Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[Tawny]

Ok thanks for clearing that up! That's the pic I thought was his left hand, wonky angle.

 

[missy1974]

Ok thanks for clearing that up! That's the pic I thought was his left hand, wonky angle.

it is... I was just looking at it and was starting to second guess myself..... it is wonky LOL

 

[eve314]

For me this case is absolutely COMPELLING! When I watched the series, I honestly did not care much about whether he did it or not - I was aghast at the potential 'corruption', misuse of power and display of a type of privileged arrogance. I am surprised we do not have a Poll yet! I have to say in all honesty, I could not say during or even right after the TV series if Steven Avery is guilty or not. I knew only that this case wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Subsequently, with every spare moment, I have attempted to read articles and posts on this forum and elsewhere to gather more data, information and knowledge about this case.

Without motive, and much evidence - in terms of the purported theory of 'rape', mutilation and shooting of the victim, I find it difficult to convict, but I was not on that panel, so alas! Having said that, do I think he could have done it? Yes, I do. I just don't know how he did it. If shots were fired, did no one hear them? Did TH not scream? Did SA know the family 'schedule' such that no one would see him/her?

Why do I think he's guilty? The evidence:
1. Discovery of "burned clothing and partially burned shovel" in burn barrel near the residence of SA (ref: Avery Criminal Complaint)
2. Discovery of bone fragment and teeth fragments in fire pit 20 yards south of detached garage
3. TH's RAV4 discovered on the property

My observation (which could be flawed)
4. Dean Strang never says "My Client, Steven Avery is innocent" - and I do adore this man, however, he is absolutely careful and consistent in stating that he does not know but....
5. The film makers do not say SA is innocent. They spent 10 years on this series using SA as a conduit for a tale of systemic failure yet they do not have an opinion if SA is innocent or not? I think the silences are indicative of uncertainty of his innocence.

 

[wagner92]

First of all, great stuff here sleuthers. I've watched the doc twice because the first time I saw it, I felt something wasn't right with the way it was presented. It was way too one sided. I work in television editing and I know how EASILY things can be manipulated and you can persuade the audience to feel a certain way with various techniques. In particular, music. It seemed the filmmakers tried to get the audience to like SA and his family at every opportunity. Music played a big role. Anytime you had photos of SA and his family it was sweet, guitar, beginning to a beautiful day music. They forced you to feel good. Any time you had the police or prosecutor, it was dark and brooding music. Of course that is part of filmmaking, playing with emotions, but you have to be very careful when crafting a documentary.

I think the filmmakers definitely had an agenda. They succeeded at showing our system isn't nearly perfect and that people with no money are railroaded. If you have money, you can get a good attorney and "create" a defense of reasonable doubt. To witness, SA had a $400,000 settlement with which to purchase the best defense attorneys money can buy. But I think in successfully delivering the message of an imperfect system, they really did leave out important facts that could make the audience believe SA was guilty or even a bad person. There is way too much they decided to leave out of their "documentary". I've heard the term "defense propaganda piece" and I truly believe that suits the film better than the term documentary. One example, they downplayed the whole cat burning thing, letting SA describe it as, what was it, "messing around". I'm sorry but that cat burning can be described as nothing but heinous. And the filmmakers would not go into that, not because of "lack of time", but specifically because it makes SA look really, really bad. And the mission of the film is to make you pull for the underdog and rage against the system.

Other things like the whole incident with him running a woman off the road and pointing a gun in her face. Who does that? Criminals. That's a violent thing to do. SA is a career criminal. And honestly, if he wasn't a law breaker in the first place, he would never even have been considered a suspect for the rape in 1985. His actions, more than police actions, made him a suspect in that murder case. Would police consider someone with a clean record a suspect in the murder, generally not. Would they suspect people they know to be involved in criminal activity, absolutely. Now, they f'd up because they targeted him when they were already aware of the actual rapist and should have pursued that further instead of focusing so heavily on SA. But if SA hadn't recently run a woman off the road and pointed a gun in her face, he wouldn't have even been considered. Also, I do believe 6 years of his 18 years in prison were justifiably for the gun incident. Not sure if it was to be served concurrently but do believe he was convicted of that as well. He spent 12 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit which I wholeheartedly agree is a terrible miscarriage of justice and he deserved a settlement.

