

According to SD's version SA had pulled TH's SUV into his garage, with the nose facing out. ALLEGEDLY SA was first thinking of disposing TH's body in the pond that's on the property and he was going to take her body there in the SUV. SD claims he saw TH's body in the cargo area of the SUV but then SA asked him to help remove her body and they did and placed it on the garage floor. Then SA decided he would burn her body and they got this thing on wheels (called a 'creeper'), put her body on that, and used that to help wheel her body over to the fire pit.

Again, I'm not saying this is what happened, this is what BD told investigators in that taped interview, a transcript of which is out on the Interwebs.

 

[JudyBolton]

It is possible SOME of what BD says isn't exactly how things happened. There was coercion in the interrogation. But I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water and discount everything. Some stuff he says lines up with the physical evidence.

Can we all agree that he was at that bonfire that night? I mean doesn't SA say he was? And I'm pretty convinced that SA burned TH that night in that pit and possibly over the following few days. He had plenty of time to do this stuff before police arrested him on the weapons charge. And it is highly likely that if BD was at that bonfire, he did see body parts. The jury seems to have believed it too.

BBM - Oh really? Then why did they acquit on the charge of mutilating a corpse?

 

[shadowraiths]

WSCCA appeal history for Avery (captured on 2016-February-12)

 

[Madeleine74]

A jury acquits on a charge they don't think was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Could be they don't see SD's actions as "mutilation of a corpse." Or maybe they thought it was SA who did any mutilating that was done. Whatever, unless the jury says why they voted not guilty on a charge we won't know the 'why.'

 

[stephsb]

Avery was acquitted on mutilation of a corpse, not Brendan Dassey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

I should have said plywood, not pallets. Here's a picture of the "hidden" SUV, evidence photo courtesy of the Calumet County District Attorney's Office.

Again, the prosecution said that Dassey and Avery carried the body from the house or garage to the burn pit or the burn barrel, ten feet from the house. So why did blood and hair evidence end up in the SUV?

I think the greatest confusion in this case comes from accepting any of the police narrative, which largely comes from chosen pieces of brendan's many often contradicting statements about just about any part of that night.

 

[JudyBolton]

A jury acquits on a charge they don't think was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Could be they don't see SD's actions as "mutilation of a corpse." Or maybe they thought it was SA who did any mutilating that was done. Whatever, unless the jury says why they voted not guilty on a charge we won't know the 'why.'

Not sure what you mean by that (BBM) as SA was the one acquitted of the charge of mutilating a body. If that body was not mutilated then I don't know what the definition of mutilation is. It was reduced to silvers of bone - not even entire intact bones or skull or anything else identifiable.

And yes we do have an idea why the jury voted that way as one of them has stated that it was done as a "compromise" and even with some misguided idea that it would help SA win an appeal.

Just putting two and two together I believe the 2 jurors who were related to the county officials (and possibly one other joined them )- were the 3 who the excused juror said were immediately rock solid in favor of guilty - would not deliberate - and that they intimated the other jurors into voting guilty for murder. (Remember that initially 7 jurors voted NOT guilty). I also believe the juror who has spoken out saying she was afraid for her life/safety KNEW that in that community - if they voted against L.E. that they could be singled out for retaliation. After seeing how blood gets opened and smeared, keys turn up, bullets are "found" - I would have no problem believeing that they could do the same type thing to me or one of my family members. I mean even if they found him not guilty - the L.E. would still be there - would still have the power - would obviously know the names of the jurors who let him go free.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Not sure what you mean by that (BBM) as SA was the one acquitted of the charge of mutilating a body. If that body was not mutilated then I don't know what the definition of mutilation is. It was reduced to silvers of bone - not even entire intact bones or skull or anything else identifiable.

And yes we do have an idea why the jury voted that way as one of them has stated that it was done as a "compromise" and even with some misguided idea that it would help SA win an appeal.

Just putting two and two together I believe the 2 jurors who were related to the county officials (and possibly one other joined them )- were the 3 who the excused juror said were immediately rock solid in favor of guilty - would not deliberate - and that they intimated the other jurors into voting guilty for murder. (Remember that initially 7 jurors voted NOT guilty). I also believe the juror who has spoken out saying she was afraid for her life/safety KNEW that in that community - if they voted against L.E. that they could be singled out for retaliation. After seeing how blood gets opened and smeared, keys turn up, bullets are "found" - I would have no problem believeing that they could do the same type thing to me or one of my family members. I mean even if they found him not guilty - the L.E. would still be there - would still have the power - would obviously know the names of the jurors who let him go free.

This sounds heavy with conspiracy.. You don't think it is possible people found him guilty because heck he is guilty?
I just don't believe in this kind of twisty turny conspiracy stuff.

Just because I am related to someone does not mean I am going to agree with them.

I don't have issue with the mutilation issue. To me mutilation means just that and we don't have any proof of that.

 

[popsicle]

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2016/01/12/steven-avery-prison-appeal-conviction/#ixzz3x421WL5s

Not sure if tmz has copies of what was filed yesterday, or if this is from previous documents. I haven't seen those comments about the jury before.

He's asking for a mistrial? lol

 

[MaxManning]

He's asking for a mistrial? lol

Is this a new appeal or an old one ?

I thought that he had no appeals left.

Strang had said that the only way he could get a new appeal would be if new evidence surfaced.

But I'm almost certain that older appeals mentioned things like the search warrant and jury. I could be wrong.

But wouldn't be the first time I've seen a site report a 2 year old document from this case as being NEW information.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't think the attorneys would be asking for evidence to prove things were planted if they did not think those things existed. In fact it seems very likely that who ever was in change of the clerks office would knows something they could choose at any moment to disclose.

I believe they would. Even one of his own attorneys says Avery MAY BE innocent. So even he doesn't say he thinks 100% that he is innocent.

I really don't think they are going to find any evidence that would support the evidence was planted. They have had 10 years to find that supporting evidence and haven't.