Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[MaxManning]

When Dassey testified at his trial he said that he did help Avery clean an unknown substance in the garage using bleach, but that he never went in to the house that night. Elsewhere I've read that they also used paint thinner and gasoline. So maybe there was a harmless substance on the floor and they tried a few different things to remove it?

http://www.weau.com/news/headlines/7157566.html?device=phone&c=y

And this from a blog that is critical of the state's case. Make what you will.


http://www.convolutedbrian.com/the-fox-hills-resort-session-with-brendan-dassey.html

I don't know how much to believe of Dassey's statement, and cleaning a floor could be innocent on any given day, however on the day of a possible murder in your garage it's worth investigating. The fact that they waited so long to get those pants is very odd to me. How many times could they have been washed in 6 months ??!!?

But I do find the event credible as knowledge of it's occurrence came from Barb Janda, not Brendan. That's an important distinction. It was something she observed and questioned him about and received and answer. Certainly, that has to be evaluated as rather reliable.

 

[MaxManning]

It was brought up in the documentary that it was odd that there was blood in the vehicle from Avery, but no prints whatsoever. Does this seem so odd, if he had gloves on and his finger was bleeding ?

If your hand is bleeding and you put on gloves, you might get blood on the bottom of your other hand's glove. Likewise when taking off the gloves, if you took off the glove on the hand you are bleeding and then used that bleeding hand to take off the other glove, you are going to get blood on the 'outside' of that glove wherever you grab the glove - possibly fingers.

When I am wearing gloves, I might take them off to do something that is easier to do without gloves, so that's all that would have to happen for this blood transfer to occur and get blood on the outside of his glove.

Also, a good reason why someone might not realize that this occurred. Also, depending on the type of glove and the amount of bleeding from the cut, it could just soak through a cloth glove. The cut was on his right hand and the blood smudge in the car seemed to be near the right side of the steering wheel next to the ignition.

This scenario would explain no prints, but a small amount of avery's blood in the car. Not sure what the cut looked like and exactly where, but if it was on the outer knuckles, that would also make sense as to why it was near the ignition and not on the steering wheel.

All speculation here, but was looking for a plausible explanation as to why there'd be blood but absolutely no prints in the car -- which was noted by the defense in the documentary. Wouldn't take anything but perfectly plausible actions.

 

[Tiger09]

Started watching last night, snoozed, just finished the tenth episode. Wow.

Thanks to all who have analyzed & offered opinions here, esp w some things I missing in my watching.
Heading off to read transcripts of LE interviewing Brendan.

ETA: an article on the series: http://previously.tv/making-a-murderer/two-episodes-in-who-do-you-trust-on-making-a-murderer/
Some astute observations (but also some snark).

Yes! I read that forum frequently! I'm there a lot. I don't know who to trust either, but I do agree with their list. I'd add Brendan too, though. I think the bleach on his pants could be from literally anything. Example, in a call with his mom, they talk about how he's getting another cat. I have two cats and clean their litter box with bleach once every two weeks because it's an awesome disinfectant. (And have you smelled cat pee? Have you bought cat litter/liners/etc? Lol. I scoop daily, Lysol every 3 days, but bleach every 2 wks fyi. Cat lessons.) Anyway, on topic, there's a number of mundane non murder things that could/would splash bleach on myself or my clothing. I can see that happening, Brendan saying it, and LE insisting he's lying.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

 

[Brightbird]

I don't trust Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych (Bobby's stepdad?). Bobby seemed nice enough, but not Tadych. Bobby reckoned he saw Teresa walking to Steven's house at about 2:45, which would make him one of the very last people to see her. Then Bobby and Scott are each other's alibi for passing on the road soon after. But then the bus driver says she pulled up around 3:30 and saw Teresa taking pictures. Something not right there.

(On litter boxes and bleach, I scoop once or twice a day and do a full change and clean with bleach weekly).

