Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[GigiG]

I don't know where to fall on this side of the argument.

I worked with Criminals for a year during University here in the UK (trainee Solicitor) and I've believed them until it has come down to the week before trial and video evidence has been dumped on my desk. It's a bitter pill to swallow.

However, what unnerves me the most about the documentary is the behaviour of the people in it. There is so much focus on the actions of people like Colborn, Kratz, the Dassey family and Mike Halbach but the behaviour in public really gets me is Steven Averys.

Whenever I watch the press interviews he gives (the one in particular that I think of is next to the red van that Teresa photographed just after she disappeared) I watch his face. He stares straight on at the interviewer like he is trying hard not to show any facial expression. To me, at least, his eyes seem wide as if he is trying very hard not to blink (it was considered for years that constant blinking is a way to tell a liar, whatever truth there is to this I don't actually know but I still hear it here in the UK). Most people I know would know what facial expressions supposedly make you look a liar, it seems to me as if he has 'trained' himself to try and not make any expression. I find that very suspect in itself when I watch it back.

"Most people think they're good at spotting liars, but studies show otherwise. A very small minority of people, probably fewer than 5 percent, seem to have some innate ability to sniff out deception with accuracy. But in general, even professional lie-catchers, like judges and customs officials, perform, when tested, at a level not much better than chance. In other words, even the experts would have been right almost as often if they had just flipped a coin."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/05lying.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

There's also this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolki...k-at-spotting-liars/#6d7a942f1dff699c96661dff

 

[Malli]

"Most people think they're good at spotting liars, but studies show otherwise. A very small minority of people, probably fewer than 5 percent, seem to have some innate ability to sniff out deception with accuracy. But in general, even professional lie-catchers, like judges and customs officials, perform, when tested, at a level not much better than chance. In other words, even the experts would have been right almost as often if they had just flipped a coin."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/05lying.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

There's also this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolki...k-at-spotting-liars/#6d7a942f1dff699c96661dff

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say I think I can spot him lying.

I think he seems to be trying very hard not to LOOK like he is lying.

I have seen people do it in action, unconsciously because they think they are trying to not look like what they are taught a liar looks like. I am not saying it is conclusive, but how he talks compared to when he is freed or in his 'natural environment' talk volumes to me. It is not like that interview outside that truck.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

All the bone fragments found all over say to me is that SA was hiding them from police. Not the other way around.

He was probably afraid the pile of bones was easily discernible and so they were moved to spread them out.

Burn pit was primary burn site.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say I think I can spot him lying.

I think he seems to be trying very hard not to LOOK like he is lying.

I have seen people do it in action, unconsciously because they think they are trying to not look like what they are taught a liar looks like. I am not saying it is conclusive, but how he talks compared to when he is freed or in his 'natural environment' talk volumes to me. It is not like that interview outside that truck.

I think he is lying.. Ill say it.. when I see the way he talks on camera before the TH death, and after he looks different and is more cocky and looks to make trouble with his choice of words.

 

[GigiG]

So give me another suspect who knew Teresa was going there, Killed her there, and then hid her car and burned her in the pit?

With all due respect, that's not the way it works.

A criminal defense has no burden to "solve" the crime, nor to offer alternative theories. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If they cannot do so beyond a "reasonable doubt," the defendant is to be acquitted. That's the way it's supposed to work.

And again, please consider the definition of "reasonable doubt." It's not a gut feeling that someone's guilty, it is -- for good reason -- the highest level of proof required to be established before taking away someone's freedom.

Here are the differentiations between levels of doubt:

http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Standards_of_Proof

Chief Justice Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made this observation about the reasonable doubt standard in 1850:

"What is reasonable doubt? It is a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It is not mere possible doubt; because every thing relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the presumptions of law independent of evidence are in favor of innocence; and every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal. For it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one arising from the doctrine of chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary; but the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment, of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. This we take to be proof beyond reasonable doubt."

