Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #4

[amberjb4]

That sticks out like a sore thumb for me, If TH was tortured in the trailer or garage, logically, there would have to be more than a spent .22 bullet with THs DNA on it.
I don't care how good of a clean up job there is, including bleach stained jeans (which again, we never saw these in evidence).
There would be blood somewhere! ullhair:

Amen!!!! [emoji122]🏻 They didnt look like very clean people so I cant imagine they took the time to clean good enough to get every speck of dna. BD stated that she was handcuffed to SA's bed and he heard her screaming while walking to SA's home so if she was tied to that bed I doubt they could get every speck of dna out, not to mention BD claims they stabbed her in the bedroom before taking her out to the garage so where is all the blood at? It just doesnt add up.

 

[TheDuchess]

Amen!!!! [emoji122]🏻 They didnt look like very clean people so I cant imagine they took the time to clean good enough to get every speck of dna. BD stated that she was handcuffed to SA's bed and he heard her screaming while walking to SA's home so if she was tied to that bed I doubt they could get every speck of dna out, not to mention BD claims they stabbed her in the bedroom before taking her out to the garage so where is all the blood at? It just doesnt add up.

All I needed to hear regarding the validity of anything in BDs "confession" was "I'll just come right out and ask you...who shot her in the head?!?!?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't believe every single thing BD said was fed to him by police. Maybe someone else fed him some stories along the way. BD certainly doesn't appear to be the type of teen that was clever and wily, we know he's slow. Yet he was a source of some things in which police followed up afterwards. That implies BD said some things LE never knew about or suspected (like showing he was in the garage when bleach was being poured around). Even if 90% of what BD said was wrong and 10% of it was right, it's worth investigators following up. I still believe BD should not be held accountable for any of his actions that day (no matter what he did) and he should not have been charged and convicted.

 

[Amber29]

Im sure its possible to get rid of dna but Im not sure SA or BD would have had the intelligence to make sure they got every single piece of dna out of the home and the garage. Its possible but slim.

Who says they removed every single piece of DNA from the home and garage? Are we all aware that the entire places weren't swabbed? That's not how it works. Just because it wasn't found doesn't mean it didn't exist. DNA is hard to find at crime scenes, it's not always visible. Investigators are lucky when they find DNA evidence in their crime scenes. It doesn't always happen.

That garage was filthy, not a clean thing about it. Yet the same time TH went missing they used bleach to clean a spill in there. Quite the coincidence. IMO

 

[Madeleine74]

There's a saying I'm reminded of: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

I get the feeling a few of these cops and/or county clerk(s) were not all that bright themselves. Not all, but a few. Some shortcuts were taken, protocols not always closely followed, and that kind of laziness or plain stupidity allows a competent defense attorney to exploit any errors, even if there is no wrongdoing whatsoever.

Some of the deer in the headlights looks are probably from a cop (like Colburn) being absolutely blindsided, not because of malice and intent to frame, but because he didn't document what he did right at the time he did it, and didn't think about what the DA would need to prove the case later. So he comes across as some combo of dumb, lazy, with a suggested dose of malice added by the defense. Frankly I think the guy is kind of a doofus; that was the impression I got.

 

[amberjb4]

Who says they removed every single piece of DNA from the home and garage? Are we all aware that the entire places weren't swabbed? That's not how it works. Just because it wasn't found doesn't mean it didn't exist. DNA is hard to find at crime scenes, it's not always visible. Investigators are lucky when they find DNA evidence in their crime scenes. It doesn't always happen.

That garage was filthy, not a clean thing about it. Yet the same time TH went missing they used bleach to clean a spill in there. Quite the coincidence. IMO

I see what your saying it just seems odd that they didnt find any of her dna. They didnt even find her dna on her own key, which means either it was wiped down by SA or BD and if thats the case hes dumber than I thought to wipe her dna away and only leave his own or the cops planted it there. I just cant imagine they couldnt find even one area or spot of her dna in either the home or garage if she indeed was murdered there. I dont know. I know nothing about crime scenes or dna evidence so its easy for me to speculate about things. I just think theres too many discrepancies to say without a doubt he is guilty.

