Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[dexter75]

I just saw this answered =)
Was it here?
This was something he picked up per his lawyers interview & advice since prison and pending lawsuit to help protect his, as well as the families privacy.

I personally don't know what to make of them 2 phone calls, or the one at 4.35 without the number hidden

 

[dexter75]

Thank you!
I too, have never seen him ACT like he was guilty.
THIS speaks volumes to me.
He is RESEARCHING the LAW library in PRISON, etc. I could go on. I won't.
Thanks for mentioning this.

I watched the Documentary. (Twice). The first time, I came away convinced both BD and SA were completely innocent of THIS murder. After reading online, I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt SO strongly, so I watched it again. This time I realized that it was SA himself, that made the biggest impression on me about their innocence. There is just not one single second of footage where he ACTS like a guilty man. Not one. He remains clear and consistent throughout, and you can almost see the wheels in his head spinning, trying to grasp that this is really happening. (AGAIN!).

One thing that is beyond a shadow of a doubt; Making A Murderer exposed the problems in the system
with brutal clarity. I read a comment from a poster on yahoo news that outlined these problems beautifully:

"The documentary wasn't about whether Avery was guilty or innocent. It was about the abuse of authority;

confirmation bias;

mishandled conflicts of interest;

the fiction of presumed innocence;

the self-fulfilling prophecy of criminal suspicion;

the impact of emotional coercion in securing witness testimony;

the indulgence and self-congratulation of white hat press conferences and political posturing;

the saccharine of violence-reporting in the media;

the low quality product of state appointed public defenders;

the difficulty of maintaining a plea of innocence in the face of diffident (and seemingly lazy) counsel whose livelihood would be much simpler if everyone would just plea-bargain;

the dilemmas that poverty and low IQ present in a judicial system which presupposes and requires threshold levels of both money and intelligence in order to yield a just outcome;

the impact of pretrial publicity in prejudicing would be jurors;

the unimpeachable status of police 'character' and 'testimony';

the fraternal devotion that officers harbor primarily for their own;

the moral hazard of paid professional witnesses supplying scientific support as hired and directed by the prosecuting team;

the delivering of awards for securing high-profile convictions;

the cavalier and callous attitude that justice officials and employees often have with regard to the frustrated and broken lives of simple suspects;

the inadequacy of appearances in identifying sexual deviants/predators (Right Kratz?);

the troubling idea that a justice system may sufficiently fulfill it's social/communal purpose by merely providing the illusion of justice.

I think the directors did an excellent job of highlighting those problem elements of criminal litigation that are most relevant to cases beyond Avery. I'm persuaded that these types of problems plague almost all criminal proceedings. Again, the question is not whether Avery was or was not guilty (even though this is the leitmotiv that captivates the audience), it's about whether we can trust every single one of the thousands of other convictions reached in a system that is fraught with all of the above impurities."

I imagine most of us knew there was corruption in the system, but the In-Your-Face depiction of the callous disregard for the lives of those deemed somehow, less deserving of a fair shake, was what knocked the wind right out of me.

 

[CoolJ]

Thank you!
I too, have never seen him ACT like he was guilty.
THIS speaks volumes to me.
He is RESEARCHING the LAW library in PRISON, etc. I could go on. I won't.
Thanks for mentioning this.

This is what did it for me as well. SA is not a guilty man. A guilty man doesn't fight this hard for this long to prove his innocence.

 

[chaleigh26]

I just saw this answered =)
Was it here?
This was something he picked up per his lawyers interview & advice since prison and pending lawsuit to help protect his, as well as the families privacy.

Thanks dexter75.
I can totally understand his need to protect his privacy.

 

[Safeguard]

http://www.today.com/popculture/mak...ur-goal-was-question-us-justice-system-t65161

There was behind-the-scenes vote-trading going on during the trial,the juror told the filmmakers, and the verdicts on each count were "a compromise."

"That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said.

"So that was a significant revelation."

The juror also said he or she voted to convict, but claimed the decision came under duress.

"They told us really that they were afraid that if they held out for a mistrial that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that and that they were fearful for their own safety,'' Demos said.

