Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[JanIreland]

On reddit ,someone has done a QTip project and shown has much like the dash ,they were able to create . It was an amusing read.

If by amusing you mean ridiculous then I aggree

 

[SCHMAE]

No disrespect meant, but if you are going to do research on this case based off of this propaganda film, then you may as well save your time. Anyone who just watches this travesty of truth and doesn't see it for what it is, won't come to any other conclusion but that he is innocent. Hundreds of thousands of people have already.

I can see how that can happen. DH and I watched them together and by episode 3 or 4 , I was thinking " he probably did it''. Maybe I've been trained via WS to look at things with a more open mind . The power of media is HUGE. Please remember this when you're watching your favorite candidate in the run up to the coming election !

 

[JanIreland]

I know right? Like the same people who believed that a man with an airtight alibi could have possibly committed an attempted rape? Like the same people who believed that several flags about a much more sensible suspect could have committed the crime, but was repeatedly rebuffed? The same people who could believe that our system could have possibly allowed an innocent man to spend 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit? The same people who couldn't possibly believe that innocent people confess to crimes?

Yeah...I guess I see your point....

:thinking:

wasn't 6 years of the 18 year sentence for another crime he did commit ? or has that been disproved ? honest question ?

 

[norest4thewicked]

I know right? Like the same people who believed that a man with an airtight alibi could have possibly committed an attempted rape? Like the same people who believed that several flags about a much more sensible suspect could have committed the crime, but was repeatedly rebuffed? The same people who could believe that our system could have possibly allowed an innocent man to spend 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit? The same people who couldn't possibly believe that innocent people confess to crimes?

Yeah...I guess I see your point....

:thinking:

Straw man argument. Not the same case. Not relevant to my comment.

 

[MaxManning]

I've never quite understood the mentality/thought process of many, many LE investigators.
Why wouldn't you want something--anything--that can be substantiated as fact allowed into an investigation?
Isn't the whole point to find the actual person, not just any person, who could have committed the crime
Do they actually care/not care if they help convict an innocent person?
Is their mentality just to get a conviction if the suspect shows opportunity and motive?

It never ceases to amaze me the number of times I've heard a detective state::

"We are so disappointed the DNA evidence proves without a doubt he isn't our guy. We really thought he did it".

Why are they disappointed?
They actually would've been happy if they could've got a guilty verdict on someone who is completely innocent?

Not weird to me that people don't like being wrong.

That's why you need to stay objective and not choose a horse.jmo

 

[TheDuchess]

wasn't 6 years of the 18 year sentence for another crime he did commit ? or has that been disproved ? honest question ?

Yes - 6 years for the assault on his cousin that started the whole ball rolling. But I would imagine that sentence would have likely been far less without the other case, but just my opinion.

 

[TheDuchess]

Straw man argument. Not the same case. Not relevant to my comment.

IMO it is NOT a straw man argument. You cannot separate the two without separating the players. IMO.

 

[SCHMAE]

wasn't 6 years of the 18 year sentence for another crime he did commit ? or has that been disproved ? honest question ?

Yes. The truth is he did 12 yrs for a crime he did not commit. Is 12 a whole lot better than 18? Maybe, maybe not, but the 18 yr phrase needs to be dropped.

 

[Tawny]

Just finished reading the Wisconsin Supreme Court Disciplinary Proceedings against Kenneth R. Kratz. (Wisconsin Court Docs, PDF). I must admit, I am absolutely shocked this man did not lose his license to practice. Also, if the alleged sexual assault actually occurred (see p35 of the PDF), imho, he should have been criminally charged, his claim of medication abuse, notwithstanding.

Interestingly, or not, he claims he has a sexual addiction (see p16 of the PDF). This leaves me to wonder if the "sweaty" sexual attack that he purposefully and luridly describes to the media (replete with the send your kids to bed cautionary) was nothing more than leakage from his darker imaginings. Especially considering there was absolutely no forensic evidence whatsoever to support such a horrific claim.

