Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #4

[TheDuchess]

UNLESS you live in a smaller town or even a city where EVERY person knows you, your family, your business.

The teachers you had in school may now be teaching your own children, if they aren't retired. A couple are even principles. Members of LE's participate in many activities in the community, etc.

You really haven't a clue what these jurors may have been feeling, if indeed any of them were afraid to speak up.
That is all.

And we know at least two of the jurors were relatives of people employed by LE


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pleasestandby]

BBM

Have any of the jurors said that they felt they would be killed if they voted not guilty?

Has there been anything to suggest that the state or anyone in LE threatened to kill any member of the jury who didn't vote for a guilty verdict?

Umm, SA just got out of prison after spending 18 years of his life there. I'd suppose that after the jury heard ALL the evidence like we are finally learning about here, they probably came to the same conclusion that many of us have; there's something fishy going on in Denmark and if this guy SA can be screwed out of 18 years of his life, we don't want to rock the boat because they can screw us just as easily as SA got screwed.

Hmm, those jurors who just happened to be related to the sheriff and the COC's, they look pretty angry, I'd hate to have the cops angry at me, too, so I'll just vote guilty and maybe they won't come after me. That's intimidation to me and being in fear of one's future living in the county.

 

[missy1974]

Can you imagine a volunteer at the Sheriff's dept and the father of an employee there voting guilty. That is one thing I don't understand, how did that guy get on the jury???? I understand that the defense only had 6 strikes, but c'mon, in what world does that guy get on the jury? IMO he should have been dismissed immediately.

Not to mention the other one connected to the County Clerks office....

*sigh*

 

[angelainwi]

I believe that during voir dire that the deputy's father talked about how he thought cops could be crooked and so they did not strike him because they thought he might be open to police planting evidence. I personally believe this man said this to get on the jury to convict.

 

[MysticJynx]

I believe that during voir dire that the deputy's father talked about how he thought cops could be crooked and so they did not strike him because they thought he might be open to police planting evidence. I personally believe this man said this to get on the jury to convict.

Working for the sheriffs department from like Nov 2006, they very well could have prepped him on what to say so he would be picked. sorry but this is my opinion and think very likely

He was one of the Manitowoc County sheriff’s department’s most active volunteers, clocking in over 300 hours in 2007.

During Wardman’s interview, he said police officers could get away with lying in court since judges and juries would believe them.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ror-ties-manitowoc-sheriffs-article-1.2489520

 

[MysticJynx]

Not sure if this has been posted at all.

https://casetext.com/case/avery-v-kratz-1

A retired Calumet County sheriff's investigator also testified for Kratz. John Dedering said he found the allegations against Kratz astonishing, that he felt personally betrayed because Kratz was someone he really looked up to in law enforcement, and who brought more training and professionalism to the sheriff's department.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/159591315.html

 

[angelainwi]

"Making a Murderer is a national obsession—a riveting, visually stunning masterpiece of documentary filmmaking.

But it is also one of the more slanted, one-sided pieces of storytelling in recent memory, so Dan O'Donnell goes episode-by-episode through it to systematically dismantle the series' vague allegations of a conspiracy by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department to frame Steven Avery."





http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-14280387/

 

[TheDuchess]

Umm, SA just got out of prison after spending 18 years of his life there. I'd suppose that after the jury heard ALL the evidence like we are finally learning about here, they probably came to the same conclusion that many of us have; there's something fishy going on in Denmark and if this guy SA can be screwed out of 18 years of his life, we don't want to rock the boat because they can screw us just as easily as SA got screwed.

Hmm, those jurors who just happened to be related to the sheriff and the COC's, they look pretty angry, I'd hate to have the cops angry at me, too, so I'll just vote guilty and maybe they won't come after me. That's intimidation to me and being in fear of one's future living in the county.

And agree on a not guilty verdict on the mutilating a corpse charge to send a message to the appellate court.

 

[Madeleine74]

What OFFICER in their RIGHT mind would say such a thing?!

It was a very stupid thing to say in response to the allegation of framing Avery, although I instantly understood the point he was trying to make (which had to do with amount of effort it would take).

 

[RANCH]

Umm, SA just got out of prison after spending 18 years of his life there. I'd suppose that after the jury heard ALL the evidence like we are finally learning about here, they probably came to the same conclusion that many of us have; there's something fishy going on in Denmark and if this guy SA can be screwed out of 18 years of his life, we don't want to rock the boat because they can screw us just as easily as SA got screwed.

