Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[Really?]

I wouldn't believe anything any "law" and or related to "law" person said against Steven or Brendan.

I wonder how far back in time the Avery name stung in that area.

Junkyard owners serve a purpose.

 

[Marah]

The phone call with his mom makes me feel uncomfortable. I think he is telling the truth to his mom.

 

[nomoresorrow]

I met Teresa Halbach on August 5, 2005; she was a friend of my son and DIL's and the photographer for their wedding. Less than three months after their wedding and after my return to Maine, I heard the news and simply and readily accepted that SA was the one who killed her because her family strongly believed this. However, after watching the Netflix documentary, I do not believe that SA was responsible for her death. I believe that MC law enforcement was very much involved in finding a way to make the possibility of a $36,000,000 payout disappear once and for all, and they succeeded. How anyone could ever sleep soundly and peacefully in that county ever again is beyond me. If it was Teresa this time, who will it be next time? JMO ~

 

[nathansmart]

The phone call with his mom makes me feel uncomfortable. I think he is telling the truth to his mom.

i think he just doesn't want to lie to his mom and he has been told over and over again by the police that when he says he didn't do it he is a liar. He is probably just backing up what he said to the police so he doesn't get in trouble. I guarantee if she had asked him more questions about it he wouldn't have been able to repeat his confession with any amount of consistency.

 

[khaki]

I am way behind in getting caught up in this thread, so I'm sorry if all of this has already been discussed, but I had some questions about the timeline.

I tried to put together a rough timeline to understand what happened according to the prosecution, but I am missing time estimates for the garage cleaning and bonfire and a few other things.
Anyway, here’s what I’ve got:

3:30ish…woman who drives the bus saw TH on SA’s property (of what’s been reported, to me this is the most reliable account of the last known time TH is seen alive, however TH’s phone supposedly had activity on it after 2:30ish, removed by brother, so we don’t know what important information could have been revealed in that cell phone activity)

Sometime after 3:30ish, TH was supposedly shackled, stabbed, raped, shot, her body dismembered, moved, garage cleaned and bonfire set. We also know TH’s bloody body/hair was in the back of her car at some point. So how does that fit? It implies she was moved in her own vehicle after she was killed. So SA did all this then put her in her vehicle and drove it somewhere?Where was TH’s car during all of this? It had to be moved a great distance on the property to where it was found, in the midst of all this.

What time was garage cleaned?
SA gets two phone calls from his girlfriend in the middle of all this. What time was her call to SA where he said that Brendan was helping him clean the garage? What time did BD tell his mom he was helping SA clean the garage?

What time was the bonfire?
Brendan said SA called him to come over and watch the bonfire? What time was bonfire seen by Tydach? Do these times match up?


For all of this to happen in a very narrow window of time with no DNA evidence of TH to be found, to me is not possible.

 

[MaxManning]

Right, but how do you know what's true and what isn't?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Agreed. It makes me so conflicted. That's what makes this case so tough, is that we are certain that some is not true. But, I'm also somewhat certain that some is true. But willing to be convinced otherwise and the dassey transcripts and avery transcripts might help make more sense of all of it.

Maybe it's not possible to make sense of all of it and know what is true and what isn't, based on evidence we have available. I'm open to that too, but going to continue going over dassey transcripts of trial today, to find detail that aren't known to us.

Another question I have is - "is it normal for public to NOT have access to a trial such as the Avery trial ?"

After a big documentary such as Making A Murderer, is it odd that they haven't provided that transcript ? I am assuming they have the transcript of the trial.

Or am I wrong in believing that or wrong in believing that they would have the ability to release that to the public ?

Point being that if they have the ability to share that with the public, what would be the reason to not do so ?

Clearly a documentary is meant to communicate something to the public, right ?