 

[AutumnDawn]

So give me another suspect who knew Teresa was going there, Killed her there, and then hid her car and burned her in the pit?

Whoever was repeatedly calling her that morning.....whoever called her that afternoon.....the person who she told her coworker was harassing her.... the person who deleted messages off her phone....the person who left the messages that were deleted off her phone...the guys whose wife claims he had some bizarre behavior around this time....

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

With all due respect, that's not the way it works.

A criminal defense has no burden to "solve" the crime, nor to offer alternative theories. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If they cannot do so beyond a "reasonable doubt," the defendant is to be acquitted. That's the way it's supposed to work.

And again, please consider the definition of "reasonable doubt." It's not a gut feeling that someone's guilty, it is -- for good reason -- the highest level of proof required to be established before taking away someone's freedom.

Here are the differentiations between levels of doubt:

http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Standards_of_Proof

Chief Justice Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made this observation about the reasonable doubt standard in 1850:

"What is reasonable doubt? It is a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It is not mere possible doubt; because every thing relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the presumptions of law independent of evidence are in favor of innocence; and every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal. For it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one arising from the doctrine of chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary; but the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment, of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. This we take to be proof beyond reasonable doubt."

I don't see that has any link to what I asked.. If people here think he is innocent show me the other suspects.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Whoever was repeatedly calling her that morning.....whoever called her that afternoon.....the person who she told her coworker was harassing her.... the person who deleted messages off her phone....the person who left the messages that were deleted off her phone...the guys whose wife claims he had some bizarre behavior around this time....

WHo are they? They have the records.. Where are the other suspects?

 

[AutumnDawn]

Kratz stated he did not think to look at her phone records in detail, only used them to show where Avery had called her. All other leads were ignored because they said they had their guy-Avery. When Avery's lawyers requested records from the LE, they were denied access. So at this point we don't know because LE did not think it was important.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Kratz stated he did not think to look at her phone records in detail, only used them to show where Avery had called her. All other leads were ignored because they said they had their guy-Avery. When Avery's lawyers requested records from the LE, they were denied access. So at this point we don't know because LE did not think it was important.

IMO it wasn't For me The more I watch this series the more I see him committing her murder and burning her. It is clearer to me not more muddled.

 

[MaxManning]

I don't see that has any link to what I asked.. If people here think he is innocent show me the other suspects.

You keep saying this, but how about we just point to the rape conviction of Avery.

Where was the other suspect ?

If they choose not to investigate, does that mean there are no other suspects ?


Charles Avery, Earl Avery, Tadych, Bobby, Ex-Boyfriend. Pick one. All potentially Gregory Allen 2.0

LE knew of Gregory Allen in that rape conviction, not from Avery, but from another law enforcement body. Then after conviction, when Allen confessed in prison, they STILL kept their mouths shut.

So, you can say "show me the suspects". But, what SHOULD have happened is a real investigation that rules out suspects and gets an alibi from the ex-boyfriend etc.

Then you might actually have suspects. If not, at leasy you did your job and followed the system as it's designed.

You don't have to look far to realize that wasn't done.

 

[AutumnDawn]

Jerry Buting discusses bones, bullets, burn pits and the details left out of the documentary.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news...-the-evidence-left-out-20160115#ixzz3xdxcVX77

Was that something you wanted to introduce at trial, that you thought might be able to create more doubt that Steven Avery was guilty?


Yes, and that's part of a broader question. In a pre-trial ruling, the judge denied us the opportunity to directly point the finger of guilt at one or more possible suspects, and we thought there were other possible suspects — people who had access, opportunity, could have done it. But the judge ruled, "Well, you can't prove that these other individuals had a motive to do so." And we said, "Well, wait a minute: the state doesn't have to prove the defendant had any motive, that's not a requirement, so why should the defense be required to prove the specific motive of a third party before we can even show the jury that there could have been someone else that may have done this?"
Because, in a very high-publicity case like this, that was what I thought was going to be the biggest problem. The jury would be asking, "Well, if he didn't do it, who did?" So, we were not allowed to direct evidence, but we were allowed to raise [questions].
And part of the argument [we made was] that law enforcement failed to properly, independently investigate this murder. [We showed] things that they didn't do that should have been done to show a sort of tunnel vision, and rush to judgment, and all of that. And that's the only reason that we were allowed to do any discussion about other possible suspects, or about missing voicemails and things of that nature — to try and show, "Look, these are the kinds of things that objective, unbiased law enforcement would do."