 

[missy1974]

Hey all! I watched the show earlier this week and I can't stop thinking about it!!! I was so disturbed by it. I am not sure if SA is guilty or not, but I just can't see how he has found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I started googling around episode 6 LOL I am aware of the evidence that wasn't shown in the documentary (or some of it). I am watching the Kelly file right now and Ken Kratz was just on saying the one piece of evidence that wasn't in the show that he thought made a huge difference was that SA's DNA was found on the hood latch of the SUV. Dean Strang, SA's lawyer just said that the DA's theory is that it was sweat, but in reality, they don't know what it was, and it actually could have been a contact transfer from a glove or anything that had SA's dna on it.
My question is.... how did they not find one fingerprint on the SUV? If he was wearing gloves, then how did the blood from the cut on his finger (shown in the documentary) get on the SUV? and if he was smart enough to wipe down the vehicle for prints, then why wouldn't he wipe up the blood too? No way do I think she could be shot in the head in that garage and there not be any splatter, or that SA and possibly his nephew cleaned it up that well. I have so many questions *sigh* I would really like to see these 2 get new trials.

 

[missy1974]

http://www.today.com/popculture/mak...ur-goal-was-question-us-justice-system-t65161


"That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said.

I seen this earlier today. It makes sense now. I wondered how they could find him guilty of murder but not guilty of mutilation of a corpse. If they believed he killed her, they had to believe he burned her body, it's only logical, isn't it?

 

[ElleElle]

This is what did it for me as well. SA is not a guilty man. A guilty man doesn't fight this hard for this long to prove his innocence.

Also, a guilty man might try to run. He had no intentions of running and his story never changed.

 

[katydid23]

This is what did it for me as well. SA is not a guilty man. A guilty man doesn't fight this hard for this long to prove his innocence.

Really? What about McDonald, that killed his wife and babies in FT Bragg decades ago?

 

[katydid23]

If they are innocent, then who killed her? She did go to his car yard that day, correct? Who killed her?

 

[ziggy]

I wondered that as well. In looking for what is not there.

Also .22 shots are kinda known for not exiting . Not to say it didn't but if she wasn't shot in the garage . How are we supposed to buy that's where they found the bullet?
As you said it makes no sense.

The cremation was brought up in Brendan's trial. Expert said tires can create such extreme heat and energy as could polyurethane in the van seat cushion. By the amount of wire, he figured about 5 steel radial tires had been burned, although he could not say when. He also state if other types of tires were burned, it would be impossible to know after the fact as they leave no tell tale pieces behind.

Bone was inside and entangled in the burned steel wire, so whoever burned her used tires it would seem. No parts of her found amongst the van seat remnants.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Idk. Because the young nephew knew that uncle will be rolling in big big big money soon, due to the ongoing civil suit during that time.

Plus uncle steve gave up other possible leads during that time.

So why would nephew implicate uncle. If nephew knew that uncle was going to get millions soon.

So maybe Steven was truly involved. Idk.

But for Steven sake.

Maybe they will give him the 20 years timed served for the false imprisonment.

Because I truly think that the false imprisonment lead to him doing this in the long run.

This is a basic Stockholm Syndrome Case in any lawyers eyes. Jmo.

A victim of abuse who retaliates against another person that had nothing to do with things. Can still be considered Stockholm or temporarily insane. Jmo for now.

 

[LemonMousse]

If they are innocent, then who killed her? She did go to his car yard that day, correct? Who killed her?

Are you expecting people on this thread to answer that? What with? A crystal ball?

And it wasn't just "his" yard. He has brothers, nephews and in-laws living there too - three of which have very serious convictions concerning sexual violence against women.

One of the brothers - within about a month of Teresa's murder - had two women complain to the police that he'd been harrassing and frightening them after they visted the yard.

So....who killed them? Maybe Steven, maybe one of the other brothers. Maybe none of them.

 

[LemonMousse]

Snippets:

The defence tried to admit into evidence an anonymous letter received before the trial that said Teresa was burnt in a smelter. No fingerprints were found on the letter and the State said that the police had checked the onsite smelter already.

