Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[Jaiddie]

http://stevenaverycase.com/new-page/#sthash.WlI3JPuP.2AtHYmzF.dpbs

I am new here, so am not quite sure of posting rules, as well as being an all around forum newbie period. I saw this on the reddit threads, tho, and saw that it is VERY detailed. It seems to have crime scene and exhibit photo's, a detailed timeline, as well as a lot of back story on Steven and his family. Thought some here would find it interesting.

 

[missy1974]

Is this a new appeal or an old one ?

I thought that he had no appeals left.

Strang had said that the only way he could get a new appeal would be if new evidence surfaced.

But I'm almost certain that older appeals mentioned things like the search warrant and jury. I could be wrong.

But wouldn't be the first time I've seen a site report a 2 year old document from this case as being NEW information.

this says new.... and it says to "throw out his conviction" lol His other appeals mentioned something about the one juror that left.... this is stating something new, that I hadn't heard before. I am wondering if this is what was filed yesterday.

 

[MaxManning]

this says new.... and it says to "throw out his conviction" lol His other appeals mentioned something about the one juror that left.... this is stating something new, that I hadn't heard before. I am wondering if this is what was filed yesterday.

I'm saying I don't think any of it is new. Juror, Search Warrant, Mishandling of vehicle -- all mentioned in previous appeals. All obviously attempting to throw out his conviction. That's the point.

Call me crazy, but I am suggesting the expiration date on this NEW is a few years old.

I have been wrong before, obviously!

 

[missy1974]

Could be Max.... but there were Motions filed yesterday lol so "something" new was filed yesterday. I am not a lawyer, but my guess is that he or his lawyer can't just keep filing motions whenever they want.

ETA: I guess I should take new out... I have no clue if it's new LOL but "something" was filed yesterday

 

[Jaiddie]

http://www.dnj.com/story/news/polit...pires-proposed-tennessee-law-change/78646510/

Looks like the first concrete good works that may come from the MaM doc being made. I think THIS is truly what the filmmakers were aiming for in their dream to see their work come to fruition.

 

[missy1974]

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/vi...601121553Avery+motions+for+release-relief.pdf

This is what was filed yesterday. Looks like it was from SA, dated Jan 7/16, the day before the new lawyer signed on. They were received yesterday. It's not an easy read, but one juror is identified as C.W.

C.W. .... Could be the father that volunteered at the Sheriff's Dept.

http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-volunteered-sheriffs-department-during-trial

 

[popsicle]

Is this a new appeal or an old one ?

I thought that he had no appeals left.

Strang had said that the only way he could get a new appeal would be if new evidence surfaced.

But I'm almost certain that older appeals mentioned things like the search warrant and jury. I could be wrong.

But wouldn't be the first time I've seen a site report a 2 year old document from this case as being NEW information.

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/vi...601121553Avery motions for release-relief.pdf

 

[popsicle]

Once a verdict is reached the mistrial ship has sailed. That is why I lol'd.

 

[SCHMAE]

Once a verdict is reached the mistrial ship has sailed. That is why I lol'd.

:seeya: Pop!
Question for everyone , if SA got a new trial and was found GUILTY again, would you be satisfied in his guilt ? Assuming the new trial was handled better re: evidence, etc.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Once a verdict is reached the mistrial ship has sailed. That is why I lol'd.

Maybe he thinks that with all the hoopla about the Making a Murderer flick that he would give it a go.

 

[Tawny]

:seeya: Pop!
Question for everyone , if SA got a new trial and was found GUILTY again, would you be satisfied in his guilt ? Assuming the new trial was handled better re: evidence, etc.

My biggest beef is with the investigation, and I'm not sure how they would re-investigate.

 

[missy1974]

:seeya: Pop!
Question for everyone , if SA got a new trial and was found GUILTY again, would you be satisfied in his guilt ? Assuming the new trial was handled better re: evidence, etc.

I'm not sure tbh Schmae. I think it's a complex question because there is a lot of evidence that they won't be able to go back and do a re-do on. Example: I have watched numerous clips from the trial with that dang key, and I have seen more than 1 person handling it without gloves. So could more testing be done on it and it be reliable? This is just one piece.

I still don't know if he is innocent, and may never claim to think he is unless someone comes forward and confesses or someone shows me a video of who did it LOL But I think the investigation was flawed, and some of the evidence is questionable.

