Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[GigiG]

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.

Just when I thought Kratz couldn't get any lower in my book. Oops, he did it again.

 

[MysticJynx]

Did anyone ever see the show DID HE DO IT? The first episode of the series was about Steven Avery, Episode was called Reputation of Evil. Features Ken Kratz and Penny Beertsen. Also depicts some of the scenes of the crime scene wrong. Such as the car was cover in a blue tarp. The prosecutor hostess on the show states that Avery was a Sexual Offender. However I don't see one conviction of sexual assault in his record. They show when they find the bones in the fire pit, that they were sifting through it with their hands. Not the shovels that are known. Ken really discusses how the key is what made him think Steve was the culprit. Also in this show they mention that her blood was found in the back of her Rav4, but they do not at all mention Steve's being found in the car. Thought for an Investigation Discovery Show it was poorly representing the defense's side of the story. Also Ken Kratz didnt mind only discussing some of the evidence from the trial. So who is he to care about bias of the story from the other side of the courts isle? If he had it his way, and he did in the early press conferences he did about the case he would paint it all bias of the prosecutions side.

Shakes head.

 

[eve314]

BOOM!

In the filing, Avery takes issue with a search conducted during the murder investigation, saying it improperly included multiple properties and therefore any evidence that was uncovered “is clearly ‘FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE’.” The appeal also says that a juror tainted other jurors “THROUGH DIRECT OR INDIRECT IN FLUENCE”, and that the juror stated numerous times that Avery “IS F------ GUILTY.”

It also said judge Angela W Sutkiewicz made misleading statements and that his lawyers were ineffective.


http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...king-a-murderer-appeal-netflix-teresa-halbach

 

[DexterMorgan]

Doesn't the state pay you for wrongful incarceration and not the county. So did he sue both the state and county.

Wouldnt the state automatically have to give him money. And then he could sue the personal people of the county later.

Or is everything wrapped into one case for all those involved with the states case?

 

[Swirlz]

Sorry for thread crashing but wouldn't statistics point overwhelmingly to the perp being someone the victim knew well, most likely a male intimate?

 

[lindamichelle1]

Just started watching this on Netflix, only up to episode 2 but I can already tell its really biased and obviously the makers dont think he did it, the entire second episode i was pretty much like ok i get it you think the cops framed him!! seemed to drag on so long. I really wanted to get into it but dunno if I can watch the rest, especially knowing how much they have left out of it to try and make him seem not guilty

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Just started watching this on Netflix, only up to episode 2 but I can already tell its really biased and obviously the makers dont think he did it, the entire second episode i was pretty much like ok i get it you think the cops framed him!! seemed to drag on so long. I really wanted to get into it but dunno if I can watch the rest, especially knowing how much they have left out of it to try and make him seem not guilty

I recommend sticking with it.

I was encouraged by family members to keep at it after watching first 2 episodes and leaving it. So, I watched episode 3, this one got to me for obvious reasons and I stuck with it till the end and started researching like everyone on this forum.

Imo, you don't have to feel suckered into it, I certainly didn't feel that way. Corruption, planting of evidence and coercing confessions from children and individuals with low intellectual is not unheard of, even in Australia.

I am pro police but the rotten apples need to be exposed and weeded out. Corrupt cops not only negatively affect the community at large, but their colleagues as well. Their chosen vocation is built on camaraderie, integrity and honesty, a crooked cop will destroy from within, low morale will be rife and whistle blowers silenced one way or another if a corrupt cop has reached a superior level. How soul destroying that is for honest, hardworking cops.

 

[eve314]

Just started watching this on Netflix, only up to episode 2 but I can already tell its really biased and obviously the makers dont think he did it, the entire second episode i was pretty much like ok i get it you think the cops framed him!! seemed to drag on so long. I really wanted to get into it but dunno if I can watch the rest, especially knowing how much they have left out of it to try and make him seem not guilty

Please do watch the other episodes, if for nothing else, it is a good artifact of film making and the creation of a new genre of documentary/drama. In terms of auteur bias, the directors have claimed in numerous cited references that they had no interest in SA's innocence or guilt. This piece was a depiction of a systemic failure...they did invite the prosecution actors to partake for added perspective but they declined. There was a number of facts/evidence left out on both sides - and there is a thread here that will help you with these gaps. Enjoy.

 

[Jaiddie]

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/morning-...3/steven-avery-ex-fiancee-exclusive-interview

Wow, no words. SA ex-gf Jodi now is going on Nancy Grace to state what a monster SA was...wonder how much $$ she got for doing this

 

[MaxManning]

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/morning-...3/steven-avery-ex-fiancee-exclusive-interview

Wow, no words. SA ex-gf Jodi now is going on Nancy Grace to state what a monster SA was...wonder how much $$ she got for doing this

Even though NG is beyond annoying and this stinks of a money grab, if there are public records of physical abuse by avery, should we look away ?