The bus driver said that she'd tried to tell Weigert that she'd seen someone taking photos of a van when she saw the police cordons go up. She was ignored.

A propane truck driver said he'd seen a green sports utility driving out of the Avery yard that day between 3.30 and 4.00 but he couldn't see who was driving.

Sherry Culhane was instrumental in having Steven put away for the rape in 85 by wrongly linking him with animal hair DNA.

All part of the trial, but not mentioned in the doc, so just thought I'd stick these in for your considerations!

Source: http://www.convolutedbrian.com

 

[katydid23]

Snippets:

The defence tried to admit into evidence an anonymous letter received before the trial that said Teresa was burnt in a smelter. No fingerprints were found on the letter and the State said that the police had checked the onsite smelter already.

The bus driver said that she'd tried to tell Weigert that she'd seen someone taking photos of a van when she saw the police cordons go up. She was ignored.

A propane truck driver said he'd seen a green sports utility driving out of the Avery yard that day between 3.30 and 4.00 but he couldn't see who was driving.

Sherry Culhane was instrumental in having Steven put away for the rape in 85 by wrongly linking him with animal hair DNA.

All part of the trial, but not mentioned in the doc, so just thought I'd stick these in for your considerations!

Source: http://www.convolutedbrian.com

That seems like a kind of 'iffy' source. It is a strange blog that has no cites listed, AFAIK.

 

[Soulmagent]

That seems like a kind of 'iffy' source. It is a strange blog that has no cites listed, AFAIK.

A court records search has confirmed parts of this account.

 

[JudyBolton]

If anyone watches this and doesn't believe the Sheriff's office had pre-conceived certainty of SA's guilt - well... I cannot imagine how. Remember the search where they showed his shoes in a closet and a female voice (not shown on camera) says something like, "lets pull out all of the unsolved cases where we have shoe imprints - may be able to solve them"... or something of that nature. I could almost imagine them gleefully rubbing their hands together as they carried out their "search".

So I guess the shoe prints didn't match any existing unsolved crimes after all...or we would have heard about it for sure! Imagine that!!!!

 

[Hope4More]

I agree. The last thing we need is a mass of uninformed public overturning convictions.

But in rare cases, I also believe they deserve a further look with fresh eyes. I don't think he should be pardoned but he certainly deserves a second trial.

I agree. I also think the DOJ should review the entire case, start to finish. One of the most compelling questions the doc raised is what possible recourse is there for the accused when the legal process is tainted\corrupted\subverted each step of the way. Referring to his first conviction, I thought it astonishing that the COA upheld the verdict rather than ordering a new trial.


Adding- the original thread here on SA {2005} has a wealth of info and good sleuthing, BTW. I'm reading through it for the first time. Amazing that some of you posting now have been involved in Avery cases for over 10 years!

 

[CD82]

Since my post on page 7 (I think it was p.7) I have watched 2 more episodes and read more of the case information. I just have to say I don't know if he's guilty or not. There are things that point in both directions for me. The only things that makes me feel he was set up was the fact that there wasn't even Teresa's DNA on that key, just SA, and where's all the biological evidence in the house? It's not there! They looked high and low!

LE misconduct? Abso-friggin-lutely. The square key point is SO good! Unless she recently lost her keys and had to use the spare, I can't see how she'd leave the ones with her house key behind.

I also read a blog (I'll have to find the link) that links to the transcripts, and only half of Brendan's confession in the documentary. Also, only half of his conversation with his mother too. Apparently, he revealed a lot of things about SA that make him look like a skeezeball. Of course, he could be lying, which I'm still debating. This whole case just has me scratching my head!

It also said that SA personally called Auto Trader and requested Teresa specifically. That's a huge red flag. Let me try to find the link.

 

[LemonMousse]

That seems like a kind of 'iffy' source. It is a strange blog that has no cites listed, AFAIK.

The source is himself. He followed the trial as it happened.

Incidentally...don't you think it might be wise to actually watch the series before making a judgement?