Again, I think his behavior was beyond the pale, regardless of whether (or not) he informed the family of what he "thought" occurred to Ms. Halbach. Having a child murdered is the worst nightmare that can happen to any family. That is bad enough. But then to be led to believe she was raped and tortured, if there was really no way to know whether or not she was? That, imnsho, is obscene.

Watching Kratz describe that scene as he saw it at that press conference was extremely disturbing. He THOROUGHLY enjoyed telling that tale, his face was alight with glee. So gross.

 

[TheDuchess]

Watching Kratz describe that scene as he saw it at that press conference was extremely disturbing. He THOROUGHLY enjoyed telling that tale, his face was alight with glee. So gross.

I heard someone describe it in a very graphic way that let's say, Kratz was aroused while telling his tale. :sick:

 

[JanIreland]

Yes. The truth is he did 12 yrs for a crime he did not commit. Is 12 a whole lot better than 18? Maybe, maybe not, but the 18 yr phrase needs to be dropped.

In my opinion a day is too long but if we're dealing in facts he did 12 years for a crime he did not commit and 6 for a crime he did....or just say 12 years moo

 

[SCHMAE]

Issue is that everyone seems to assume there needed to be some big cleanup. I don't see evidence of that.

Sure, if you create a narrative that has a big bloody mess, then I get it.

But the only evidence of a big bloody mess that we have is a 3x3 / 3x4 spot in the garage that may or may not be her blood.

Which is why I keep saying, that if anyone is saying 2 people weren't capable of cleaning up that spot, I'd like to understand why.

Lots of talk about blood splatter. We have zero evidence of blood splatter. So one of 3 things are plausible in order of probability :

1. There was no blood splatter because a pillow or something of that nature was over the head when shooting. - very plausible
2. The killing didn't take place in the garage. - very plausible
3. There was blood splatter but it got cleaned up -- highly unlikley imo

So why everyone feels we need to accept Kratz's version that came from a coerce brendan as a litmus test for whether 1 or 2 people could have killed her and cleaned it up is confusing to me.

I am pretty certain that no one accepts it happened that way. So why even argue it anymore ?

But, looking at 1 & 2, it's common sense that they are something we have to consider and are both plausible.

Only reason I say #1 is more probable is because

There is a luminol hit on averys garage floor
brendan's mother reports brendan told her he was cleaning avery's garage floor, after questioning him about his bleached pants that night.
Tadych's co worker gave statement that the day of avery's arrest that tadych spoke of blood in his son's laundry mixed in with his clothes.

Nothing that is proof, but it's things that fit together that give weight to the probability.


Just tired of the "how could they clean up the mess" conversation, because no one even believes they could. So why even use it as a litmus test for anything ??

But if ANYONE believes that, speak up and explain to us how you believe they could clean it up. My opinion is that the person doesn't exist but people keep talking to Kratz, who we all agree gave a crappy narrative.

jmo

Kratz has the only narrative of any crime that ever was offered, right ? I said days ago she may have been strangled, which would lead to no blood anywhere. But then you've got the ' bloody bullet' with no blood on it so she must have been shot, right? Plus her bloody hairstrokes in the car, so somewhere there must be some blood. I thought she could have been killed in any of the 100's of cars on the lot and wondered if every single car was processed for evidence. Doubt it !

BBM I don't think she was killed indoors at all , not the home nor the garage. mooo

 

[norest4thewicked]

http://mobile.onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/averyplotunravels.html

 

[MaxManning]

if SA had not been wrongfully convicted prior , would you feel as certain about his innocence this go around?

yep, many have mentioned this, but that's kind of the point, is that it did!

The better question is how would you feel if this time it was not investigated by the same people from the first conviction and had no reason to be biased ?

If that was the case, I'd imagine there'd be a dramatically different perception about his innocence.

So it's not just enough to say "what if he had not been wrongfully convicted prior?" - it's a level deeper than that.