 

[MaxManning]

Both statements could be used in the complaint, but in court, you can't use a statement you heard someone else say as proof of that statement (they are inadmissible due to the hearsay rule). So Fassenbender (spelling?) can't testify that Barb told him that Brendan came home in bleached pants and said it was from cleaning Steven's garage, he didn't say it. Barb also can't testify because she made the statement because it was about something she heard but didn't witness or say herself and that can't be used as proof that brendan did use bleach to clean Stevens garage, and that's why the pants were bleached. This statement would also be especially likely to be inadmissible since it is a statement allegedly made by the defendant being used against him, which is violates his rights. At trial, Kayla testified about statements she made specifically. She can verify those statements were made because she made them, hence why they are admissible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, so if Kayla had denied to come to court , then they wouldn't have been able to use her statement because then it would be heresay ? Is that correct ? Therefore they would not have been able to say specifically who told them as to why they talked to brendan.

So, when investigating, are police allowed to use heresay as a means of leading them to different witnesses ?

So if kayla didn't testify they'd have had to do the same thing and say "we go information that brendan was crying and saw body parts in a fire and possibly helped move a body, and that's why we wanted to talk to him"

Doesn't that seem less damning than kayla coming up and saying she was the one that said it and say that she was lying ? Or was the reason that she might have been coerced as well ? Maybe that comes up in the defense ?

Thanks for helping me try to understand this, as it seems we have to understand the motives of not only the prosecution/defense, but the people themselves in terms of why they chose to testify or not in regards to these alleged statements.

 

[MaxManning]

I wouldn't believe anything any "law" and or related to "law" person said against Steven or Brendan.

I wonder how far back in time the Avery name stung in that area.

Junkyard owners serve a purpose.

I hear you, and there are moments where I indeed say to myself "should I trust anything they say". But I do believe I am not gulping anything they say down, I am scrutinizing even what barb says. I do want to hear her say she either mentioned the pants or she didn't. -- if I don't hear her deny that, then it's extremely hard for me to believe she didn't say it, and further that it's not true.

does that make sense ?

So maybe in some respects I have been tainted, because barb CANNOT come out and say this or deny it, because it was heresay.

She can't say it in court, but she can say it in a transcript. Even if it wasn't admissable in court due to being heresay, it would have impact on me because she denied it. We don't have that.

 

[MaxManning]

I met Teresa Halbach on August 5, 2005; she was a friend of my son and DIL's and the photographer for their wedding. Less than three months after their wedding and after my return to Maine, I heard the news and simply and readily accepted that SA was the one who killed her because her family strongly believed this. However, after watching the Netflix documentary, I do not believe that SA was responsible for her death. I believe that MC law enforcement was very much involved in finding a way to make the possibility of a $36,000,000 payout disappear once and for all, and they succeeded. How anyone could ever sleep soundly and peacefully in that county ever again is beyond me. If it was Teresa this time, who will it be next time? JMO ~

I think anyone who watched the documentary, including myself , were outraged even just 2 episodes in.

But myself I also realize that a documentary is picking and choosing what they believe fits their narrative from many, many hours of evidence.

So we should at least entertain the idea that we didn't hear things that the jury did hear. That's kind of why we have been looking for transcripts of the trials and appeals docs and interview footage.

You say "if it was teresa this time..." I think you meant Steve Avery ? Or are you saying that if avery was let out there'd be another victim to be used to convict him again ?

 

[MaxManning]

i think he just doesn't want to lie to his mom and he has been told over and over again by the police that when he says he didn't do it he is a liar. He is probably just backing up what he said to the police so he doesn't get in trouble. I guarantee if she had asked him more questions about it he wouldn't have been able to repeat his confession with any amount of consistency.

I am willing to believe that possibly brendan is lying to his mom about involvement in this case due to interrogation.

However, I am somewhat less likely to believe his is lying to her about what steve has done to him and other relatives. That is the troubling part.

Would you think that law enforcement then coerced him into telling his mother that stuff ? Not saying it isn't possible, and I definitely have questions as to why we don't have recordings of certain things like the interview on the evening of 2/27 at the motel.

 

[MaxManning]

I am way behind in getting caught up in this thread, so I'm sorry if all of this has already been discussed, but I had some questions about the timeline.