On the blood in the car, I don't really believe they were able to clean every minute piece of physical evidence from the house and garage - stabbed, throat cut, shot 10 times - and then left a few obvious splotches in the car. No finger prints. Nothing but a few blood spots. From memory, it didn't even look like smudges.

 

[Ava Adore]

Started watching last night, snoozed, just finished the tenth episode. Wow.

Thanks to all who have analyzed & offered opinions here, esp w some things I missing in my watching.
Heading off to read transcripts of LE interviewing Brendan.

ETA: an article on the series: http://previously.tv/making-a-murderer/two-episodes-in-who-do-you-trust-on-making-a-murderer/
Some astute observations (but also some snark).

That article made me LOL. I thought the same thing about that horrible ID drawing done in the rape case.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Ava Adore]

Sgt. Colborn just rubs me the wrong way. His body language when on the stand was odd.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Ava Adore]

Wow, the jury started off seven innocent.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Ringfinger]

Wow, the jury started off seven innocent.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Yes, this is really big. Do we have any idea why the one juror left?

 

[MaxManning]

Yes! I read that forum frequently! I'm there a lot. I don't know who to trust either, but I do agree with their list. I'd add Brendan too, though. I think the bleach on his pants could be from literally anything. Example, in a call with his mom, they talk about how he's getting another cat. I have two cats and clean their litter box with bleach once every two weeks because it's an awesome disinfectant. (And have you smelled cat pee? Have you bought cat litter/liners/etc? Lol. I scoop daily, Lysol every 3 days, but bleach every 2 wks fyi. Cat lessons.) Anyway, on topic, there's a number of mundane non murder things that could/would splash bleach on myself or my clothing. I can see that happening, Brendan saying it, and LE insisting he's lying.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

The only problem is that barb asks brendan and he tells her why. He didn't say he was cleaning a litter box, he was saying he was cleaning steven's garage floor. This was not the confession, this what Barb talking about her conversation with Brendan. right ?

I'm not saying that it's implausible that someone would have bleach in their house and use it to clean a cat box or anything else.

But on the night of the murder you have 1 person telling his mother, not the police in an interrogation, that he was helping steve clean the floor of his garage. right ? So according to what Barb got told to her , by her son BEFORE police were ever even involved, was that him and steve were bleaching the garage floor ?

I'm open to hearing anything, like -- Barb now denies she ever said that. I don't see that anywhere. Or even Brendan clarifying and saying "I was cleaning a cat box". But we don't have that.

Does anyone have transcripts to all the statements, like barb's ?

 

[JaimeInLA]

Here's an interesting possible alternative suspect:

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/an-alternative.html

 

[MaxManning]

That article made me LOL. I thought the same thing about that horrible ID drawing done in the rape case.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

For sure! The whole saying about reality being stranger than fiction is so true. I think you'd have a hard time casting actors to play these people and look as dubious.

Searching for someone you even trust in the whole mess is hard. There are a few, but overall, there are so many questionable characters.

There is obviously even some kind of family feuding with the avery's that doesn't get exposed and imo could very well be a huge factor in what happened. Scott and Bobby providing themselves with alibis for each other and their statements conflicting a bus driver, who's time record is the most reliable since she does the same thing every school day. But to be honest, even she could be influenced by the Avery reputation or the Averys themselves for good or bad ? If something like that became a wrinkle, who would be surprised ? not me.

The brother is a very odd guy too. Talking about grieving before they even found her body ? Or maybe the documentary used footage out of chronological order ? That's not even crazy considering all that is left out of the documentary.

The ex-boyfriend and roommate ? Also bizarre characters imo.

Also the lady who found the car. Someone looks a little closer and I'm sure there's some connection to someone else or even a bias towards averys.

such a crazy case, because there is so little to trust. Law enforcement is deceptive. Witnesses are unreliable for all kinds of reasons. small town drama mixed in to make everyone's true motives harder to assess.

Bob Dassey and Scott Tadych ? Is it not completely obvious he doesn't like avery ? I get that. But why ? you know ? there's a story there, and we ain't hearing that, right ?