Hmm, those jurors who just happened to be related to the sheriff and the COC's, they look pretty angry, I'd hate to have the cops angry at me, too, so I'll just vote guilty and maybe they won't come after me. That's intimidation to me and being in fear of one's future living in the county.

So this case isn't just about LE planting evidence, it's also about LE intimidating jurors.

The only problem I have with this is I haven't seen any evidence that backs up these allegations. JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

I agree and want to see the new testing that I am sure Zellner will be doing in regards to the blood, however, the same rules apply to the prosecution as well. For example, the bones were burned so badly that most of them were just little pieces, and splinters, except for the tibia bone which was "allegedly" found in the Dassey burn barrel. I say allegedly because there was no picture taken of that bone actually IN the barrel, which makes no sense. What possible explanation could they give for that? It was a big enough bone that there was no reason for them to not photograph it before they allegedly removed it, as it would have been more than obvious to see with the naked eye. Yet, they did not do that. They photographed her cell phone and PDA easily enough, but decided not to bother with the human bone supposedly found there. As I said, makes no sense.

By saying, "Just because LE COULD HAVE tampered with the blood and planted it, doesn't mean that they DID.", the same logic could be applied to the bones as well. Just because LE said that the bones were found in the fire pit and burn barrel (and possibly the quarry) from the beginning, doesn't mean that is where they started off at, as there is no PROOF of that other than LE word on that. I don't trust ANYTHING that particular agency says and would need to see it for myself, because they have tended to spin things the way they wanted where this case is concerned.

It's sad every single piece wasn't photographed and video'd exactly as it was being found to provide that level of proof (i.e. "I must see it for myself to believe it happened or exists"). I doubt anyone processing the scene back then was thinking of the future optics. They were going about the grim task of recovering what was left of a young woman and some of her personal items. Remember, a cadaver dog hit on the burn pit and the burn barrels; dogs don't lie.

The corroboration comes from multiple people (and witnesses) processing the scene and testifying to what they saw, did, who else they saw, etc. Unless you believe every single cop, detective, person who was at the scene are all colluding together and are willing to perjure themselves on the stand, why would anyone lie about where they found various pieces of human remains? And how do you get the dog handler to agree to go along with your ruse?

 

[Madeleine74]

Working for the sheriffs department from like Nov 2006, they very well could have prepped him on what to say so he would be picked. sorry but this is my opinion and think very likely.

The state knew what the defense would ask this guy during voir dire? So anyone who knows or is related to someone who works for the county or the police department(s) in that area is also corrupt?

The guy didn't lie about being related to someone who was an employee of that county and happened to be in law enforcement, he obviously disclosed that on his juror questionnaire. A reasonable person might expect to be dismissed from consideration right from the get-go. I would assume I'd be dismissed and I bet most people would assume that.

 

[RANCH]

It's sad every single piece wasn't photographed and video'd exactly as it was being found to provide that level of proof (i.e. "I must see it for myself to believe it happened or exists"). I doubt anyone processing the scene back then was thinking of the future optics. They were going about the grim task of recovering what was left of a young woman and some of her personal items. Remember, a cadaver dog hit on the burn pit and the burn barrels; dogs don't lie.

The corroboration comes from multiple people (and witnesses) processing the scene and testifying to what they saw, did, who else they saw, etc. Unless you believe every single cop, detective, person who was at the scene are all colluding together and are willing to perjure themselves on the stand, why would anyone lie about where they found various pieces of human remains? And how do you get the dog handler to agree to go along with your ruse?

I really have a hard time believing that multiple people would decide at a moments notice to join in this grand conspiracy that would include planting evidence,jury tampering,and perjury. JMO

 

[missy1974]

It's sad every single piece wasn't photographed and video'd exactly as it was being found to provide that level of proof (i.e. "I must see it for myself to believe it happened or exists"). I doubt anyone processing the scene back then was thinking of the future optics. They were going about the grim task of recovering what was left of a young woman and some of her personal items. Remember, a cadaver dog hit on the burn pit and the burn barrels; dogs don't lie.

The corroboration comes from multiple people (and witnesses) processing the scene and testifying to what they saw, did, who else they saw, etc. Unless you believe every single cop, detective, person who was at the scene are all colluding together and are willing to perjure themselves on the stand, why would anyone lie about where they found various pieces of human remains? And how do you get the dog handler to agree to go along with your ruse?