In the murder case, SA is super good at proclaiming his innocence. It seems like he's a great liar to me more than anything and I think that most sociopaths are probably good at that because they have no conscience. I also believe Brendan Dassey helped murder or helped clean up the murder. Bleach on his jeans on the very day there is a murder. He admits to his mom it came from helping SA clean the garage. It's just a bridge too far that he happened to be cleaning SA's garage the very day of the murder. This combined with SA's phone calls and being the last person to admit seeing TH alive is pretty strong. So much more to point out that's already been covered. Oh, Brendan telling his mom that SA would touch him inappropriately. That whole family has a history of sexual issues, convictions, etc. that were not even talked about in the doc. It's portrayed as a sweet family from the parents on down.

One other thing I've been trying to find is a report that SA was under investigation for two separate rapes in 2005, before he was arrested for the gun violation and later charged with Halbach's murder. Can't remember where I saw it. But I believe it was a newspaper report that said SA had confided to his girlfriend Jodi that he did indeed rape a particular girl. The story said the girl didn't want to come forward in order to maintain her privacy. And SA was already being charged with the murder, so it wasn't pursued. Anybody else hear about this? Dang, I wish I would've bookmarked it or something.

 

[Dogface]

Ok thanks for clearing that up! That's the pic I thought was his left hand, wonky angle.

Me too! I seriously could picture it being his left in the picture! Well that indeed adds up. Perhaps while she was taking pictures he popped her hood and did something to it and then when she dropped of the bill of sale and went to leave she couldn't. That makes me lean away from the blood being planted that's for sure!

 

[pleasestandby]

Any scientists here familiar with the degradation rate of EDTA under conditions of sunlight, water and microorganisms? I'm not one but I can see where these tests possibly could not legally be used as evidence since the blood was exposed to at least sunlight and microorganisms.

Two articles show that Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) breaks down with two processes:

Abiotic Degradation

a) Photolysis - sunlight

b) Hydrolysis -water

Biotic Degradation

a) Microorganisms

Since sunlight, water and microorganisms all break down EDTA, wouldn't it be obvious that EDTA wouldn't be found in the blood samples and therefore the blood samples should not/could not have been used as evidence of EDTA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylenediaminetetraacetic_acid

http://www.toxicologyguide.com/886-environmental/

 

[Madeleine74]

It is rather ironic that he got a deep cut on his finger (a cut that would most definitely bleed), and his blood (allegedly fresh blood, not degraded, not with EDTA preservative) was found in 6 places in her SUV. One can say that's not proof, but it certainly is an interesting coincidence, piled on top of other coincidences befalling this one man on this one day.

 

[MaxManning]

Any scientists here familiar with the degradation rate of EDTA under conditions of sunlight, water and microorganisms? I'm not one but I can see where these tests possibly could not legally be used as evidence since the blood was exposed to at least sunlight and microorganisms.

Two articles show that Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) breaks down with two processes:

Abiotic Degradation

a) Photolysis - sunlight

b) Hydrolysis -water

Biotic Degradation

a) Microorganisms

Since sunlight, water and microorganisms all break down EDTA, wouldn't it be obvious that EDTA wouldn't be found in the blood samples and therefore the blood samples should not/could not have been used as evidence of EDTA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylenediaminetetraacetic_acid

http://www.toxicologyguide.com/886-environmental/

Way over my head. I could be convinced of anything on this topic, haha.

Someone recently sent me this link :

http://www.csitechblog.com/blood-at-crime-scenes/

It mentions something similar to what I was pondering about potentially existing :

"They have also found a way of checking the age of blood stains - something which is regarded as a holy grail of forensic science."

If I understand that correctly, that would be able to determine the age of a stain, so maybe only useful to pinpointing when the stains in the rav4 occurred.

