Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[dexter75]

Can you blame her???
It's ALL she knew for 18 YEARS?!?!
AHEM, and WHO'S doing was that?????
:gaah:

I think this is the article I read about Penny and how she felt about Steve. It's a good read. She even admits to having small doubts over the years.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/...ium=email&utm_term=makingamurderer#.RT1dzjEic

 

[Daae]

EDTA has a very short half-life when exposed to the elements (light, air) 11 hours. It would degrade very quickly. Why would SA put her in the vehicle?

 

[dexter75]

DNA, can't have it BOTH ways. ( The way I am viewing this statement, in a nutshell )
YOU make some VERY valid points MaxManning!:clap:

Not saying I doubt this interview exists, but I do want to see it. Only thing I have seen is her embracing him after the conviction was overturned.

It makes me uncomfortable though for people to trust DNA that he is guilty, yet not trust it if he is innocent. I get what you are saying, but hard to see it as anything but bias. Nothing wrong with that, people have gut feelings. But I don't think the legal system is meant to be based on gut feelings. If my life was on the line for something I knew I didn't do, I'd rather have a juror with an open mind than someone prone to gut feelings eliminating logical reasoning.

I would think that if someone got raped by someone with blond hair and a beard, they might likely have PTSD triggered by someone matching that profile. I wouldn't use that to form my own personal opinions of people with blond hair and beards.

But I do hear you about the past behavior. I am one who weighs that as more significant than some users who have to some degree minimized it's significance in regards to evaluating what kind of person he is imo

 

[Tawny]

Just because you get 2 keys does not mean that it is not used.. I have 2 keys for my car on two different rings.. Sometimes I use one and sometimes I use the other.

I don't know why it being the spare key, If this is even true matters? If she used that one.

Because her DNA isn't on it.

 

[dexter75]

DITTO to that!!!
Being a SAHM myself, my hands are CONSTANTLY cut up from CLEANING alone!! ( especially THIS time of year)
Just now decided to suck it up & wear gloves. HATE wearing gloves.
Just two days ago, I cut my thumb locking up the shed, just sayin'

That's what I thought! I mainly sleuth from my phone so I don't save images as often as I use to. And I will just say the cut on his hand in his line of work doesn't strike me as odd. Shoot, since becoming a stay at home mom I find that I often have cuts and scratches and bruises that often I have no recollection of getting.

ETA: do we know which hand is dominant for SA? If he is right handed, why would there be blood on the right side of the steering wheel? If he is left handed, would he have used that hand for the ignition? And left handlers out there who do this, or do you typically use your right hand for putting the keys in?

 

[pleasestandby]

EDTA has a very short half-life when exposed to the elements (light, air) 11 hours. It would degrade very quickly. Why would SA put her in the vehicle?

Thank you for your response regarding EDTA being exposed to sunlight and microorganisms.

And that's a good question, "Why would SA put her in the vehicle? Especially since the prosecutor emphasized TH was killed in the garage, or trailer, depending on who was on trial at the moment, and then SA and BD carried her to the fire pit or fire barrel by the house and cremated her. So why put her in the vehicle at all? To carry her 10 feet to the burn barrel or fire pit?

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:

I know, he did all that because he didn't want the $36 million dollars he had sued for. Or wait, I know, he wanted to spend the rest of his life in prison. He had become institutionalized and wanted to go back "home." The following recent article even claims that crazy notion.

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/01/07/dassey-avery-longed-prison/78438780/

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.

 

[shadowraiths]

Wrt SA's trial.

I am pretty sure the primary reason SA did not testify is that, had he done so, it would have opened the door to the prosecution, as they could have challenged is claim of innocence by raising his past "bad acts." An atty may, of course, correct me on this, but I'm pretty sure that's why he did not testify.

That said, one thing I notice is that SA never takes responsibility for his past "bad acts." The guy has all sorts of reasons. They weren't that big of a deal, what he did was dumb but he was a kid, and so on an so forth.