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-on-the-evidence-left-out-20160115

 

[AutumnDawn]

Buting
So the other thing that wasn't [addressed at trial] — and the state really had no explanation for it — [was]: If Avery was the killer and he burned the body behind his garage, why would he move just a few of them, and put them in his burn barrel, and a few of them and put them in some quarry a quarter-, half-mile away? You would think that if you're going to try and dispose of evidence, you're not going to leave the majority of it right outside your garage, right? They never offered anything to explain that, and, in fact, in my closing argument I challenged the prosecution to explain to this jury. The way it goes in Wisconsin is, because the state has the burden of proof, they get to finish the closing arguments with a rebuttal argument. So they make their opening closing statement, and then the defense goes, and then they can follow up with their final. [In my closing statement, I said] "He's going to get up here in a few more minutes and I challenge him to explain to you why these bones were moved." Because there was absolutely no doubt that the bones had been moved, certainly to the burn barrel and possibly a third location as well. The state never even offered [an explanation about] that; they completely ignored it. Didn't even address it, and neither did they [address it] at the Dassey trial, I believe.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news...-the-evidence-left-out-20160115#ixzz3xdysBZA4
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You keep saying this, but how about we just point to the rape conviction of Avery.

Where was the other suspect ?

If they choose not to investigate, does that mean there are no other suspects ?


Charles Avery, Earl Avery, Tadych, Bobby, Ex-Boyfriend. Pick one. All potentially Gregory Allen 2.0

LE knew of Gregory Allen in that rape conviction, not from Avery, but from another law enforcement body. Then after conviction, when Allen confessed in prison, they STILL kept their mouths shut.

So, you can say "show me the suspects". But, what SHOULD have happened is a real investigation that rules out suspects and gets an alibi from the ex-boyfriend etc.

Then you might actually have suspects. If not, at leasy you did your job and followed the system as it's designed.

You don't have to look far to realize that wasn't done.

There was another suspect though. Right from the beginning. I have no problem with the horrible corruption that went on in the rape case although I still believe he was found guilty based on PB id.

 

[MysticJynx]

AC calling in the plates is a major twist, if they can pull phone records around that time to see who was talking to who?

What time did her mom call in to report her missing?

What time did Weigart call Colborn? (according to his testimony)

What time did Colborn call the dispatch?

1.. Teresa's mother was called by Teresa's friend and studio partner TP. He called Karen her mom around 1pm. Told her she hadn't been into the studio in several days and when he calls her he is finding her phone message box full...
Teresa's mom Karen Goes about the first of the process calling her older sons. Calling husband in from where he was working in on their farm, In which went over to Teresa Rented home she shared with SB. The report of her missing came between 4-5pm that same day she received the call from TP. Nov 3 2005

2... After she is reported missing around 4-5pm they knew she had appointments at two Manitowoc Residences. Avery and another JZ/GZ's place. Calumet County called Manitowoc and got AC. He then proceeded to SA Yard first by himself.

3... AC Called in after she was reported missing because her plate comes up to a missing person when he runs them.

And just another tidbit. Not sure who had gone back the night of the 3rd, but according to SA via old News story's they came back later on the 3rd and did a walk through of his home even then. So my questions would be did he call in those plates before the second time they went there to question and walk through his home? and who was the officer that went back and did the walk through?

 

[GigiG]

Jerry Buting discusses bones, bullets, burn pits and the details left out of the documentary.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news...-the-evidence-left-out-20160115#ixzz3xdxcVX77

Was that something you wanted to introduce at trial, that you thought might be able to create more doubt that Steven Avery was guilty?