 

[Amber29]

I see what your saying it just seems odd that they didnt find any of her dna. They didnt even find her dna on her own key, which means either it was wiped down by SA or BD and if thats the case hes dumber than I thought to wipe her dna away and only leave his own or the cops planted it there. I just cant imagine they couldnt find even one area or spot of her dna in either the home or garage if she indeed was murdered there. I dont know. I know nothing about crime scenes or dna evidence so its easy for me to speculate about things. I just think theres too many discrepancies to say without a doubt he is guilty.

That's the difference for me, I can look at the totality of the evidence and reasonably conclude SA is guilty. I don't need her DNA in the trailer. Honestly I don't even believe the prosecutions version of how the crime happened. So I honesty don't know that she was ever in the trailer. I also don't believe everything said by BD. There seemed to me to be tidbits of truth though because there was evidence found after BD pointed in a direction. If anything I agree The case against BD is terrible and his interviews are difficult to watch.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

There's a saying I'm reminded of: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

I get the feeling a few of these cops and/or county clerk(s) were not all that bright themselves. Not all, but a few. Some shortcuts were taken, protocols not always closely followed, and that kind of laziness or plain stupidity allows a competent defense attorney to exploit any errors, even if there is no wrongdoing whatsoever.

Some of the deer in the headlights looks are probably from a cop (like Colburn) being absolutely blindsided, not because of malice and intent to frame, but because he didn't document what he did right at the time he did it, and didn't think about what the DA would need to prove the case later. So he comes across as some combo of dumb, lazy, with a suggested dose of malice added by the defense. Frankly I think the guy is kind of a doofus; that was the impression I got.

I see what your saying.. is that the respective counties were about as ready for this kind of high profile murder case as the US was ready for Ebola? Some of the officers did say this was a first of this kind of crime for them.

 

[diesel]

I see what your saying it just seems odd that they didnt find any of her dna. They didnt even find her dna on her own key, which means either it was wiped down by SA or BD and if thats the case hes dumber than I thought to wipe her dna away and only leave his own or the cops planted it there. I just cant imagine they couldnt find even one area or spot of her dna in either the home or garage if she indeed was murdered there. I dont know. I know nothing about crime scenes or dna evidence so its easy for me to speculate about things. I just think theres too many discrepancies to say without a doubt he is guilty.

And, it doesn't appear they used tracking dogs to find her scent to see if she even was in or walked into the trailer. Cadaver dogs, yes.

 

[pittie_mcclure]

That's the difference for me, I can look at the totality of the evidence and reasonably conclude SA is guilty. I don't need her DNA in the trailer. Honestly I don't even believe the prosecutions version of how the crime happened. So I honesty don't know that she was ever in the trailer. I also don't believe everything said by BD. There seemed to me to be tidbits of truth though because there was evidence found after BD pointed in a direction. If anything I agree The case against BD is terrible and his interviews are difficult to watch.

I definitely see your viewpoint, but it's hard for me to pick and choose what to believe from BD's interviews. In other words I cannot take anything he told them to implicate himself as truth. I would go the other way and say they led BD to confess the details they already knew to make it seem like he led them there. They wanted him to admit she was shot in the head and they fed him breadcrumbs to try and get him there but when he couldn't figure it out they just laid it out for him. If they did it then why not with all of his "confessions"?

 

[Madeleine74]

I see what your saying.. is that the respective counties were about as ready for this kind of high profile murder case as the US was ready for Ebola? Some of the officers did say this was a first of this kind of crime for them.

The whole area (circa 2005 when this occurred) seemed very small town, kind of slow-ish, and this case turned into something big and eventually nationally famous, which was not something anyone would have known the very moment that 911 call came in about a missing young woman who hadn't been seen in a few days.

Remember, at first the police dept assumed she had been in some kind of accident and they were looking for her vehicle, which may have gone down an embankment. No one started out thinking, "kidnapped & murdered!!!" Even TH's friends drove around, stopping to look over embankments, trying to figure out where she might have driven that day. Their travels took them far out and not just right to the Avery property.

