Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #5

[MysticJynx]

So now the suspicion is on Vogel and Kocourek. In addition to Lenk and Colburn?

Might be easier to list the people who aren't considered involved in this conspiracy, certainly a shorter list than what's been tossed into the mix.

Shorter list. Who wasnt involved in framing avery...... AVERYS AND DASSEYS! lol

 

[missy1974]

To dismiss that anyone within Manitowoc Sheriff's Dept had any motive, whether it be financially.... or reputation.... or pride, is ignoring the facts. You can't say they weren't going to be held personally responsible (financially), when in fact, they were. State Farm was not even going to cover Kocourek's legal fee's. Not to mention what he was going to be asked and how he was going to answer could have put his whole career on the line, and if nothing else would have brought his integrity into question.

The integrity of the whole Sheriff's Dept was at risk. Doesn't mean they killed her, but it doesn't mean they didn't frame SA for it either IMO

 

[Jaiddie]

1. He was the last known person to be in the company of the victim and her last known location was Avery property

There has been doubt cast on this as there are audios between LE stating that they believed that the Zipperer's was her last known stop, and they also got reports of her on the side of the road photographing a cow. Considering she grew up on a dairy farm, I don't find this to be unusual activity for a photographer to do.

2. Her phone was not used after 2:41pm and stopped pinging to a tower after that (4:35pm)

Not sure how this proves SA guilt.

3. Her body was found on the Avery property, burned and into charred bit.

Would like to see those evidence photos showing that is where those were found.

4. Her vehicle was found on the Avery property (note I'm not mentioning anything about his blood)

On the back part of the property where ANYONE could have placed it there, as there were several access points to the property. We also have LE calling the plates for that car 2 days before it was found.

5. Her personal belongings were in his burn barrel(s) and an attempt to destroy them through burning had taken place.

No, they were actually found in the Janda burn barrel. And it makes as much sense as anything else in this case that someone would go to so much trouble to OBLITERATE her body and but burn her belongings just a little (leaving them very much identifiable).

6. He cleaned a particular area of his garage with bleach. A garage that was not clean in any other place and was, by all appearances, a cluttered mess.

Even though he supposedly cleaned with bleach, there was still deer blood found, yet no TH blood. So, apparently, SA is such a genius he somehow knows the difference between deer blood and human blood, so he just makes sure to clean up the human blood only.

7. He had a bonfire that night.

By all transcripts and audio that has been made available so far to the public, the earliest ones by everyone involved (even Scott Tadych, who CLEARLY didn't like SA) make NO mention of a bonfire on 10/31.

 

[Madeleine74]

It's not dismissing it. But there's no proof that anyone in that county actually planted anything. Lots and lots of speculation and lots of claims everyone in that and neighboring counties are corrupt. Fine and dandy, but evidence is needed to show this.

The defense presented their theories to the jury and it's all part of the trial transcipts. The jury was there in the courtroom every day. The jury deliberated and that jury disagreed with the defense's opinion that evidence was planted.

Without evidence, Zellner isn't going to get very far either. Speculation and theories will not help SA and will not be considered by superior court judges. Evidence is what's needed. The burden is on SA.

 

[missy1974]

And the courts and jury never get it wrong?

I believe there are some people who have been exonerated that would disagree with that, including SA.

 

[MysticJynx]

It's not dismissing it. But there's no proof that anyone in that county actually planted anything. Lots and lots of speculation and lots of claims everyone in that and neighboring counties are corrupt. Fine and dandy, but evidence is needed to show this.

The defense presented their theories to the jury and it's all part of the trial transcipts. The jury was there in the courtroom every day. The jury deliberated and that jury disagreed with the defense's opinion that evidence was planted.

Without evidence, Zellner isn't going to get very far either. Speculation and theories will not help SA and will not be considered by superior court judges. Evidence is what's needed. The burden is on SA.

There is definitely circumstantial evidence pointing to them planting and tainting. And after you take out all the tainted evidence all you had was circumstantial with Avery. SO if you take out the key and the rav that directly connected him to the car. If you can convict a man of murder on circumstantial evidence. Couldnt you convict the cops on circumstantial evidence?

