Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[LemonMousse]

Strang might represent Avery again :
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rang-we-may-represent-steven-avery-again.html


I've taken a week or so break from researching this case, and my first article back has Strang admitting he himself is unsure of Avery's innocence :

--------------------------------------

Which I think is a common sentiment for the people who have chosen to take an objective look at the case instead of hopping on the "Making a Murderer" bandwagon and discounting any detail that doesn't point to Avery's innocence. Myself, I believe it's possible the police could have planted all of the evidence and Avery might still guilty. I would have voted not guilty because I have MORE than reasonable doubt as to if he is guilty.

I also have reasonable doubt that he is innocent. Glad to hear that Strang agrees.

I think most, if not all, will agree that the trial was anything but fair and with even the limited amount of investigation and tunnel focus on avery, we can't be sure that any number of junkyard characters could be responsible.

Unless Avery and Dassey are freed , there will likely never be a real investigation of this murder. Having the investigations and their trials being acknowledged as unfair and a complete sham, is first step to any kind of action that might confirm who the killer was. On a higher level, I still don't understand who's authority it would come under to investigate the abuse of the system , which was used to convict avery and dassey. Also, who is capable of investigating law enforcement and scrutinizing their behavior in handling the investigation ?


I saw Strang and Kratz on that Kelly Files segment, and it came across as far too brief to be of worth. Kratz felt the strongest evidence was the DNA on the hood latch. Which points to him being oblivious to the concept that most people believe all or some of the evidence was planted, whether it be by law enforcement and/or Avery's brothers.

There could be an hour segment, just on that blood topic alone. I was hoping they'd have cleared up things like the vial of blood having a hole in the top of of it, which the documentary used to manipulate the audience and never explained that the hole is HOW THE BLOOD GOT IN THE VIAL! So we still have countless people still walking around believing this was some kind of smoking gun. I admit, while watching the documentary, I was one of those people!

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xpof9/hole_in_the_top_of_the_blood_tube_normal/


Sadly, the media is now more interested in gaining ratings/viewers via the popularity of the documentary than actually breaking it down and sorting fact from fiction. Some even report statements in the Avery appeal transcripts as if they are something he is just now saying, but the appeal is like 6 years old. journalism is dead

Amazing that we still haven't seen avery trial transcripts. One would think that Avery and his legal team would want those made available as soon as possible while the public interest is white hot. Or... maybe there is reason to NOT give the full picture ? Whatever the reason is, I am suspicious as to why we haven't seen them yet.

I apologize for my suspicion if the Avery trial transcripts have been made public in the past few weeks, and I have just yet to discover them. If so, definitely link them as I'd love to see them.

Sorry if this is a tremendous shock, but you are not the only person "taking an objective look at the evidence". We all are.

Why, why, why must people always do this? Try and pretend that other people aren't being as "objective" just because they've possibly reached a different conclusion. It's childish and irritating.....and, to be honest, generally trotted out in the absence of persuasive arguments.

And, thank you, but the fact that Strang has said he's not sure (while Buting remains convinced of innocence) has been raised before...by me. I think it's quite telling that both lawyers, having seen far more of the evidence than any of us, are not persuaded of his guilt.

 

[stephsb]

I know who gave verbal alibis, but nobody PROVED their alibis. Nobody.

Well, in their defense, it isn't easy to verify an alibi when you don't give one in the first place, like CA. If he's home alone, unless he made phone calls or someone else saw him there, there is no way he can provide an iron clad alibi from 3-10PM. He should have at least been a POI on that fact alone, IMO. But that just shows the tunnel vision of the initial investigation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LemonMousse]

Apparently, the recovered key is a valet key...will open the door and start the car, but won't open the glove box or boot.

I wonder if there was anything from that day that Teresa put in the glove box....receipts, appointment addresses, that kind of thing.

If there were, then it proves the key she was using that day was not that one.

EDIT: Wait....if a valet key won't open the boot (trunk in US speak) how was she put in there?

 

[CD82]

Well, in their defense, it isn't easy to verify an alibi when you don't give one in the first place, like CA. If he's home alone, unless he made phone calls or someone else saw him there, there is no way he can provide an iron clad alibi from 3-10PM. He should have at least been a POI on that fact alone, IMO. But that just shows the tunnel vision of the initial investigation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. My point was, LE didn't even interrogate them as POIs or even to exclude them. They ONLY interviewed these people to see if they saw SA commit murder, or to place Teresa at the crime scene.

 

[CoolJ]

The defense has a say in who is struck from the jury, they didn't strike the jurors w. The conflicts of interest. The defense is given peremptory strikes. This juror had ten years to come forward w. His allegations, I'm sure Steven's attorneys would have been overjoyed to hear from him. It could have been done anonymously, as it was this time. Until more jurors come forward and say they were in "fear for their lives" I am going to question his story.