However it would be very helpful to this case if there was a way to determine how long blood had been outside of the body. So that you could tell if the blood in the car was from the tube or not.

Someone else on thread 1 or 2, who had experience working with blood, mentioned that blood visually would look different after being in that tube over time. I will look back to see if I can find it, and what the opinion he shared about the blood in the rav4. I honestly can't remember if he said it was consistent or inconsistent with the visual look of blood that has been in a tube for a long period of time.

 

[MaxManning]

It is rather ironic that he got a deep cut on his finger (a cut that would most definitely bleed), and his blood (allegedly fresh blood, not degraded, not with EDTA preservative) was found in 6 places in her SUV. One can say that's not proof, but it certainly is an interesting coincidence, piled on top of other coincidences befalling this one man on this one day.

Agreed, on the topic of coincidences piling up. I see lots of potentially suspicious events and statements.

An expert did testify that the test for EDTA is not conclusive as to not having EDTA. The test could ONLY conclusively detect if EDTA was in the blood. A test that didn't detect EDTA, didn't mean that there wasn't EDTA present.

I'm kind of surprised that the test was allowed, given that definition. It only has meaning if it shows that there was factually no EDTA in the blood. Which again, adds to the pile of things that add to the prosecution getting biased preference from the judge :

Blood from the bullet test doesn't meet the protocol because it was admittedly contaminated by the tester, yet it's deemed valid.
EDTA test that proves nothing, gets admitted , and likely only can be misconstrued as meaning there was no EDTA in the blood
Guy who was riding around with a rifle hunting rabbit with a .22 rifle, in a golf cart that came up with a positive (factual) cadaver dog hit - can't be viewed as a suspect.

It swings both ways imo.

I see both sides, and without bias, I still lean in your direction.

But I'm resolute that I should still consider it all, not just what fits my current opinion with a slant. That's called objectivity.

 

[TheDuchess]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ert-Christianity-says-convinced-innocent.html

Interesting article with an interview with SAs former fiancee. Apparently, they have broken up over his unwillingness to convert to Christianity, but they remain good friends and she still has his back.

 

[diesel]

People are forgetting the cops has seized the property and ordered everyone off of the whole place. 8 days the only people in or out were LE . No brother could have planted the key, no SA put it there after they left. Some LEO put it there.

Do you know the date the property was seized?

 

[norest4thewicked]

Me too!I'd love it if a family member or one of her friends would join here.So many questions eh?

I think that any of Teresa's family or friends would feel very unwelcome here. Remember that there are 2 people in prison for her murder and these threads are mostly full of people who don't necessarily feel that the right people are in prison. If it was my daughter, I would feel very upset at reading a lot of what is being posted here. Just my opinion.

 

[Tawny]

I think that any of Teresa's family or friends would feel very unwelcome here. Remember that there are 2 people in prison for her murder and these threads are mostly full of people who don't necessarily feel that the right people are in prison. If it was my daughter, I would feel very upset at reading a lot of what is being posted here. Just my opinion.

I think we can ALL agree that the motivation for every single post here is that we want justice for Teresa. If someone doesn't believe SA did it, they probably want to find out who DID.

 

[Soulmagent]

Do you know the date the property was seized?

I believe it was from Nov 5th until the 13th. It might have been officially the 6th of Nov. I have no link for it except page 4 of Brendan's transcripts talks about the date of the evidence collected and when the pathologist went to the burn pit .

 

[colette]

That "cut" on Steven Avery's finger looked like a bite to me when I first saw it. The way it's curved around the finger and it is on the middle finger, like his hand had been over Teresa Halbach's mouth. That being said, I do believe LE planted evidence and the interrogation of Brandon Dassey was sickening. I do see reasonable doubt.