Just wondering? JMO you know all that jazz.

 

[MysticJynx]

1. He was the last known person to be in the company of the victim and her last known location was Avery property

There has been doubt cast on this as there are audios between LE stating that they believed that the Zipperer's was her last known stop, and they also got reports of her on the side of the road photographing a cow. Considering she grew up on a dairy farm, I don't find this to be unusual activity for a photographer to do.

2. Her phone was not used after 2:41pm and stopped pinging to a tower after that (4:35pm)

Not sure how this proves SA guilt.

3. Her body was found on the Avery property, burned and into charred bit.

Would like to see those evidence photos showing that is where those were found.

4. Her vehicle was found on the Avery property (note I'm not mentioning anything about his blood)

On the back part of the property where ANYONE could have placed it there, as there were several access points to the property. We also have LE calling the plates for that car 2 days before it was found.

5. Her personal belongings were in his burn barrel(s) and an attempt to destroy them through burning had taken place.

No, they were actually found in the Janda burn barrel. And it makes as much sense as anything else in this case that someone would go to so much trouble to OBLITERATE her body and but burn her belongings just a little (leaving them very much identifiable).

6. He cleaned a particular area of his garage with bleach. A garage that was not clean in any other place and was, by all appearances, a cluttered mess.

Even though he supposedly cleaned with bleach, there was still deer blood found, yet no TH blood. So, apparently, SA is such a genius he somehow knows the difference between deer blood and human blood, so he just makes sure to clean up the human blood only.

7. He had a bonfire that night.

By all transcripts and audio that has been made available so far to the public, the earliest ones by everyone involved (even Scott Tadych, who CLEARLY didn't like SA) make NO mention of a bonfire on 10/31.

Number five. It was actually the barrel across the road way from that red van that held the belongings, Camera, PDA and Phone. There was no evidence of any other belongings that I can remember being said. The other barrel. They called it Barrel 2 at the janda place was the one that had a few of her bones in it. Will have to find it but somewhere bobby said there used to be three back there. So where did the 4th come from?

 

[TheDuchess]

100% convinced defendant killed the victim is not the legal standard in the first place. I'm not 100% convinced either. However I do think there was enough to take a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I can throw out all the supposedly planted items (key, blood in SUV) and still get past reasonable doubt based on even less:

1. He was the last known person to be in the company of the victim and her last known location was Avery property - this in and of itself is actually up for debate considering the whole situation with the timeline and the fact she may well have gone to Zipperer's afterwards. Plus, just because he is the last "known" person to see her, doesn't mean he is the killer. The killer would certainly be the last person to see her alive, just not necessarily "known."
2. Her phone was not used after 2:41pm and stopped pinging to a tower after that (4:35pm) That really tells us nothing.
3. Her body was found on the Avery property, burned and into charred bits. Also up for debate, but it doesn't mean it was not planted there by either the killer or some other person intent on framing him. Remember, although the property belonged to the Avery's it was also a public space and the general public did have access, as did LE.
4. Her vehicle was found on the Avery property (note I'm not mentioning anything about his blood) Same as above
5. Her personal belongings were in his burn barrel(s) and an attempt to destroy them through burning had taken place. Same
6. He cleaned a particular area of his garage with bleach. A garage that was not clean in any other place and was, by all appearances, a cluttered mess. Bleach does not destroy blood DNA.
7. He had a bonfire that night. another one up for debate - he also had bonfires all the time. So what?

There. I just listed circumstantial evidence that doesn't use the key, the blood, the bullet, or BD's statements and that would be enough for some juries to be able to convict. But there's a lot more than that in this case. One could argue each item separately (and many have) but when you look at everything in totality, which is what juries are instructed to do, at some point the coincidences are beyond mere coincidences.

But you see, this is what we are talking about. The fact that the ways juries are instructed doesn't always make sense. Yes - coincidences do happen. I could read you a laundry list of the circumstantial evidence against SA in the original rape case, and yes, he was convicted by a jury. But the jury got it wrong. Why? Because there was a huge assumption of his guilty from the get go, a determined legal system wanting to put him away and that they weren't really privy to all of the information.