As for the conflict of interest, during James Holmes' trial (the Aurora shooter) there was a member of the jury who was a victim of the Columbine shootings. That has not yet been determined to be a conflict of interest, and the defense allowed the juror on. Was this juror "planted" by the prosecution? It's difficult to plant jurors when you have the other side watching you, unless of course the defense attorneys are incompetent.

As I said, if other jurors verify the misconduct, absolutely Steven should get a new trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, when you control the system. No it is not hard to plant jurors. How were the defense team supposed to know who is planted?

I think we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think we agree on the level of corruption that actually goes on within government.

 

[LemonMousse]

Wait, wait, wait.....if that key WAS a valet key, and these won't open trunks, then Steven can't have used it to put Theresa in there.

Does anyone know anything about valet keys? Everyone seems sure on Reddit...but I have never even heard of one, let alone seen one.

Anyone?

 

[stephsb]

The defense team would know when they did the questioning of them during voir dire. They had far more insight into their backgrounds and relationships than we ever will. If the planting was so obvious people on the Internet can see it, then maybe Avery should have had a better defense, because they should have seen it during jury selections. (And for the record, I think Avery had a phenomenal defense)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CD82]

Lol, when you control the system. No it is not hard to plant jurors. How were the defense team supposed to know who is planted?

I think we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think we agree on the level of corruption that actually goes on within government.

The jurors were from Manitowoc County! Even though they moved it to a neighboring county, there's still a bias there. Why even move the trial if all of the jurors already knew who Steven Avery was? Anyone could have been planted, anyone could have lied about being impartial. Scary stuff.

 

[stephsb]

I agree. My point was, LE didn't even interrogate them as POIs or even to exclude them. They ONLY interviewed these people to see if they saw SA commit murder, or to place Teresa at the crime scene.

Agreed. I just cant get over that they were talking about the investigation into Steven w. CA, when he himself should have been a prime suspect. Terrible investigation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CD82]

Wait, wait, wait.....if that key WAS a valet key, and these won't open trunks, then Steven can't have used it to put Theresa in there.

Does anyone know anything about valet keys? Everyone seems sure on Reddit...but I have never even heard of one, let alone seen one.

Anyone?

Excellent point! Giving a little more support to the theory that she was NOT using that key. It could have been obtained after she was killed. The original key could have been burned with the other belongings they found.

 

[TheDuchess]

I believe she was raped on the bed because of Brendon's original statement and because of the drawing that SA had made while he was in prison, wanting to rape and kill a woman. Also, the restraint items were found in the burn pile with her bones.

I keep seeing the "fact" about him drawing a picture of a torture chamber and him wanting to rape and murder women spoken as gospel. Outside of the sex-offending drug addict creeper Kratz, where is substantiation for this "fact?"
Is there a photo of the drawing? Was this introduced into evidence? Who was the informant and what did he have to gain from this revelation? Who were the 2 women who claimed he raped them? Was this brought into evidence or substantiated with any police reports, documentation, etc...? When did they make these claims? Why weren't the claims pursued, charged, etc...?

 

[stephsb]

For anyone interested, here is a Journal Sentinel article from 2007 discussing jury selection

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/9-possible-avery-jurors-picked-b99643063z1-363821891.html

 

[CoolJ]

Sorry if this is a tremendous shock, but you are not the only person "taking an objective look at the evidence". We all are.

Why, why, why must people always do this? Try and pretend that other people aren't being as "objective" just because they've possibly reached a different conclusion. It's childish and irritating.....and, to be honest, generally trotted out in the absence of persuasive arguments.

And, thank you, but the fact that Strang has said he's not sure (while Buting remains convinced of innocence) has been raised before...by me. I think it's quite telling that both lawyers, having seen far more of the evidence than any of us, are not persuaded of his guilt.

Strange didn't really say he's not sure. How can anyone be absolutely sure about any murder? That's why "100% sure" is not the burden of proof

"Do I think there is a real strong chance he could be innocent? Yes" - Dean Strang

I think that is as close to innocent as you are going to get from a lawyer

 

[MaxManning]

The evidence of the case is irrelevant. That can be discussed when these men get another trial. The corruption that went on, and is going on all over the world is what is important. Thankfully, people are opening their eyes and connecting the dots. How many cases of corrupt government officials and people in positions of trust and authority do there have to be before people realize that more often than not, people rise to the top by cheating, stealing, lying and bribing their way.

I want my leaders, police and politicians to be the cream of the crop. Ya know? Honest people with integrity and in their line of work to help others. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Some are going to think SA is guilty and some not. That is human nature. But as long there are serious questions regarding the investigation and trial. He should not be rotting jail. JMO

So why not go about doing something about how you feel ?