These were not some random searchers that just happened to come across some bones so they collected them and put them in a box. No, these were LE officers that were doing their job, they "should" be trained and "should" know the protocol, if they were unsure, I'm sure they had the resources to find the proper protocol. We know that part of that protocol was to have the coroner, who they blocked because it was a conflict of interest, fine, phone the one from Calumet, nope, they didn't do that either. They took the time to take photo's of every other piece of evidence, that they deemed to be important, but they did not take photo's of the bones. That is not okay, no matter what side of the fence you are on. They didn't even take pictures of the one's in the barrel.

I don't doubt that the remains are TH's, I do doubt that they were there because SA burned them and left them there. IMO documentation of where and how they were found would have helped in that determination, either way. And to shrug off the fact they deviated from protocol is part of the bigger issue with this case IMO.

I have seen you post more than once that the cadaver dog "hit" on the burn pit, do you have a link to support that? Because what I got from the testimony, direct and cross, was that the dog got to the propane tank, SA's dog was barking at it, Brutus barked... possibly at the other dog, the handler confirmed in cross that yes, Brutus would bark if another dog was barking at it. Brutus then made a bee line for the barrels behind the Dassey residence, yes barrels... he hit on 2 barrels behind their residence. I did not see anything that Brutus hit on the fire pit. Oh and IIRC, this was on the 5th, 3 days before anyone 'found' any bones. Why wasn't the dog's hit's followed up on? or were they? I mean really, SA could be equally as guilty if the remains were found in those barrels... makes him look REALLY guilty if they are found in his burn pit though, right? JMO

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Dismissed Steven Avery Juror Tells PEOPLE Jury Members Were Related to a Local Cop and a County Employee

http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-says-two-jurors-related-county-employees

A juror who was ultimately dismissed from the murder trial of Making a Murderer subject Steven Avery tells PEOPLE that two jurors who convicted Avery were related to Manitowoc County employees.

"After the trial, I found out...[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy," the dismissed juror, Richard Mahler, says. "Another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office."

Juror C.W.?

Which above juror was swearing and intimidating the other jurors? Why are the juror's names being kept secret? This isn't a John Doe trial.

According to SA's appeal document, CW was the sheriff's relation.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

It appears to me Wiegert lied on his report or some of the information given to him was false.

Wiegert's report:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...1/Trial-Exhibit-216-Wiegerts-Nov-3-Report.pdf

I saw in a previous list of numbers showing a 4:35 pm number. Wiegert's report on page 7 does not show that phone number or time.
Wiegert's report mentions the times of all the phone calls except George Zipperer.
The report doesn't specify WHO did the reverse directory of the phone numbers.

The last entry on page 7 of the report states"

"The next previous phone call would have been on 10/31/05 at 11:43 am to 920-(redacted), which lists to a Steven Avery"

Unofficial typed phone records introduced as evidence instead of the actual phone records:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...nd-362-Auto-Trader-Appt-and-Phone-Records.pdf

That statement would be untrue because:

Page 2 of Steven Avery's cell phone record shows no outgoing phone call at 11:43 AM

BUT, it does show:

Page 3 of Teresa Halbach's cell phone records does show an outgoing 11:43 AM phone call to Barb Janda.

Either whoever gave Wiegert the phone records falsified this information and misled him or he falsified the records.

An obfuscation on Wiegert's part is that he redacted the last 7 digits of each phone number so no one could make a comparison with his report and the list of phone numbers.

If you expand page 7 of that report to its highest magnification, the number he claims was Avery's actually appears to be Janda's. I could be wrong, though.

Someone is lying here or misleading, or both. It's plain as day.

If someone could check my claim and verify it, I'd appreciate it.

I used to have Photoplus4 which when you copied a redacted item the redacted item would be a different shade than the marker that was used to cover the item up. I can't use that old PP4 program on my new computer, darn it.

There was a huge discussion in the phone threads about this. Mystic thinks there was possibly some falsification of the documents printed off TH's phone bill by her friends. I'm not so convinced.

But anyway, thanks for posting the report for Wiegert!