Look, SA may have done this crime (I don't think so) but the fact that every piece of physical AND circumstantial evidence CAN be explained by a frame job is truly compelling and points to the very minimum of reasonable doubt.

But in this country, reasonable doubt is the standard by which a jury of 12 people must use to render their verdict. The verdict is binding and if not guilty, the person goes free forever, whether or not they did it. But when the verdict is guilty, there are appeals. The one thing, however, that cannot be appealed is the verdict itself, as the jury is the finder of fact, while the state is the finder of law. The appellate court cannot come in and say - well, these people got their facts wrong, or they should have seen the reasonable doubt. They can only look at how the laws were applied in the case.

Yet we have found countless cases where the jury did, in fact, get it wrong. They blew it. They heard and trusted what the state told them and connected the dots as they were instructed to do and convicted someone. They convicted Ryan Ferguson with absolutely no shred of physical evidence whatsoever. It happens all the time. There are tremendous amounts of pressure to solve cases as quickly as possible, particularly high profile ones. And there are cases where LE really does believe they have the "right guy."

But then, in this case, we have a juror out there who has claimed jury tampering. He/she claims they were pressured to change their vote. We do not know who this person is, but the dismissed juror does and says he has talked to this person and this person is afraid. If a juror comes forward with this claim and it is investigated and proven true, we have a huge problem. That would definitely one of the only reasons why an appelate court could overturn a jury verdict and demand a new trial.

I am 100% confident that if they had to give SA and BD new trials, there would be absolutely no way they would ever get a guilty verdict again. Not a chance. Particularly if the jury is made up of normal citizens who don't have ties to MCPD.

 

[Jaiddie]

Thank you, Mystic. Was that SA's burn barrel then?

 

[Jaiddie]

http://www.marshfieldnewsherald.com...ts-investigators-tainted-avery-case/79065166/

"'Making a Murderer' case tainted, experts say"

“Everybody gets tainted when this goes on,” McCrary said. “Both Manitowoc and Calumet County Sheriff’s Offices are now stained by this. It’s a big problem. They just created this huge problem for themselves for this case. Here, it was unusual to have officers involved in a civil lawsuit also actively investigating the crime, when local authorities announced they would not play a role. Nobody can throw stones or make any allegations if you’re not involved in this case. They opened this door for conspiracy theories themselves."

 

[MysticJynx]

Thank you, Mystic. Was that SA's burn barrel then?

You're welcome. and
Yes it was considered his. I have been very confused about the barrel until recently. I think I should make a new map of the evidence. I will do that now Point were things were found.

 

[missy1974]

You're welcome. and
Yes it was considered his. I have been very confused about the barrel until recently. I think I should make a new map of the evidence. I will do that now Point were things were found.

I got one already Mystic LOL

 

[MysticJynx]

I got one already Mystic LOL

View attachment 89217

Well I wish I would have waited for you to post. Guess we have two now. this one is just of the area around the house tho.

 

[missy1974]

I am 100% confident that if they had to give SA and BD new trials, there would be absolutely no way they would ever get a guilty verdict again. Not a chance. Particularly if the jury is made up of normal citizens who don't have ties to MCPD.

I think if they held the trials in 2007 without all the pretrial news conference's .... they would have had a different outcome as well. IMO I still don't understand how Kratz got away with that March 2nd news conference with absolutely zero corroborating physical evidence. It boggles my mind. And to think that it didn't influence the outcome.... pfft

 

[missy1974]

Well I wish I would have waited for you to post. Guess we have two now. this one is just of the area around the house tho.

I didn't add the key and bullet.... LOL More so because of the circumstances that they were found..... I believe the key was planted... the bullet is contaminated, can't believe anything Culhane put her name on IMO

Edited to take out the picture.

 

[Madeleine74]

laundry list of the circumstantial evidence against SA in the original rape case

There was no laundry list.

One eye witness (the victim) who described her attacker. That attacker happened to have some physical characteristics in common with SA and the victim, PB, was led to believe Avery was the rapist. Mistaken identity/eye witness testifying and selecting SA as her attacker and that's what got him convicted. That's all they had.