 

[Tiger09]

He very well could have been bleaching anything.

Tbh, I think they deserve a new trial. I think the worst case would be Brendan is innocent and SA is guilty. Why? Because who can you trust in this case? Barb I can see not remembering things/getting confused over ten years because her kid changes his statements and can only say "I don't know " as an explanation. I've only thus far picked up that Brendan was clear on few things- he wanted to get home in time for 6th period, he only saw a "bombfire", and he read Kiss The Girls by James Patterson.

Playing Devils Advocate, say SA is guilty, I still don't buy on any planet that Brenden is. What could've happened? SA kills TB, (leaves the key, gets her DNA off, leaving only his like the world's dumbest ninja), calls Brenden to get him to clean the garage, Brenden sees blood and threatens to tell his mom, SA threatens his pet cat which gets the kid to comply with cleaning the garage, SA tells Brenden he killed another animal, but as they're at the bonfire admits it's a person and then tells him details about the murder but threatens the kid's pet and mother. (Brenden's mother called during the bonfire demanding he come home. ) SA threatens Brenden one last time. When the police come, Brenden literally doesn't know intricate details- just that SA killed and raped TB. He gets pressured into a confession by LE, giving them one that sounds like a book he'd read. When he realizes he's facing prison for SA's crimes, he tries to tell the truth.

It's the only half brained explanation I can come up with.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

 

[angelainwi]

An interview with the Directors

http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/making-a-murderer-directors-on-steven-avery-case.html

 

[MaxManning]

Here's an interesting possible alternative suspect:

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/an-alternative.html

Very interesting if true. Where does all that information come from? Who did she tell all this to and how does it end up on a blog and not anywhere else ? Or does it ?

 

[MaxManning]

He very well could have been bleaching anything.

Tbh, I think they deserve a new trial. I think the worst case would be Brendan is innocent and SA is guilty. Why? Because who can you trust in this case? Barb I can see not remembering things/getting confused over ten years because her kid changes his statements and can only say "I don't know " as an explanation. I've only thus far picked up that Brendan was clear on few things- he wanted to get home in time for 6th period, he only saw a "bombfire", and he read Kiss The Girls by James Patterson.

Playing Devils Advocate, say SA is guilty, I still don't buy on any planet that Brenden is. What could've happened? SA kills TB, (leaves the key, gets her DNA off, leaving only his like the world's dumbest ninja), calls Brenden to get him to clean the garage, Brenden sees blood and threatens to tell his mom, SA threatens his pet cat which gets the kid to comply with cleaning the garage, SA tells Brenden he killed another animal, but as they're at the bonfire admits it's a person and then tells him details about the murder but threatens the kid's pet and mother. (Brenden's mother called during the bonfire demanding he come home. ) SA threatens Brenden one last time. When the police come, Brenden literally doesn't know intricate details- just that SA killed and raped TB. He gets pressured into a confession by LE, giving them one that sounds like a book he'd read. When he realizes he's facing prison for SA's crimes, he tries to tell the truth.

It's the only half brained explanation I can come up with.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

I think many are missing the point here. Barb was told by brendan what he was using it for. He didnt' tell police this under interrogation, he said it to Barb that night and SHE recounts that conversation.

So if steven, Barb, or Brendan, don't clarify what the bleach was used for, it's awfully suspicious. I'm looking for an explanation, but I can't find one. It's not hard to say "I was cleaning a cat box" or I was cleaning x,y,z. right ?

To me, it's not believable that Barb lied about what Brendan told her that night during that conversation. So do I believe Brendan and Steve were cleaning the floor of the garage. Yeah, I do.

Does that mean Steve is guilty ? Brendan guilty ? no. But if they don't clarify why they were cleaning and instead say that they weren't cleaning anything, am I very suspicious. yes, of course.