 

[norest4thewicked]

First of all, great stuff here sleuthers. I've watched the doc twice because the first time I saw it, I felt something wasn't right with the way it was presented. It was way too one sided. I work in television editing and I know how EASILY things can be manipulated and you can persuade the audience to feel a certain way with various techniques. In particular, music. It seemed the filmmakers tried to get the audience to like SA and his family at every opportunity. Music played a big role. Anytime you had photos of SA and his family it was sweet, guitar, beginning to a beautiful day music. They forced you to feel good. Any time you had the police or prosecutor, it was dark and brooding music. Of course that is part of filmmaking, playing with emotions, but you have to be very careful when crafting a documentary.

I think the filmmakers definitely had an agenda. They succeeded at showing our system isn't nearly perfect and that people with no money are railroaded. If you have money, you can get a good attorney and "create" a defense of reasonable doubt. To witness, SA had a $400,000 settlement with which to purchase the best defense attorneys money can buy. But I think in successfully delivering the message of an imperfect system, they really did leave out important facts that could make the audience believe SA was guilty or even a bad person. There is way too much they decided to leave out of their "documentary". I've heard the term "defense propaganda piece" and I truly believe that suits the film better than the term documentary. One example, they downplayed the whole cat burning thing, letting SA describe it as, what was it, "messing around". I'm sorry but that cat burning can be described as nothing but heinous. And the filmmakers would not go into that, not because of "lack of time", but specifically because it makes SA look really, really bad. And the mission of the film is to make you pull for the underdog and rage against the system.

Other things like the whole incident with him running a woman off the road and pointing a gun in her face. Who does that? Criminals. That's a violent thing to do. SA is a career criminal. And honestly, if he wasn't a law breaker in the first place, he would never even have been considered a suspect for the rape in 1985. His actions, more than police actions, made him a suspect in that murder case. Would police consider someone with a clean record a suspect in the murder, generally not. Would they suspect people they know to be involved in criminal activity, absolutely. Now, they f'd up because they targeted him when they were already aware of the actual rapist and should have pursued that further instead of focusing so heavily on SA. But if SA hadn't recently run a woman off the road and pointed a gun in her face, he wouldn't have even been considered. Also, I do believe 6 years of his 18 years in prison were justifiably for the gun incident. Not sure if it was to be served concurrently but do believe he was convicted of that as well. He spent 12 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit which I wholeheartedly agree is a terrible miscarriage of justice and he deserved a settlement.

In the murder case, SA is super good at proclaiming his innocence. It seems like he's a great liar to me more than anything and I think that most sociopaths are probably good at that because they have no conscience. I also believe Brendan Dassey helped murder or helped clean up the murder. Bleach on his jeans on the very day there is a murder. He admits to his mom it came from helping SA clean the garage. It's just a bridge too far that he happened to be cleaning SA's garage the very day of the murder. This combined with SA's phone calls and being the last person to admit seeing TH alive is pretty strong. So much more to point out that's already been covered. Oh, Brendan telling his mom that SA would touch him inappropriately. That whole family has a history of sexual issues, convictions, etc. that were not even talked about in the doc. It's portrayed as a sweet family from the parents on down.

One other thing I've been trying to find is a report that SA was under investigation for two separate rapes in 2005, before he was arrested for the gun violation and later charged with Halbach's murder. Can't remember where I saw it. But I believe it was a newspaper report that said SA had confided to his girlfriend Jodi that he did indeed rape a particular girl. The story said the girl didn't want to come forward in order to maintain her privacy. And SA was already being charged with the murder, so it wasn't pursued. Anybody else hear about this? Dang, I wish I would've bookmarked it or something.

These are my exact feelings. In the film, when Colburn was being questioned, you can visibly see where they had cut the film and put in something else to make it look like he is some type of monster. This, to me, was something that I just couldn't handle. If someone wants to present the actual truth, why do you have to HIDE certain things? It was obvious to me what they were trying to do.