...and yes...I did forget someone on the list...thanks for pointing it out to me!:shame:

 

[RANCH]

These were not some random searchers that just happened to come across some bones so they collected them and put them in a box. No, these were LE officers that were doing their job, they "should" be trained and "should" know the protocol, if they were unsure, I'm sure they had the resources to find the proper protocol. We know that part of that protocol was to have the coroner, who they blocked because it was a conflict of interest, fine, phone the one from Calumet, nope, they didn't do that either. They took the time to take photo's of every other piece of evidence, that they deemed to be important, but they did not take photo's of the bones. That is not okay, no matter what side of the fence you are on. They didn't even take pictures of the one's in the barrel.

I don't doubt that the remains are TH's, I do doubt that they were there because SA burned them and left them there. IMO documentation of where and how they were found would have helped in that determination, either way. And to shrug off the fact they deviated from protocol is part of the bigger issue with this case IMO.

I have seen you post more than once that the cadaver dog "hit" on the burn pit, do you have a link to support that? Because what I got from the testimony, direct and cross, was that the dog got to the propane tank, SA's dog was barking at it, Brutus barked... possibly at the other dog, the handler confirmed in cross that yes, Brutus would bark if another dog was barking at it. Brutus then made a bee line for the barrels behind the Dassey residence, yes barrels... he hit on 2 barrels behind their residence. I did not see anything that Brutus hit on the fire pit. Oh and IIRC, this was on the 5th, 3 days before anyone 'found' any bones. Why wasn't the dog's hit's followed up on? or were they? I mean really, SA could be equally as guilty if the remains were found in those barrels... makes him look REALLY guilty if they are found in his burn pit though, right? JMO

Your post reminds me to search for more information about the use of HRD (Human Remains Detection) dogs in this case.

 

[Madeleine74]

These were not some random searchers that just happened to come across some bones so they collected them and put them in a box. No, these were LE officers that were doing their job, they "should" be trained and "should" know the protocol, if they were unsure, I'm sure they had the resources to find the proper protocol. We know that part of that protocol was to have the coroner, who they blocked because it was a conflict of interest, fine, phone the one from Calumet, nope, they didn't do that either. They took the time to take photo's of every other piece of evidence, that they deemed to be important, but they did not take photo's of the bones. That is not okay, no matter what side of the fence you are on. They didn't even take pictures of the one's in the barrel.

I don't doubt that the remains are TH's, I do doubt that they were there because SA burned them and left them there. IMO documentation of where and how they were found would have helped in that determination, either way. And to shrug off the fact they deviated from protocol is part of the bigger issue with this case IMO.

I have seen you post more than once that the cadaver dog "hit" on the burn pit, do you have a link to support that? Because what I got from the testimony, direct and cross, was that the dog got to the propane tank, SA's dog was barking at it, Brutus barked... possibly at the other dog, the handler confirmed in cross that yes, Brutus would bark if another dog was barking at it. Brutus then made a bee line for the barrels behind the Dassey residence, yes barrels... he hit on 2 barrels behind their residence. I did not see anything that Brutus hit on the fire pit. Oh and IIRC, this was on the 5th, 3 days before anyone 'found' any bones. Why wasn't the dog's hit's followed up on? or were they? I mean really, SA could be equally as guilty if the remains were found in those barrels... makes him look REALLY guilty if they are found in his burn pit though, right? JMO

Yes, protocols are important and should be followed and for good reason. I don't agree that everyone who was on that scene was involved in some conspiracy or framing attempt or were colluding. Haven't seen evidence that TH was burned elsewhere/away from the Salvage Yard property. What value would it be to LE to have parts of TH found in not one place in the salvage yard? Again, just using common sense, it seems an effort to move larger pieces of bone elsewhere would be done to not have those pieces stand out.

The Dateline special on the case Friday night is my source for learning a cadaver dog 'hit' on the burn pit and burn barrels; before watching I wasn't aware of that.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Wouldn't it be possible to stick any amount of needles in the same hole that was already there without leaving a trace? Or even pop the rubber top off, draw some blood with a needle, and put it back on?

Yes, that's possible...and it is possible that life exists on other planets, we just haven't found them yet. Same theory applies.

 

[RANCH]

Yes, that's possible...and it is possible that life exists on other planets, we just haven't found them yet. Same theory applies.

What it boils down to is that in all criminal cases it's possible that police plant,alter,or fabricate the evidence that is used to convict criminals.

If the defense wants to use that as a defense, they need to prove it happened. Saying that it happened is not proof. JMO