Yes, and that's part of a broader question. In a pre-trial ruling, the judge denied us the opportunity to directly point the finger of guilt at one or more possible suspects, and we thought there were other possible suspects — people who had access, opportunity, could have done it. But the judge ruled, "Well, you can't prove that these other individuals had a motive to do so." And we said, "Well, wait a minute: the state doesn't have to prove the defendant had any motive, that's not a requirement, so why should the defense be required to prove the specific motive of a third party before we can even show the jury that there could have been someone else that may have done this?"
Because, in a very high-publicity case like this, that was what I thought was going to be the biggest problem. The jury would be asking, "Well, if he didn't do it, who did?" So, we were not allowed to direct evidence, but we were allowed to raise [questions].
And part of the argument [we made was] that law enforcement failed to properly, independently investigate this murder. [We showed] things that they didn't do that should have been done to show a sort of tunnel vision, and rush to judgment, and all of that. And that's the only reason that we were allowed to do any discussion about other possible suspects, or about missing voicemails and things of that nature — to try and show, "Look, these are the kinds of things that objective, unbiased law enforcement would do."


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-on-the-evidence-left-out-20160115

BBM

These factors show how the system utterly failed. JMO

 

[CARIIS]

So give me another suspect who knew Teresa was going there, Killed her there, and then hid her car and burned her in the pit?

Oh my ! With this gang- our choices are endless! My fav is the EX - like we all know many killers do got just so invested in the search for his EX girlfiriend . !

And oh my he he is the one that got the "car finder" a video camera!!

Her roomate comes in a high second on my list. What roomate ignores and fails to address a roomate not coming home for days unless you possiblly know she aint coming home ever?

All behavior has meaning - can anyone come up with a reason for a roomate to do nothing about a missing roomate for days - pretty peculiar if you ask me !!

 

[AutumnDawn]

1.. Teresa's mother was called by Teresa's friend and studio partner TP. He called Karen her mom around 1pm. Told her she hadn't been into the studio in several days and when he calls her he is finding her phone message box full...
Teresa's mom Karen Goes about the first of the process calling her older sons. Calling husband in from where he was working in on their farm, In which went over to Teresa Rented home she shared with SB. The report of her missing came between 4-5pm that same day she received the call from TP. Nov 3 2005

2... After she is reported missing around 4-5pm they knew she had appointments at two Manitowoc Residences. Avery and another JZ/GZ's place. Calumet County called Manitowoc and got AC. He then proceeded to SA Yard first by himself.

3... AC Called in after she was reported missing because her plate comes up to a missing person when he runs them.

And just another tidbit. Not sure who had gone back the night of the 3rd, but according to SA via old News story's they came back later on the 3rd and did a walk through of his home even then. So my questions would be did he call in those plates before the second time they went there to question and walk through his home? and who was the officer that went back and did the walk through?
The question I have is did he call in the plates before he went and visited the junk yard?

Thank you for answering my questions!

AC gets the call first and goes out alone......and calls in plates days before it is found.....does not look good at all on his part

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Oh my ! With this gang- our choices are endless! My fav is the EX - like we all know many killers do got just so invested in the search for his EX girlfiriend . !

And oh my he he is the one that got the "car finder" a video camera!!

Her roomate comes in a high second on my list. What roomate ignores and fails to address a roomate not coming home for days unless you possiblly know she aint coming home ever?

All behavior has meaning - can anyone come up with a reason for a roomate to do nothing about a missing roomate for days - pretty peculiar if you ask me !!

But then they have to kill her, Burn her on his property right at his back door, Hide her car, Get into the house and put the key in there. They have to Move her burnt bones in two other places in Averys yard.

IT is incredulous at best.

 

[CARIIS]

It is amazing the things he CAN remember and the things he CANT!

[video=youtube;oeuJH9v9o7g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeuJH9v9o7g[/video]