I also just couldn't put aside his past behavior. I'm sorry, but a person who can do something like he did to an innocent animal, could easily do that to another human being. As well, I saw an interview with the rape victim, Penny Beerntsen, after the fact and after SA had spent many years in prison. He had the nerve to call her and ask her to buy him a house. She didn't, of course. But, the thing that shocked me the most is that she said (I can't remember her exact words and I also can't find the interview again), that she never could get over the bad feeling she had whenever she saw Steven or was in a room with him. She said that Gregory Allen, (the man who was eventually convicted of the rape), could come into a room and sit next to her and it wouldn't phase her. That, to me, was very telling. Perhaps they should re-do the original DNA from this original case.

 

[Madeleine74]

I see both sides, and without bias, I still lean in your direction.

But I'm resolute that I should still consider it all, not just what fits my current opinion with a slant. That's called objectivity.

I don't have a direction, that's the point. All I know for sure is I did not see the entire case based on that documentary and people saying the police were corrupt and could have planted something does not, in fact, give me any evidence that planting or framing happened.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I'm just using your quotes to drive home the point that this trial wasn't fair from top to bottom. They moved the trial itself to Calumet... but had Manitowoc jurors. It should have been moved farther with different county jurors, IMO.

I haven't followed the case that closely--but--I'm not sure if you are talking about Calumet Wisconsin or Calumet Michigan. If it was Calumet Michigan, I don't think they listen to the news from Green Bay--probably from Marquette, MI. In that case, I would guess he did in fact receive a fair trail. I'm not so sure about Calumet WI. It is in Fond Du Lac County. Why did they bring Manitowoc jurors to Fond Du Lac--that makes no sense. I think Fond Du Lac has their own TV stations--but I think Green Bay stations as well.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I think we can ALL agree that the motivation for every single post here is that we want justice for Teresa. If someone doesn't believe SA did it, they probably want to find out who DID.

But, you have to remember that this family has had to go through pain and they believe that the right people are in prison and they most likely don't appreciate people trying to dredge it up again. After all, they know things that none of us know about the case. I just would feel very sorry for them coming here and reading some of the things that are said. That's all...

 

[pleasestandby]

I agree that this is plausible and high probability. I think if we compared Chuck, Steve, Earl side by side without any evidence, we'd see Chuck as the one most likely based on his past interactions with women who were towed to the junkyard.

My only reason for leaning more towards Steve, is that it's simpler and doesn't require any planting.

Also, Steve had the phone interactions with teresa that day that I personally find suspicious.

But I don't see it as hard to believe in the least that CA might be the killer.

According to a timeline on the Avery case and using Lisa Buchner's testimony as the truest statement about who did what at the time of the disappearance:

http://stevenaverytrial.com/

Lisa Buchner, the school bus driver, testifies that she dropped off Brendan Dassey and his brother between 3:30-3:40pm. She also states that she saw a woman taking photographs of a van at that time.
__________________________________________________________

10/31/05 - According to the Prosecution in the Halbach case:

10/31/05 - Approximately 2:45pm - Bobby Dassey leaves his house to go hunting. He notices that Teresa's car is still in the driveway but there is no sign of Teresa.

10/31/05 - Between 2:45-3:00pm - Scott Tadych, Steven Avery's next door neighbor, arrives home from the hospital and prepares to go hunting.

10/31/05 - Approximately 3:00pm - Scott Tadych leaves and passes by Bobby Dassey on the highway.

11/29/05 - Officers interview Scott Tadych, Barb's husband and Steven Avery's next door neighbor, regarding his alibi for 10/31/05. He tells them that he arrived home at 3:15pm and left to go hunting that afternoon.

_____________________________________________________________________

Testimony given during Steven Avery's trial:

Scott Tadych, Barb's husband, testifies that he arrived home on 10/31/05 between 2:30-2:45pm and left to go hunting around 3:00pm. This contradicts the statement he gave to police in November 2005.

______________________________________________________________________

Was Scott Tadych ever charged with obstructing an officer or for perjury in court since his story changed from being there at the time of the disappearance to not getting home until after the disappearance? If Bobby Dassey left at 2:45 pm, how ever could Scott Tadych have passed him up whether he got a 15 minute head start or a half hour head start? Was Bobby Dassey walking on the side of the road or in a vehicle?