I tried to put together a rough timeline to understand what happened according to the prosecution, but I am missing time estimates for the garage cleaning and bonfire and a few other things.
Anyway, here’s what I’ve got:

3:30ish…woman who drives the bus saw TH on SA’s property (of what’s been reported, to me this is the most reliable account of the last known time TH is seen alive, however TH’s phone supposedly had activity on it after 2:30ish, removed by brother, so we don’t know what important information could have been revealed in that cell phone activity)

Sometime after 3:30ish, TH was supposedly shackled, stabbed, raped, shot, her body dismembered, moved, garage cleaned and bonfire set. We also know TH’s bloody body/hair was in the back of her car at some point. So how does that fit? It implies she was moved in her own vehicle after she was killed. So SA did all this then put her in her vehicle and drove it somewhere?Where was TH’s car during all of this? It had to be moved a great distance on the property to where it was found, in the midst of all this.

What time was garage cleaned?
SA gets two phone calls from his girlfriend in the middle of all this. What time was her call to SA where he said that Brendan was helping him clean the garage? What time did BD tell his mom he was helping SA clean the garage?

What time was the bonfire?
Brendan said SA called him to come over and watch the bonfire? What time was bonfire seen by Tydach? Do these times match up?


For all of this to happen in a very narrow window of time with no DNA evidence of TH to be found, to me is not possible.

I think the timeline for me is still not clear. I have been waiting to clear that up in my own head after reading this dassey trial transcript and hopefully an avery trial transcript.

My assumption is that the prosecution and defense's timelines differ for the very reason that you are mentioning. I am also assuming that the prosecution doesn't want to hear anyone say they saw teresa halbach at 3:45-ish -- bus driver says this.

They want the timeline to be that she was ALREADY in Avery's trailer.

We also have a propane gas guy who reportedly saw avery's vehicle on the day of the crime and possibly avery -- DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR THIS - We need to find where I read that. I believe it was from the avery appeal or something of that nature. So we need to find out what he said as I now see why his statement would be important to the defense, but not mentioned by the prosecution. I'd like to see if defense mentioned this in the avery trial, same as the bus driver statement. We need to compare what they each said and if they match. Both of those individuals can likely be more trusted about a time than anyone.

We do know that Bobby changed his timeline from the original interview to a EARLIER time as to when he saw halbach. We need to look at that again and understand what exactly he saw in the statement as well as in the trial.

When watching both the documentary and even after starting to look at this trial from documents like the avery appeal, I was not clear on why the prosecution wanted the earlier timeline. So I need to understand that better and I think I am starting to see why. Thanks for mentioning this, because I think you are right that we need to think about how much time is needed for any given version of this crime to occur.

It's not as simple in my opinion to just compare it to what the prosecution says or even the defense. But for us to be open as well to a completely different thing happening than either suggest. Both prosecution and defense will suggest the way that best fits their narrative. The TRUTH could be somewhere in the middle and different than either.

 

[MaxManning]

Both statements could be used in the complaint, but in court, you can't use a statement you heard someone else say as proof of that statement (they are inadmissible due to the hearsay rule). So Fassenbender (spelling?) can't testify that Barb told him that Brendan came home in bleached pants and said it was from cleaning Steven's garage, he didn't say it. Barb also can't testify because she made the statement because it was about something she heard but didn't witness or say herself and that can't be used as proof that brendan did use bleach to clean Stevens garage, and that's why the pants were bleached. This statement would also be especially likely to be inadmissible since it is a statement allegedly made by the defendant being used against him, which is violates his rights. At trial, Kayla testified about statements she made specifically. She can verify those statements were made because she made them, hence why they are admissible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, but again -- Kayla made a statement about what brendan said - just the same as Barb made a statement about what brendan said.

Explain to me why one is different than the other. Am I missing something here ?

Both are statements about what someone else said -- so if kayla can say she heard brendan say something ? why can't barb say she heard him say something ?

Is it because barb's wasn't a statement but possibly something she said in a non-interview situation ? like over dinner at the motel that night ?