I honestly don't see a motive for Barb to say something that she thought might incriminate her son. I don't believe she would do that. Yet, she said something that now seemingly no one will explain.

I find that as maybe one of the most odd things about this case. It would be so simple to clarify and give an alternative or clarification.

So a related question, do you believe that Barb would make up that account about the supposed night of the murder ? I don't. I can't see a reason why she would say that if she for even a moment thought it might implicate brendan. So, I think that she was being truthful. Again, doesn't mean anyone is guilty, but it sure begs for some answers about what was going on with the bleach, right ?

 

[JaimeInLA]

Very interesting if true. Where does all that information come from? Who did she tell all this to and how does it end up on a blog and not anywhere else ? Or does it ?

Not sure. I saw it on Twitter, so I brought it over here. It could be totally fabricated I guess. But it goes to show that literally anything could have happened.

I still can't believe what ended up happening. (I googled. Still on ep. 4) I've never seen a case so full of reasonable doubt before!

 

[ArianeEmory]

I want to thank people who are familiar with this case for pointing out the apparent bias/missing pieces of info. This doc is getting a tremendous amount of buzz right now (on places like reddit), and I can tell you a lot of TV viewers who are not true crime followers already believe Avery is 100% innocent as a result. I'm having second thoughts about watching if it doesn't sound like they tried strenuously to be objective and unbiased.

 

[MaxManning]

The other detail that I want explained is The Auto Trader dispatcher reportedly saying that :

1. Terry was uncomfortable going to the junk yard because Steve was often coming to the door in only a towel.
2. Steve calling and requesting Halbach to come out and take pictures that day - reportedly, multiple times.


I am saying reportedly , because I don't know when these statements occurred and as with most things with this case we don't know who was interviewing a given person or if this maybe even was rumor or second hand information ?

So where are the transcripts of these statements ? do they exist online ?

Because if 1&2 are true, they are incredibly important because they potentially show deception by Steve Avery or by the person giving the statement.

I'd want to know what this Auto Trader dispatch thought of Avery BEFORE any of this happened. Did he/she have motive to fabricate ? Seems like this small town were all aware of Avery and likely had strong opinions one way or the other - even without police having to influence them. that's just my opinion.

 

[MaxManning]

Not sure. I saw it on Twitter, so I brought it over here. It could be totally fabricated I guess. But it goes to show that literally anything could have happened.

I still can't believe what ended up happening. (I googled. Still on ep. 4) I've never seen a case so full of reasonable doubt before!

Thanks, my mind was blown by episode 2. By the time I got to the verdicts, I was sure there had to be things left out. Now I feel like it's maybe impossible to even sleuth this one because there is so little real documented evidence that one can look at.

But I hate the feeling of being manipulated , and sadly after it's all over, I get that feeling from this documentary.

 

[MaxManning]

I want to explain why I feel manipulated.

This is a documentary, and documentaries often have a point, but they typically are something that exposes all the layers of a given topic/story and then let you decide. Sure, they might focus on a given area more than others because they believe that to be important, based on their beliefs. However, a big factor in this documentary is the viewer feeling outraged by the end that jurors and judges etc could possibly hear everything we have heard/seen and make the decisions they made. We are outraged that the jurors could vote guilty on both guys.

So, if the documentary fails to give key information that would form a juror's opinion and therefore their decision, then we have been manipulated into believing something that is not accurate.

The exclusions in this documentary are some of the most important details as to what a juror might make a decision based on. Yes, if as a juror I was told and believed that someone was cleaning the floor of the garage, I would have to evaluate that as a factor in my decision.

If Steve Avery specifically requested halbach that day to come to his place, as a juror, I'd certainly find that as an important piece of evidence.

Neither of those things mean he's guilty, however if you exclude them, you can increase the outrage of the viewer because they can't even evaluate the case the same way jurors had to. right ?


These exclusions weren't small things, they were mammoth imo. So how can I then trust anything the documentary told me ? that's the hard part now. They purposefully deceived me, and I can't overlook that.