 

[amberjb4]

The bad thing about the documentary was that it seemed very one sided. It was a great documentary but it did feel kind of one sided as to showing a lot of stuff that made it seem as though SA and BD were innocent or framed. SA was a sick individual, that was evident from some of the things he did when he was younger so it wouldnt surprise me if he was guilty. I just cant say I believe 100% that he is. There are too many inconsistencies.

 

[Madeleine74]

It's good you recognize that you're not seeing the whole picture in that 10-part series. It can be tedious, but to understand what the jury saw and heard, one needs to read the trial transcripts. The full amount of evidence in the case was not covered by the documentary. So it was slanted -- an editorial position was taken and edited to match that position, which is actually common for documentaries. Probably one reason documentaries are not used in trials nor media-created reports either.

 

[pittie_mcclure]

The whole area (circa 2005 when this occurred) seemed very small town, kind of slow-ish, and this case turned into something big and eventually nationally famous, which was not something anyone would have known the very moment that 911 call came in about a missing young woman who hadn't been seen in a few days.

Remember, at first the police dept assumed she had been in some kind of accident and they were looking for her vehicle, which may have gone down an embankment. No one started out thinking, "kidnapped & murdered!!!" Even TH's friends drove around, stopping to look over embankments, trying to figure out where she might have driven that day. Their travels took them far out and not just right to the Avery property.

True except the town had already experienced some notierity when SA was released. Still, though, your point remains. I don't think until they made the link with SA did they realize what they might have here.

 

[Amber29]

The bad thing about the documentary was that it seemed very one sided. It was a great documentary but it did feel kind of one sided as to showing a lot of stuff that made it seem as though SA and BD were innocent or framed. SA was a sick individual, that was evident from some of the things he did when he was younger so it wouldnt surprise me if he was guilty. I just cant say I believe 100% that he is. There are too many inconsistencies.

Of course it was one sided, it was done to leave viewers questioning his conviction. That documentary was not filmed to help convince anyone of SAs guilt. What would be the interest if at the end it left you going wow, yeh he's guilty for sure. It did what it intended and it got a lot of people talking and tons of publicity. There's a reason they didn't include all the evidence that was used at trial. They were selective.

 

[MysticJynx]

That's the difference for me, I can look at the totality of the evidence and reasonably conclude SA is guilty. I don't need her DNA in the trailer. Honestly I don't even believe the prosecutions version of how the crime happened. So I honesty don't know that she was ever in the trailer. I also don't believe everything said by BD. There seemed to me to be tidbits of truth though because there was evidence found after BD pointed in a direction. If anything I agree The case against BD is terrible and his interviews are difficult to watch.

What evidence was found after BD pointed them to it?

 

[shadowraiths]

Excellent podcast with some Canadian attorneys & Jerry Buting.

The Docket: Making a Murderer after show - Bonus Episode - Jerry Buting interview

 

[Amber29]

What evidence was found after BD pointed them to it?

Lots of evidence was collected after BD was interviewed. Check the lab reports for all of it. The quarry was searched and the hood latch was swabbed for sure.

 

[MysticJynx]

The bad thing about the documentary was that it seemed very one sided. It was a great documentary but it did feel kind of one sided as to showing a lot of stuff that made it seem as though SA and BD were innocent or framed. SA was a sick individual, that was evident from some of the things he did when he was younger so it wouldnt surprise me if he was guilty. I just cant say I believe 100% that he is. There are too many inconsistencies.

I have no problem with the documentary being one sided. KK did a show called Did He Do It in the summer of 2015. The same evidence they presented in that show was the same evidence that the MaM series showed. Also this was supposed to be a documentary showing how a defendent goes through the process. So it was intended to be from that side of the case. The others involved in the case who decided they did not want a part of it need to zip their lips. They had opportunity and turned it down and now they are going to complain its to much of the defenses story. It was about how a defendant goes through the process. I find nothing wrong with how one sided the documentary seems. KK had his media glory, stating his side of the story back as it was happening and on a few Investigation ID shows.

 

[shadowraiths]

Amicus Curiae regarding subpoena to Laura Ricciardi & Synthesis Films LLC