What other evidence was there?

no DNA matching SA
no fibers
no hair
SA had alibi witnesses

 

[PrimeSuspect]

100% convinced defendant killed the victim is not the legal standard in the first place. I'm not 100% convinced either. However I do think there was enough to take a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I can throw out all the supposedly planted items (key, blood in SUV) and still get past reasonable doubt based on even less:

1. He was the last known person to be in the company of the victim and her last known location was Avery property
2. Her phone was not used after 2:41pm and stopped pinging to a tower after that (4:35pm)
3. Her body was found on the Avery property, burned and into charred bits.
4. Her vehicle was found on the Avery property (note I'm not mentioning anything about his blood)
5. Her personal belongings were in his burn barrel(s) and an attempt to destroy them through burning had taken place.
6. He cleaned a particular area of his garage with bleach. A garage that was not clean in any other place and was, by all appearances, a cluttered mess.
7. He had a bonfire that night.

There. I just listed circumstantial evidence that doesn't use the key, the blood, the bullet, or BD's statements and that would be enough for some juries to be able to convict. But there's a lot more than that in this case. One could argue each item separately (and many have) but when you look at everything in totality, which is what juries are instructed to do, at some point the coincidences are beyond mere coincidences.

I like your list, and if correct, should have led to a conviction.

But, I have this nagging feeling if it were correct/water tight, why go after Brendan Dassey? If it were just to discount SA's alibi, they really went over the top making BD a full participant and the sole 'story' teller. Why not keep it simple, BD witnessed something suspicious about SA and his activities. This was not satisfactory to one particular person, imo.

It looks like it was all lined up on the story board, 'BD was sexually abused by SA and became his slave, did whatever SA wanted.......'
Unfortunately, Wiegart and Fassbender couldn't prove any of it, the interviews revealed no such 'relationship' existed. Someone came up with the scenario, these two men had to make it fit.

Imo, this was MCSOs mistake as it's under scrutiny now thanks to MaM, but since SA and BD are in prison, they did achieve their ends, so maybe not, time will tell.

The question I ask myself, why go to such lengths? In my mind it opens up the possibility that one or more points on your list are not correct, which then means a conviction was not a sure thing and that's where it begins to unravel.

 

[MysticJynx]

I didn't add the key and bullet.... LOL More so because of the circumstances that they were found..... I believe the key was planted... the bullet is contaminated, can't believe anything Culhane put her name on IMO

Edited to take out the picture.

Well I only added it also the dates found. I am seeing a pattern that nothing was found the first 48 hours of the first search warrant. Why is that? The initial search warrant only lasts 48 hours. they have 5 days to execute the warrant and return it. They have 48 hours access to the property they are seizing. and once they searched it they have only 48 hours to return the warrant. this did not happen in this case. The warrant was served on the 5th (executed) was not returned until when I think it was the 10th. Should have been back by the 9th I would think by the time frame the law gives. The other warrants issued later in the week don't seem to include the properties they continued to search. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Search-Warrant-File.pdf The search warrants confuse me. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/13

 

[Sustained]

There was no laundry list.

One eye witness (the victim) who described her attacker. That attacker happened to have some physical characteristics in common with SA and the victim, PB, was led to believe Avery was the rapist. Mistaken identity/eye witness testifying and selecting SA as her attacker and that's what got him convicted. That's all they had.

What other evidence was there?

no DNA matching SA
no fibers
no hair
SA had alibi witnesses

Sixteen alibi witnesses to be exact ...

Below from http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment/steven-avery

Avery presented 16 alibi witnesses, including the clerk of a store in Green Bay, Wisconsin, who recalled Avery, accompanied by his wife and five children, buying paint from the store. A checkout tape put the purchase at 5:13 p.m. Beernsten put the attack at 3:50 p.m. and estimated it lasted 15 minutes, which meant that Avery would have had to leave the scene of the attack, walk a mile to the nearest parking area, drive home, load his family into the car, and drive 45 miles in just over an hour.

If the above doesn't produce reasonable doubt, I don't know what would. Would love to know what the 1985 jury was thinking ...

 

[MysticJynx]

Oh Also they seem to be adding new stuff to the site now. few more pictures I saw and couple documents. www.stevenaverycase.org/