Not quite clear on how you expect to solve any of your objectives by going onto a "web sleuths" website where people research a given case and theorize what might have happened based on evidence. That's kinda what the point of the site is.

I think 99% of the people here would agree with you on your opinion regarding the corruption. I could be wrong, but I don't think people are here to protest anything or invoke change. I just want to understand the case better, that's all.

I don't think it's about people opening their eyes or connecting any dots, it's about someone doing something. There are petitions etc. It sounds like that's what you should be doing.

I asked on my first post today, about how exactly the legal system or law enforcement would be scrutinized -- ie is there some kind of overseeing body that would investigate corruption. But I understand that this site is not the place to address whoever is in charge, because they likely ain't reading along.

But calling anyone who wants to discuss details of the case that you deem 'irrelevant', Ken Kratz, is kinda not how I'd go about achieving your objective of changing something about our legal system or law enforcement bodies.

jmo

 

[CD82]

Anyone who follows the Making a Murderer facebook page, there's a more detailed post about the Ryan/Mike finding the car theory. But it also kind of points the finger at Scott and Bobby!

Mods, please delete if not allowed:

https://www.facebook.com/makingamurderer/posts/1694677450779311

 

[MaxManning]

Just a note on how someone can do something tangible. I have seen youtube videos about how you can correspond with and send things to Avery and Dassey while they are in prison.

Dean Strang has also noted that he might be representing Avery again, and my guess is that there will likely be some kind of organization to create a fund (or already has), to fund private investigation and maybe lawyer fees etc. So donating to that is another way to support them.

But in terms of the larger law enforcement/legal system corruption. I have no idea how to approach that. If anyone does, please post so those that wish to be involved can do get involved.

But, I kind of think whatever that avenue is, is outside the scope of what this thread is about. I'd imagine there are legal forums or something of that nature that could give advice on how to mount an attack on corruption.

 

[SCHMAE]

I can see someone believing that the murder possibly took place in the garage.

That belief would be based on Dassey telling his mother that he was helping Steve clean the garage floor with bleach on the night of the murder.

There was a luminol hit on a 3x3/3x4 spot in the garage, but as Strang said on Kelly files that could have been from deer blood.

No one has said "we were cleaning up deer blood that night". But it is true that the expert said in dassey files that it indeed could be deer blood, it doesn't have to be human blood.


I don't think the garage can be ruled out for that reason. But even if it was her blood in the garage, that doesn't mean she was killed there, it would just mean the body was likely there at some point.

Update -- Something over the head, such as a pillow, is a simplistic example of how someone could be shot in the head and not have any blood splatter. If the murder happened in the garage, that is likely the only way it could have gone down - imo.

What about something like a 55 gallon drum ? Many of those are turned into ' burn barrels'. Mechanics and wrecking yards would surely have access to them. Oh snap ! Now, I'm wondering if they checked ALL those cars!!!!! In theory, she could have been killed inside a car and all the blood would be there. No way did they check them all. But I wonder if they even checked any of them.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

No one's DNA was on that key except Avery's. To me, that says the key was scrubbed or never used, Avery's DNA introduced and the key planted in the home. It is inconceivable that a key, used by her, would not have her DNA on it.

I don't think its inconceivable. If he was sweating with his hands perspiring when touching the key then his DNA could remove anyone's DNA which may have been there. What kind of DNA was found of his? A key fob is small and he looks like he has beefy hands.

Did Avery go down to the vehicle with her that was beside the road? Did the eye witness see him standing there as she took photos too?

tia

 

[LemonMousse]

Strange didn't really say he's not sure. How can anyone be absolutely sure about any murder? That's why "100% sure" is not the burden of proof

"Do I think there is a real strong chance he could be innocent? Yes" - Dean Strang

I think that is as close to innocent as you are going to get from a lawyer

Well, not really...Buting says he's convinced SA is innocent. Strang's just a bit more agnostic about it.

But I take your point....100% is neither necessary or relevant.

 

[SCHMAE]

Person 5 Steven Avery
Burned a pet cat to death on a fire after first dousing it in petrol .
He chases a women down with a gun and runs her off the round , she thought he was going to kill her .....obvious lack of self control.
2 rape allegations against him from 2 separate women.
Attacked and tried to strangle his girlfriend calling her names and accusing her of all sorts .
Is the last known person to see Theresa , Theresa mentioned a previous occasion he came to the door in towel which gave her the creeps . Actually requests Theresa to call . Uses different name .....calls twice more from a blocked number and the once more after she is last seen alive from an unblocked number . Is seen at the fire and admits building the fire her remains are then found in . (Accuses cops of planting before anything is found) His gun is used in the killing .....Has a fresh deep cut on his hand that would of bled ...

that is before we look at the planting evidence

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence against SA. But if you believe the direct evidence is planted and / or imagined by LE, what does that tell us ?