For example, with regard to cruelty to animals claim? In the docuseries, SA glosses over the cat torture (see episode one transcript):

Steven: Another mistake I did... I had a bunch of friends over, and we were fooling around with the cat... and, I don't know, they were kind of negging it on and...

Court Document (dated 1982) highlights: "a cat", "on fire", "party to the crime of cruelty to animal".

Steven: I tossed him over the fire... and he lit up. You know, it was the family cat. I was young and stupid and hanging around with the wrong people.​

Young and stupid? The guy was 20 when that occurred. They doused the poor cat with oil and gasoline. What did he think would happen when they threw the poor thing over the fire? Moreover, he talks about it like it was "no big deal."

Then, there's the bit involving running Sandra Morris off the road and threatening her with a shotgun:

The bad blood thickened between Avery and the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department in January 1985, when Avery ran a deputy’s wife off the road at gunpoint and tried to force her into his car. The woman, Sandra Morris, was Avery’s cousin and a friend of Manitowoc County Deputy Sheriff Judy Dvorak. Morris had complained to police that Avery had exposed himself in his front yard on several occasions when she drove past his house. Avery let the woman go when she told him her infant daughter was alone in her car.​

But hey, it wasn't his fault! Or so says his father (see episode one transcript):

Sandy Morris and Bill Morris, they were always picking on Stevie, more or less, you know. Saying stuff about Steve that... that wasn't true.​

During prison and in response to the divorce filed by his then wife, he allegedly sent her threatening letters:

But the couple divorced in 1988 after Lori filed for a separation, and Avery lost contact with his kids. The divorce ended acrimoniously. According to prison records, Avery sent threatening letters to his wife.

“I hate you, you got your divorce now you will pay for it,” he wrote in an undated letter mailed to Lori from prison. In another letter, he wrote, “If you don’t brang up my kids I will kill you. I promis. Ha. Ha.” -- (see 2006, Chandler C, "Blood Simple," Milwaukee Magazine)​

Moreover, he continued to engage in, at the very least, aggressive behavior after he was released from prison in 2003 for his false conviction.

In September 2004, sheriff deputies arrested Avery for violating a disorderly conduct ordinance after an altercation with Stachowski. The court ordered him to stay away from the woman for 72 hours and pay a fine of $243. -- (see 2006, Chandler C, "Blood Simple," Milwaukee Magazine)​

After he is released for his overturned conviction, he has the audacity to contact the victim who misidentified him and ask her to buy him a house?

This is a guy who seems to have no moral compass whatsoever. Now, while I do think some of the evidence was planted, I certainly do not think it was planted with malice. I think LEOs truly believe they had their man, and simply wanted to ensure the charges stuck. And, I really get that.

And, as I have noted before, while I do think he murdered Ms. Halbach, i think he murdered her and burned her body elsewhere. Did he then bring her remains back to his property? I'm on the fence, with that bit. Still need to finish reading Brendan's trial transcripts. Bc, I do suspect Brendan may very well have helped conceal evidence and was potentially, at the very least guilty of assisting in a coverup.

And finally, as an aside. While some may believe animal torture is not necessarily relevant. That is, the view that an animal torturer does not a killer make. Research, which is an ongoing process, seems to be identifying correlations between animal cruelty and sexual violence. (see 2002, Gleyzer R, Felthous AR, & Holzer III CE, "Animal Cruelty and Psychiatric Disorders," The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law)

Just some food for thought.

 

[shadowraiths]

I just wanted to add that my husband was living not too far from the area the time of the murder. He said that anyone who believes SA didn't kill TH is just plain crazy. I think most people within a 100 mile radius of Manitowoc believe he killed her and would not want SA as their new neighbor....just saying...

Personally, I do not think not wanting someone as a neighbor rises to the level that said unwanted person is a killer... just saying...

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Here is the excerpt that I was speaking of. I read it quickly last night and couldn't remember exactly what she was saying, but here ya go:


I saw a therapist after the assault, and then after the exoneration, I saw a therapist again. I said to my second therapist, “I’ve seen a picture of Gregory Allen and he doesn’t look real to me. I would swear I’ve never seen him before in my life. I look at his picture, I can’t feel angry, I think he could walk in the room and my blood pressure wouldn’t even go up. I still see Steven Avery as my assailant even though I understand he wasn’t.”