I am confused. Can you help me understand how one is admissable in court and the other is not? Right now, they seem the same to me in terms of what you have defined as heresay.

Edit -- Both statements made by brendan could be used against him and neither witnessed anything. So again, seems to fit the definition you are giving "This statement would also be especially likely to be inadmissible since it is a statement allegedly made by the defendant being used against him, which is violates his rights."

 

[Ava Adore]

Max, just to make sure I'm understanding where you are at, do you believe it's a mixture of Avery being guilty and LE also planting evidence? Like maybe he did do it, but they couldn't prove their theory and so they *may* have planted some evidence (key) and may have done some planting/coercing with Brendan?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[CoolJ]

After watching the full docu-series and being outraged by the obvious corruption top to bottom (LE to prosecution and then some) I attempted to thoroughly sift through the transcripts, documents, evidence etc..

I quickly realized this was a fruitless effort because nothing can be taken at face value. NOTHING. I will stick to my gut feeling on this one. Avery is 100% innocent of involvement in whatever happened to TH. SA's original conviction was based on lies and this case was based on lies. Thats what happens to liars, they have to keep going, they have to keep lying and making up fairy tales. I pray that someday somehow the truth is told. JMO

 

[nomoresorrow]

Thanks for asking me to clarify that part of my statement MaxManning ("You say "if it was teresa this time..." I think you meant Steve Avery ? Or are you saying that if avery was let out there'd be another victim to be used to convict him again ?"). Although I never posted here on the case, I always followed along because, as I stated, I personally met Teresa on August 5, 2005... Anyhow, my son and his wife, having been friends with Teresa and locals closely followed the trial and I - admittedly - simply accepted that SA must be guilty as they and her family believed it to be true. For me, after watching the documentary and going back and reading reports and transcripts for myself, I very much suspect that MC law enforcement not only framed SA, but was also involved in causing her death. Why do I say that? To believe that Teresa just coincidentally happened to be on SA's property and met foul play while there - during a time when LE officers had been/were being deposed for his lawsuit - would be too huge of a coincidence for me to believe. Teresa had a contract with Auto Trader and took pictures throughout the county to be posted on AT's publication, including previous visits to ASY to take pictures. I believe LE knew this and CREATED an opportunity - rather than seized the opportunity ("seized the opportunity" would be to say that a huge coincidence occurred whereby TH was last seen on the property of SA, turns up missing, and is then found to have been murdered...). I am going even further by saying that this is more than a case of LE taking advantage of an opportunity that just fell out of the sky and onto their laps. IMO, this is more than MCLE simply planting evidence to frame SA. So my statement that you questioned directly refers to LE and their involvement in bringing about the death of TH and then framing SA for it. And, just to be clear, I am referring to MCLE specifically. JMO ~

 

[stephsb]

Kayla did not make any statements in court about what she heard Brendan say that were used to show the truth of the matter made within the statement. She in fact did not make any statements about anything Brendan said prior to the defense objecting. The statements she made were allowed in because the Prosecutor (Fallon) said that they were used to impeach the witness, not as evidence that the statements were true, and Brendan's attorney agreed on that condition. Impeachment of a witness is a different concept entirely, where the witnesses past statements are used to either refresh their memory because the statements they are making on the stand are inconsistent w. prior testimony (to help get them back on track) or to show that the statements they are making in court are inconsistent w. prior statements they made (to impeach their credibility) Even then, Kayla says she lies about every statement she made about Brendan because she was confused. They were never used as evidence of the truth of the statements about the body in the fire because she recanted them all. I believe the purpose of the Prosecution putting her on the stand was to show that Kayla's statements were used to bring investigators to question Brendan, not as evidence Brendan actually saw a body in the fire

Kayla's testimony is on April 18, pages 5-21 of the trial transcript, it may be a little easier to understand seeing the back and forth an explanations of why the statements were being allowed in.