 

[Tawny]

I'm not sure tbh Schmae. I think it's a complex question because there is a lot of evidence that they won't be able to go back and do a re-do on. Example: I have watched numerous clips from the trial with that dang key, and I have seen more than 1 person handling it without gloves. So could more testing be done on it and it be reliable? This is just one piece.

I still don't know if he is innocent, and may never claim to think he is unless someone comes forward and confesses or someone shows me a video of who did it LOL But I think the investigation was flawed, and some of the evidence is questionable.

Not to mention, we can't "re-search" the property and find things where they were supposed to be. Everything would end up being circumstantial with reliance on 10+ year old memory for testimonies. It would be a mess. JMO

 

[popsicle]

:seeya: Pop!
Question for everyone , if SA got a new trial and was found GUILTY again, would you be satisfied in his guilt ? Assuming the new trial was handled better re: evidence, etc.

:seeya: I am not sure I need a new trial for that but I do need to see the case files from the trial before deciding for sure.

 

[Jaiddie]

https://soundcloud.com/smerconishsh...why-is-there-no-blood-evidence-in-the-bedroom

Ken Kratz's latest spin on his original murder fairy tale narrative that he is spouting to the media.

 

[Oakland CA]

https://soundcloud.com/smerconishsh...why-is-there-no-blood-evidence-in-the-bedroom

Ken Kratz's latest spin on his original murder fairy tale narrative that he is spouting to the media.

"We didn't expect to find any DNA or blood evidence in the trailer"

Really Ken?

I guess we can add psychic alongside sexual predator to your list of occupations.

 

[stephsb]

https://soundcloud.com/smerconishsh...why-is-there-no-blood-evidence-in-the-bedroom

Ken Kratz's latest spin on his original murder fairy tale narrative that he is spouting to the media.

Omfg. Blood is just boiling. They believe it was little more than a scratch, I wonder how closely he actually listened to Brendan's interview good lord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pleasestandby]

According to SD's version SA had pulled TH's SUV into his garage, with the nose facing out. ALLEGEDLY SA was first thinking of disposing TH's body in the pond that's on the property and he was going to take her body there in the SUV. SD claims he saw TH's body in the cargo area of the SUV but then SA asked him to help remove her body and they did and placed it on the garage floor. Then SA decided he would burn her body and they got this thing on wheels (called a 'creeper'), put her body on that, and used that to help wheel her body over to the fire pit.

Again, I'm not saying this is what happened, this is what BD told investigators in that taped interview, a transcript of which is out on the Interwebs.

Yes, I just read that transcript. First BD said SA shot her, then he also shot her, then they shot her in the garage, then by the side of the garage, then again in the garage. The transcript also shows that BD said he and SA both lifted a hood onto the suv. For some reason, I can't see it on the car in the picture.

BD, also stated at his trial he made up some of his confession from the book Kiss The Girls by James Paterson.

http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/01Mar2006/01Mar2006Transcript.pdf

 

[Madeleine74]

Here's a screen shot that shows the key in closeup

http://i.imgur.com/WDjuJ99.jpg

 

[stephsb]

Interesting how Kratz comes to the conclusion that it was just a small cut on her throat that wouldn't leave behind blood or DNA when the statement contains statements like this:

3/1 confession pg 640-641
W: You said that you had cut her throat. Here's the thing Brendan, when you cut somebody's throat, they bleed a lot. OK? Am I right?
B: Yeah
W: She bled a lot, so I know you had blood on you, it's pretty much impossible not to. Did you have blood on you?
B: No
W: None at all?
B: No

Wiegert is clearly telling Brendan that Teresa bled a lot, yet Kratz comes to the conclusion that she had little more than a small scratch on her throat. Brendan also describes the bedroom for them:

3/1 pg 643-644
F: Brendan, when she's on the bed, was there a lot of blood?
B: Yeah
F: Do you recall when the sheets were taken off the bed and stuff that the blood had soaked through to the mattress pad at all? Or mattress?
B: I don't know.
F: You don't know, did you see it or not?
B: No
F: You sure that she wasn't taken out to the garage alive and some of the stuff was done to her out there?
B: No

Complete contradiction to Kratz's statement. So what's the truth? That is what is so concerning to me- they use Brendan's statement when it's convenient for them, and completely discredit it other times.