Her response was, “You will never be able to attach the emotions that you felt at the time of the assault or in the ensuing years to Gregory Allen. What you need to work on is removing those feelings from Steven Avery.”


https://www.themarshallproject.org/...ium=email&utm_term=makingamurderer#.cTMBG9CBo

Context is important. PB would feel negativity to the man she believed for 18 yrs, sexually assaulted her.

 

[Daae]

Thank you for your response regarding EDTA being exposed to sunlight and microorganisms.

And that's a good question, "Why would SA put her in the vehicle? Especially since the prosecutor emphasized TH was killed in the garage, or trailer, depending on who was on trial at the moment, and then SA and BD carried her to the fire pit or fire barrel by the house and cremated her. So why put her in the vehicle at all? To carry her 10 feet to the burn barrel or fire pit?

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:

I know, he did all that because he didn't want the $36 million dollars he had sued for. Or wait, I know, he wanted to spend the rest of his life in prison. He had become institutionalized and wanted to go back "home."

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.

Also there is damage to the driver side front bumper and light. She may have been run off the road.

 

[shadowraiths]

Fyi, SA's new attorney posts have been moved to Steven Avery gets new representation

 

[dexter75]

Did you see the interview with the two women that made this documentary? Just curious. They stated they had no interest in guilt or innocence.
Their OBJECTIVE was indeed to show being a DEFENDANT in America.
Of course they would focus on the DEFENSE/DEFENDANT.
They also INVITED everyone involved to be a part of it, prosecution, Theresa's family, ALL that were involved in this case INCLUDING LE. I am NOT arguing the " music " playing, etc. I am saying that they went to everyone to participate, also required to file affidavits for prosecution info. ( meaning Kratz was well aware of WHAT was being documented, and in fact could put in his two cents if he chose to, he declined. )

I do not think SA is a great liar nor pretended to be. I think, he was ASHAMED of what he had done.

When I watched him talk about the cat, I didn't see him downplay this, I saw him look down in a " I'd rather not speak about it " kind of way. ( Maybe he downplayed the gun thing? I am not sure. ) To me, I think he is the ignorant type, and lacks coping skills. I try to keep an open mind, and am very wise to the ways of the world, different cultures/social statuses, and the like.

UNFORTUNATELY, I had a ROUGH upbringing and raised myself. I, personally, never was in trouble ( thank God! ) however, I grew up around and have a family member who was & KNOW a few things; I agree, having a record can make you easy pickings when it comes down to being a suspect in a crime. I am not arguing that point at all.

That being said, that rape of poor PB, was nothing less than a WITCH HUNT topped off with LE AWARE of the ACTUAL RAPIST and CHOOSING to ignore it. That to me, is not only a miscarriage of justice, it is a DAMN SHAME. Law Enforcement is supposed to PROTECT and SERVE. They are NOT the Judge, Jury or Executioner. This is America and we are ALL supposed to be PRESUMED INNOCENT. Those law enforcement officials had NO right to do what they did.

As far as the phone calls. It was documented, ( I need to find link ) TH called Barb Janda's to confirm the photo appointment. Left the message on Barb's machine. SA doing the star 67 thing was a procedure he started to use after he was released and started the lawsuit, to protect his privacy.

You mention SA and his " rape investigation " I've seen this brought up before.
Investigation, again doesn't equal conviction, or even sufficient evidence for an arrest/indictment. Newspaper report, hmmm. (Saying he confided in his GF Jodi, the girl that was SHOWN that she could NOT stick to the terms of her probation because she wanted to drink alcohol Jodi? )
Are those/CAN those be BIAS the way documentaries are/can be bias, perhaps? ( something to think about I suppose )

The ONLY thing I know for a FACT after watching this documentary: ( and I do NOT regret watching it, as I have learned so much. Thank you all =) )
Is GOD or May THE BEST DEFENSE EVER HELP ME should I EVER become ACCUSED of a crime in my life.
That is all.