Again, hearsay is ONLY applicable to out of court statements being used in court as evidence of the truth of the statement. Hearsay is a legal concept and ONLY applies to statements being used as evidence in court. It doesn't apply to any statement given out of court. So, Barb's statement made to investigators is fair game in a probable cause statement, but just because it can be used to get an indictment against Brendan, does not mean it can be used as evidence in court. The reason hearsay is inadmissible in court is because a second hand account is generally less reliable than a first hand account. Again, hearsay ONLY applies to evidence.

 

[stephsb]

Agreed. It makes me so conflicted. That's what makes this case so tough, is that we are certain that some is not true. But, I'm also somewhat certain that some is true. But willing to be convinced otherwise and the dassey transcripts and avery transcripts might help make more sense of all of it.

Maybe it's not possible to make sense of all of it and know what is true and what isn't, based on evidence we have available. I'm open to that too, but going to continue going over dassey transcripts of trial today, to find detail that aren't known to us.

Another question I have is - "is it normal for public to NOT have access to a trial such as the Avery trial ?"

After a big documentary such as Making A Murderer, is it odd that they haven't provided that transcript ? I am assuming they have the transcript of the trial.

Or am I wrong in believing that or wrong in believing that they would have the ability to release that to the public ?

Point being that if they have the ability to share that with the public, what would be the reason to not do so ?

Clearly a documentary is meant to communicate something to the public, right ?

The Avery trial documents are public record, you just have to take the time to go and get them, but Calumet County has no obligation to put them online because a documentary is made, and they generally wouldn't. I can't see why Calumet County would deny access to the transcripts if you requested copies of them, it's just a matter of requesting and paying for them. They aren't being hidden as far as I know.

 

[MaxManning]

Max, just to make sure I'm understanding where you are at, do you believe it's a mixture of Avery being guilty and LE also planting evidence? Like maybe he did do it, but they couldn't prove their theory and so they *may* have planted some evidence (key) and may have done some planting/coercing with Brendan?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I won't say I believe that this is the case just yet, but I am willing to entertain that possibility to determine if it's plausible.

I am still also willing to entertain that Brendan and Steve might have been cleaning oil off the floor of the garage and all of this is fabricated. Much of my questioning and searching for how things were found, when etc is in regards to determining what possibilities are plausible.

I just got to page 82 on the 2nd day of the dassey trial the word luminol was used. I'll note it here because it's an example of what I mean in regards to not accepting the documentary as the gospel. The word luminol wasn't mentioned in the documentary. Much of what I now understand about bleach, luminol etc did not come from the documentary, and I am open to the idea that I still might be ignorant to details about such things.

Agent Heimerl was being cross examined by defense, he is an agent that is experienced in arson investigation. He says that crime lab personnel during a previous search identified areas that "may have" luminesced from luminol.

So, hopefully another of my questions will get answered. Yes, this again pertains to the supposed cleaning of the garage by steven and brendan. So I am very interested in WHEN the garage was tested with luminol and what the findings where. Also if the whole garage was checked or just a given area ? If the garage was checked with luminol on 11/5 or 11/6, I would expect there to be a glowing bullet, right ?

Which , kind of seems convenient to say it was under a compressor ? which the skeptical side of me is saying they will say that they didn't test under there. right?

So yes, I am open to many scenarios at this point. I think it's also fair to say that because I am not executing an investigation that would have the same requirements of a trial, there might be things that I include in developing my opinions that wouldn't be allowed in court. Geez, at moments, I'm not sure I trust the judge!

 

[MaxManning]

The Avery trial documents are public record, you just have to take the time to go and get them, but Calumet County has no obligation to put them online because a documentary is made, and they generally wouldn't. I can't see why Calumet County would deny access to the transcripts if you requested copies of them, it's just a matter of requesting and paying for them. They aren't being hidden as far as I know.