She's a sketchy character, no doubt. But birds of a feather, ya know ?

Are restraining order's in the public record ? I wouldn't know how to find them. anyone ?

 

[MaxManning]

Just started watching this on Netflix, only up to episode 2 but I can already tell its really biased and obviously the makers dont think he did it, the entire second episode i was pretty much like ok i get it you think the cops framed him!! seemed to drag on so long. I really wanted to get into it but dunno if I can watch the rest, especially knowing how much they have left out of it to try and make him seem not guilty

Stick with it, because it does condense alot of aspects in a way that give a good framework for understanding the basics of the case, even while leaving out things many think are very important.

You can watch that, or spend 5 times as much time reading transcripts, blogs, articles, and this forum, just getting you close to where you'd be after watching the documentary in terms of information.

I think it can suck you in more if you don't know if he was guilty or not in real life yet, as was the case as I watched it. But I find it hard to believe that there are too many people who are unaware of the outcome now as the media is all over it. So the experience for you, might not be as engaging.

 

[Jaiddie]

My main thing is that in the doc she states, HERSELF, about how hard she tried to get the no contact order her PO put in placed dropped, before she eventually gave up after numerous arrests of herself by LE for breaking said no contact order. If she was so scared of him at the time, why was she trying to get it dropped? Thats what I meant. She even said in the interview I posted that she once took 2 boxes of rat poison so she could go to the hospital to get away from him...suuuuure, she did. I woulda thought 2 BOXES of rat poison would kill spmeone, but maybe I am wrong.

 

[missy1974]

I'm interested to see what Jodi has to say. IIRC she was in jail at the time it happened, and SA was arrested already when she got out. All of their communication would have been recorded/monitored, wouldn't it? So I don't think she will have anything earth shattering that we don't already know.

And you are right Max, the abuse shouldn't be ignored. But if that was the only criteria for murder.... there are a few of them in that family that can't be taken off that "could they have done it" list.

 

[missy1974]

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/steven-avery-making-a-murderer-87155

One juror, when asked why they voted guilty and what they thought happened to murder victim Teresa Halbach, said “Torture and rape. Then he shot her in the head. He cut her up and put her in a burn barrel.”
The juror’s comments are significant because no evidence of Teresa being raped and tortured was allowed in Avery’s trial. That information comes from a confession given by Avery’s nephew Brendan Dassey and was part of a pre-trial press conference given by prosecutor Ken Kratz.

If what is in this article is true, it may open the door for SA.
It goes on to say the judge made it clear the jury was not to consider the rape and torture scenario that was part of a controversial confession by Avery’s nephew but not introduced at the trial.

 

[SaucyGal]

I've only come across an explanation of Teresa's video here: http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/201...-celebrates-men-who-kill-and-abuse-women.html

Thank you, redheart. I've been Googling trying to find context. That gave a little insight, but it just seemed really odd to me. I didn't get the impression that she was suicidal. I need to go back and watch the entire documentary again, but IIRC it seemed like an intimate conversation between her and someone else. While I do not know her or her typical demeanor - she seemed (possibly) intoxicated or very tired. I know I say weird things under either of those conditions!

 

[Sleuther87]

Even though NG is beyond annoying and this stinks of a money grab, if there are public records of physical abuse by avery, should we look away ?

She's a sketchy character, no doubt. But birds of a feather, ya know ?

Are restraining order's in the public record ? I wouldn't know how to find them. anyone ?

Max, I have posted the account of Avery's domestic abuse of Jodi on here before, but unfortunately others have mostly chose to ignore it (as I expected, since it portrays Steven negatively).

I doubt it'll stop the disgusting attacks of her character now that she's coming out with her story, but hopefully this account lends credence to Jodi's claims for those who are more open-minded.

Excerpt from Michael Griesbach's The Innocent Killer - Steven's domestic violence incident (edit: for some reason Jodi is referred to as "Carla Schwartz" in his book):


And Steve had another strike against him, one not shared by most former offenders trying to stitch their lives back together after serving their time. Because his conviction and sentence had been vacated, when he walked out of prison, he wasn’t placed on parole. That meant no supervision, no counseling, no weekly meetings with a parole agent who kept tabs on him, and no support.

So the joy of freedom faded after a while and things started taking a turn for the worse. While he beat the predictions of the most pessimistic of the courthouse prognosticators, it wasn’t long until the “innocent man” had a few brushes with the law.