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.

 

[dexter75]

What do you think of BD interviews being cut?

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.

 

[Madeleine74]

Were BD's interviews with police cut/edited by the police or by the filmmakers? I couldn't tell I only noticed a cut in the time.

 

[missy1974]

Avery trial exhibits - DNA analysis reports by Sherry Culhane

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...avery_trial_exhibits_dna_analysis_reports_by/

someone has paid for and posted some exhibits.

 

[JudyBolton]

Context is important. PB would feel negativity to the man she believed for 18 yrs, sexually assaulted her.

I personally think she has some nerve to say ANYTHING against SA. Her feelings about him have been scientifically PROVEN to be 100% wrong! So now when he being accused of another crime that doesn't involve her at all ....she thinks it is appropriate for her to be interviewed and plant doubts about him and speak positively about the ACTUAL rapist?

I do not know her but have no respect for her - Why did she feel it was important to tell that story about SA and asking for a house? It obviously paints him in a bad light - WHY? It appears that in spite of her words (that she feels remorse for falsely accusing him and having him spend 18 years in prison for something he did NOT do) - her actions do not reflect that at all.

I am terribly sorry for her horrible assault but in light of all that has happened since then -she should just quietly go away and not try to impact his life any further than she already has.

 

[Sleuther87]

EDTA has a very short half-life when exposed to the elements (light, air) 11 hours. It would degrade very quickly. Why would SA put her in the vehicle?

Got a source for this one?

 

[dexter75]

Because that is not how it happened and if there is any justice/karma, whatever you want to call it, SA and BD did NOT do this, IMO of course. ( gotta throw that in there )
The TRUTH always comes out.
It may be LATE. It may not be how WE prefer it too. However, it WILL come out.
Think all this is COINCIDENCE?
This circus of a case?
NONE of it makes any sense. SURE, we can TRY and make all the pieces fit in our own minds, somehow.
Seriously, though, you NAILED it! LOGIC. ( That, and FACTS never hurt either )
It's just a shame that common sense, doesn't seem all to common now days.
Pull some hair for me, will ya?
Mine is nearly gone, this case, smh.:goodpost:ullhair:

Thank you for your response regarding EDTA being exposed to sunlight and microorganisms.

And that's a good question, "Why would SA put her in the vehicle? Especially since the prosecutor emphasized TH was killed in the garage, or trailer, depending on who was on trial at the moment, and then SA and BD carried her to the fire pit or fire barrel by the house and cremated her. So why put her in the vehicle at all? To carry her 10 feet to the burn barrel or fire pit?

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:

I know, he did all that because he didn't want the $36 million dollars he had sued for. Or wait, I know, he wanted to spend the rest of his life in prison. He had become institutionalized and wanted to go back "home." The following recent article even claims that crazy notion.

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/01/07/dassey-avery-longed-prison/78438780/

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.

 

[dexter75]

:ditto:

I personally think she has some nerve to say ANYTHING against SA. Her feelings about him have been scientifically PROVEN to be 100% wrong! So now when he being accused to another crime that doesn't involve her at all ....she thinks it is appropriate for her to be interviewed and plant doubts about him and speak positively about the ACTUAL rapist?

I do not know her but have no respect for her - Why did she feel it was important to tell that story about SA and asking for a house? It obviously paints him in a bad light - WHY? It appears that in spite of her words (that she feels remorse for falsely accusing him and having him spend 18 years in prison for something he did NOT do) - her actions do not reflect that at all.

I am terribly sorry for her horrible assault but in light of all that has happened since then -she should just quietly go away and not try to impact his life any further than she already has.

 

[Madeleine74]

So why put her in the vehicle at all? To carry her 10 feet to the burn barrel or fire pit?

Allegedly, and according to Brendan, she was put in the back of her vehicle because the first plan was to dump her body in the man-made body of water/pond that was somewhere on the property, but then SA changed his mind and decided to burn her instead.