Ok, so the documentary wouldn't provide them either, I get it. So when we find things in these transcripts that we believe are VERY important, but are left out of the documentary, that is what makes me get the feeling it was manipulative. Them saying they feel they gave the key points of the prosecutions case, is at the moment very questionable at the moment in my mind. No mention of luminol directly. right ? cmon. How many times have we all heard this word in crime tv shows ? I don't buy it's an oversight, and I sure hope it doesn't get mentioned in her as a key component of the prosecutions case -- because it's a rather large piece of evidence if there was luminol testing that verified presence of blood and a clean up of it. The size of that cleanup area is also important.

But I have not heard definitively about it yet, so I am still open to the prosecution just not entering it into evidence -- which would be awfully sketchy. right ? When and where they tested is VERY important in my mind. Even if luminol was used, but not until 3/1 - that still fits the planting evidence theory, right ? Because they should have found a glowing bullet on 11/5 or 11/6.


I know I was verbose here, but wanted to explain why documentary people would not want us to read about luminol, as it puts their integrity in question. However if they said, hey we couldn't possibly include everything, but here's the trial tanscripts you can look through yourself - that would have been nice and a bit more forthcoming. Not required, but doesn't give me the sense that they are looking for people to know more, but rather, just what they have said. Right ?

Lets not forget that accusing the police of corruption is not a small thing, but a large thing. It does require a fuller picture than what we have seen to decide for ourselves. And as I have said, I am still open to it being a possibility and have posed theories that support that potentially -- cadaver dogs and luminol -- why didn't they find that bullet on 11/5 & 11/6 ? I want to know.

 

[MaxManning]

Kayla did not make any statements in court about what she heard Brendan say that were used to show the truth of the matter made within the statement. She in fact did not make any statements about anything Brendan said prior to the defense objecting. The statements she made were allowed in because the Prosecutor (Fallon) said that they were used to impeach the witness, not as evidence that the statements were true, and Brendan's attorney agreed on that condition. Impeachment of a witness is a different concept entirely, where the witnesses past statements are used to either refresh their memory because the statements they are making on the stand are inconsistent w. prior testimony (to help get them back on track) or to show that the statements they are making in court are inconsistent w. prior statements they made (to impeach their credibility) Even then, Kayla says she lies about every statement she made about Brendan because she was confused. They were never used as evidence of the truth of the statements about the body in the fire because she recanted them all. I believe the purpose of the Prosecution putting her on the stand was to show that Kayla's statements were used to bring investigators to question Brendan, not as evidence Brendan actually saw a body in the fire

Kayla's testimony is on April 18, pages 5-21 of the trial transcript, it may be a little easier to understand seeing the back and forth an explanations of why the statements were being allowed in.

Again, hearsay is ONLY applicable to out of court statements being used in court as evidence of the truth of the statement. Hearsay is a legal concept and ONLY applies to statements being used as evidence in court. It doesn't apply to any statement given out of court. So, Barb's statement made to investigators is fair game in a probable cause statement, but just because it can be used to get an indictment against Brendan, does not mean it can be used as evidence in court. The reason hearsay is inadmissible in court is because a second hand account is generally less reliable than a first hand account. Again, hearsay ONLY applies to evidence.

I am going to read what you have now said a few times and try to understand it, I am very confused.


The point is that they used her statements to say how they got to brendan. If she said brendan cried - that is why ? what specifically ?

She takes back telling the truth about the talk of the body parts.

So telling them that he was troubled and crying, was ok ? is that what you are saying ?

I'll read the transcript and we can come back to this. But also, I don't honestly care too much about what was allowed in court. If I come to a point where I believe that barb said what she did to the police or I don't see her deny it... I am going to believe she said it! haha

That is kind of the point of this whole conversation - do we believe that barb told police this detail ? I honestly don't care if it was admissable in court or not. I am not judge/jury or the system. If she said it and I heard it, i'd be investigating as if she was telling the truth, regardless of whether the court would accept it. I think that's a good way to look at it. I am not trying to make a decision based on law, but on plausibility. The documentary pretty much uses that same philosophy, right ? -- except they are seemingly leaving out some things completely.

In the end there is likely many things we can't prove. But i've not heard barb deny this in the documentary or the trial or the media.