The first one was just a speeding ticket. The officer clocked him at seventy-nine in a fifty-five-mile-per-hour zone. The rookie ADA handling the case must have figured the county owed him one, because he amended the ticket to defective speedometer and Avery promptly paid the fine.

Later it got more serious. Steve had taken up with a similarly lost soul by the name of Carla Schwartz, the woman whose drunk driving charge Steve later tried to derail. They met at a convenience store and apparently it was love at first sight. But the honeymoon didn’t last long because a few months later, Carla had to call the police. She had moved in with Steve, and one weekend when he was up north, he found out she was out at the races but she hadn’t let him know she was going out.

When Carla came home a little after eleven that night, she and Steve got into an argument. She told him “to pack his **** up and move out,” at which point he pushed her, causing her to fall into a chair and hit her head. Avery got on top of her and started hitting her, telling her he should kill her. Carla was able to get up to call 911, but before she could talk to the dispatcher, Steve ripped the phone out of the wall and began choking her to the point where she lost consciousness. When she came to, he dragged her out to the car by her arms and said, “I should get the gun and kill you.”

In light of the conflict of interest stemming from Avery’s wrongful conviction lawsuit, Mark farmed out that case to a local attorney who agreed to serve as a special prosecutor. Due to discrepancies between Carla Schwartz’s original version of the events and what she told the officer a few days later, as well as her request to drop the charges, the special prosecutor directed the police to issue a disorderly conduct citation instead of issuing criminal charges. Somehow the media never got wind of it, and as far as the public was concerned, Steven Avery was still a hero.

Griesbach, Michael (2014-07-03). The Innocent Killer: A True Story of a Wrongful Conviction and its Astonishing Aftermath (Kindle Locations 3384-3398). American Bar Association. Kindle Edition.

Note: Michael Griesbach is the Manitowoc ADA who helped Steven Avery get exonerated in 2003.​

 

[MaxManning]

I'm interested to see what Jodi has to say. IIRC she was in jail at the time it happened, and SA was arrested already when she got out. All of their communication would have been recorded/monitored, wouldn't it? So I don't think she will have anything earth shattering that we don't already know.

And you are right Max, the abuse shouldn't be ignored. But if that was the only criteria for murder.... there are a few of them in that family that can't be taken off that "could they have done it" list.

Agreed. I guess my point is that , is it implausible to think that avery threatened her ? Was jodi's means of living via Avery's money ?

Consider that it's common for an abused woman to recant that she had been abused, even when they have bruises and scratches on them consistent with exactly what they originally reported.

Not saying she is not sketchy, but just because you are sketchy, doesn't mean you can't have an arsehole boyfriend who beats you. If we are honest, the odds of that go up when you are sketchy. right ?


So just keep an open mind, and we all realize that she has motivations at the moment that are beyond what she had back when documentary was being made. But also realize that back then, she also had motivations to stay with him that were likely rooted self preservation. $$ as well, just not the same magnitude, but relevant enough for motivation to follow orders of the person with the $$.

 

[SoBeCzar]

It is possible SOME of what BD says isn't exactly how things happened. There was coercion in the interrogation. But I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water and discount everything. Some stuff he says lines up with the physical evidence.

Can we all agree that he was at that bonfire that night? I mean doesn't SA say he was? And I'm pretty convinced that SA burned TH that night in that pit and possibly over the following few days. He had plenty of time to do this stuff before police arrested him on the weapons charge. And it is highly likely that if BD was at that bonfire, he did see body parts. The jury seems to have believed it too.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? BD had been questioned for months because he was SA's alibi. Did he tell LE there was a bonfire in the first 24 to 48 hrs and later the bones were found there? How are we to know now?

 

[MysticJynx]

So what do you think guys. Donny Wahlberg did an editorial on the netflix series. While he was talking on a show the other night I noticed how familiar he looks. If they ever make a movie Donny could play Mark Wiegert.

 

[MaxManning]

BBM - was this the same clerk whose husband was a juror? Just asking....

I don't know. I am not saying there was no tampering, but just saying that human error is also plausible.

I am also saying that if any evidence of tampering exists, questioning and investigating how that happened should be a valid response. So if that led to discovering a clerk of a juror or anyone else that might seem suspicious, sure I think you look even further.

My mention of human error being plausible, was by no means a suggestion to look the other way and not question and investigate. I'd be open to hearing from who drew the blood or whoever was last person in that evidence via a log or something to testify if that hole existed, and if they recalled the evidence of tampering. Also whether they were certain they properly sealed the evidence.

I think that should all be the very minimum based on what we know.