 

[MaxManning]

Kratz has the only narrative of any crime that ever was offered, right ? I said days ago she may have been strangled, which would lead to no blood anywhere. But then you've got the ' bloody bullet' with no blood on it so she must have been shot, right? Plus her bloody hairstrokes in the car, so somewhere there must be some blood. I thought she could have been killed in any of the 100's of cars on the lot and wondered if every single car was processed for evidence. Doubt it !

He has the official narrative of the trial.

Check reddit and this thread for many that are far more realistic.

I'm just pointing out that 99.9% of the people here are in the choir everyone is preaching to.

So, I think it's more constructive to work on theories that make sense. I have seen examples on this thread and reddit that are far more plausible.

Many of us keep saying it's possible that the police planted everything and Avery is still guilty.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have learned over time that I don't have to know exactly what happened to know someone did it.
I still am not sure the order of events in Travis's Killing but I know that JA killed him. Granted she left more obvious evidence but I still see evidence here that points to him.

I know that he called her to come there. That he tried to cover his number.. He calls her saying.. Where are you aren't you coming??? and yet he goes on national tv and says he saw her that day.
He is covering because he killed her. Her bones are found there, her car is found there..

I believe he killed her. I don't need all the details in a box to think that. I have learned over the years there are some things you never get to know.

 

[Dogface]

No disrespect meant, but if you are going to do research on this case based off of this propaganda film, then you may as well save your time. Anyone who just watches this travesty of truth and doesn't see it for what it is, won't come to any other conclusion but that he is innocent. Hundreds of thousands of people have already.

As a former research science I like to only look at the facts. And regardless of actual guilt, the fact is things were handled completely wrong during several aspects of this case. That rubs me the wrong way. If anything, SA should have been subjected to an investigation that was done more carefully than most. Tunnel vision on a crime is never a good thing, and even if he did do this, the tactics used by LE were dreadful.

I personally believe it was done by two people who lived on that property, and they just lucked out with cops only looking at SA. Several things make no sense to me. Mainly, the key and lack of DNA. Also, why the car was so poorly hidden. He had time to do a better job of hiding/disposing of it. I also think the autotrader magazine, and bill of sale being put up is a very strong indicator that TH's appointment went normally.

 

[Safeguard]

Have to admit usually Websleuths is my "go too" on all cases but the theories being thrown out here have me scratching my head at the moment , I also see people that in my eyes are bringing up some great points being completely slammed down.
The amount of juggling people are doing to clear Avery is mental to me. I've even seen comments actually blaming the murder on the LE ...whatever about the planting but the murder ?! People actually believe the LE murdered this girl to lock lil Stevie up .....It's all getting a lil too silly too me . MOO

"Whatever about the planting" ? Wow.
It's about reasonable doubt. If you think Steven and Brendan are where they should be, then you think the ends justifies the means?

 

[Ellie9]

Sorry if I missed it earlier in this thread, it's a very long read! But did anyone have an explanation for why the cop called in the license plate and model/make of the missing car two days before the search party woman found it on SA's property?

 

[Dogface]

Kratz has the only narrative of any crime that ever was offered, right ? I said days ago she may have been strangled, which would lead to no blood anywhere. But then you've got the ' bloody bullet' with no blood on it so she must have been shot, right? Plus her bloody hairstrokes in the car, so somewhere there must be some blood. I thought she could have been killed in any of the 100's of cars on the lot and wondered if every single car was processed for evidence. Doubt it !

BBM I don't think she was killed indoors at all , not the home nor the garage. mooo

I too wonder if all the cars on the property were thoroughly searched. There was a cadaver dog brought out correct? She could have still been held in a car. That is one thing I have wondered about. Could she have finished taking pictures, handed SA the magazine and BOS then he said, hey I actually have another car over here I need pictures of...then lead her deeper into the salvage yard? But then I question how he could have been so nonchalantly talking with Jodi that evening. Even bringing up to phone call to BD. That seems like a normal thing to talk about on a normal day. If you just murdered someone do you really stand around talking about your phone calls that day while burning a body?