Making a Murderer

[Urbanized]

Again, full disclosure: I haven't watched it. BUT, what troubles me is that an obviously agenda-driven documentary could rally so many to demand PRESIDENTIAL PARDON, etc. for someone who sounds awfully guilty regardless of what happened in the courtroom. If anything, police and prosecutorial misbehavior should get him another trial...NOT automatic freedom.

There are many, many people who are legitimately locked up despite being innocent. It DOES happen. If people want to make a difference there they should look into The Innocence Project, which doesn't take in cases until their legal experts are CONVINCED not only that a person MAYBE should have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that they are actually INNOCENT of the crime for which they've been convicted.

[Pete]

^

The defense attorneys didn't prove anything in terms of tampering. All they did was make a bunch of unsubstantiated inferences.

For example, let's take a huge leap of faith and say the blood sample was tampered with... They still found her car hidden on his property, found Avery's DNA (through sweat) on the latch hood, etc.

Absolutely nothing they questioned was ever proven to be true and if it had been, there was still a mountain of evidence against him, much of which was conveniently left out of the film.


The only reason this was the subject of a documentary was the sexy twist about Avery having been previously wrongly convicted than exonerated after 18 years.

Other than that, Avery was just another scumbag murderer who had a couple of charismatic defense attorneys who did their best to find something -- anything -- to cast reasonable doubt on his guilt, which was their job. And who were given a big audience and sympathetic position by two filmmakers with a clear agenda.

And BTW, I don't think their agenda was they truly believed Avery was innocent. It was more about creating drama and interest in their series, which clearly worked.

[Pete]

For those who believe Avery was innocent, I would like to hear how you think this woman came to be killed.

And do you also believe many members of two different police forces, the FBI, the prosecuters, investigators and judge were all in on it too? Certainly seems like they would all have to be.

[Urbanized]

Just a note on my previous post: I just searched out and read a story which states that the Wisconsin Innocence Project - which helped clear Avery's prior, bogus rape conviction - was going to work with his attorneys to see if this merits a new trial. That's fair, if it is proven that there was juror misconduct, for instance, as has been alleged just this week. That is very different from outright exoneration/pardon, which is what so many watchers of this show seem to be looking for.

[Pete]

Avery's attorneys said that unless there is new evidence found, they have very little hope in any sort of appeal.

All this alleged misconduct was researched and brought up in court in Avery's trial and as I said, they couldn't prove anything.

[White Peacock]

Just a note on my previous post: I just searched out and read a story which states that the Wisconsin Innocence Project - which helped clear Avery's prior, bogus rape conviction - was going to work with his attorneys to see if this merits a new trial. That's fair, if it is proven that there was juror misconduct, for instance, as has been alleged just this week. That is very different from outright exoneration/pardon, which is what so many watchers of this show seem to be looking for.

Calling for a pardon is extreme and ill-informed, which is typical of the type of person that puts in (or signs) petitions demanding unlikely things of the President.

I'm not saying Avery is innocent, and if Avery's guilty, he deserves to be in prison. But there would be enough evidence for me as a juror to say there's reasonable doubt and submit a not guilty verdict due to the contamination of the investigation by the county, which I believe the defense did a good job of illustrating. Yes, it might allow a potential murderer to go free, but with what appears to be so much meddling with the evidence, there's too much doubt thrown into the mix to convict with confidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks...7s_formulation

[Pete]

But you don't have nearly the information or evidence the jury had.

This series was about 6 hours of running time and the huge majority was not Avery trial footage.

The Avery trial was 6 WEEKS. And in the end, they reached a unanimous verdict, which is darn hard to do with 12 people.

[BBatesokc]

My gut - and a watching of the documentary and full reading of all available court documents - tells me Avery is no upstanding citizen and that he is most likely guilty of the murder. In my opinion the series didn't do anything to make me actually question his guilt. What it did do is highlight what I think happens more often than people like to admit -- police and prosecutors make up their minds early on who is guilty and then they often tailor their evidence to support that presumption of guilt instead of seeking truth and justice. In this case, prosecutors and police went even further and initially framed an innocent man (in the first trial) and then conspired on some level (most likely minimally) to plant evidence to ensure Avery was found guilty at the murder trial.

[checkthat]

3. No blood from the victim in the garage. None. Anywhere.
4. Except on one bullet, which was also tainted by the lab tech. Useless evidence IMO.

The DNA on the bullet was non-blood DNA.

The DNA on the hood latch was also non-blood DNA. If Avery was bleeding enough that he got blood by the ignition and other parts of the interior of the car, why was his blood not on the hood latch or battery?

Pete-
What are you thoughts on the two County detectives volunteering to be on site, despite the department saying they would stay out of the investigation, and then being the only two to find the major pieces of evidence? Is that just creative film-making?

Also, why did the FBI get involved for a state prosecution? The documentary shows the agent say that the FBI gets involved to ensure no public corruption but the request for the FBI made no mention of that of that reason. More selective editing?

[Pete]

My gut - and a watching of the documentary and full reading of all available court documents - tells me Avery is no upstanding citizen and that he is most likely guilty of the murder. In my opinion the series didn't do anything to make me actually question his guilt. What it did do is highlight what I think happens more often than people like to admit -- police and prosecutors make up their minds early on who is guilty and then they often tailor their evidence to support that presumption of guilt instead of seeking truth and justice. In this case, prosecutors and police went even further and initially framed an innocent man (in the first trial) and then conspired on some level (most likely minimally) to plant evidence to ensure Avery was found guilty at the murder trial.

I think this is a fair assessment.

However, there was so much evidence against Avery I don't think they needed to plant anything and would have greatly risked his conviction by doing so. Remember, their big embarrassment (if the documentary is to be believed) was that they falsely convicted him the first time. So willfully planting evidence then being found out would have been much more devastating than failing to get a conviction.

I have no doubt that that sort of thing goes on but I suspect in this day and age with advanced forensics, cameras everywhere and the free flow of information, it happens much less.

[kevinpate]

Pete, with respect, getting 12 to agree on guilt is not that dang hard at all.

What's hard anymore is getting 12 in the box who will fairly consider the evidence from an initial presumption of innocence, rather than coming in with a mindset of the cops and prosecutors wouldn't be wasting their limited time if this wasn't the right person.

Fortunately, every charge isn't a debacle. Lord, what a sad and fearful world we'd live in if that were the case. But the shortcuts, they do get taken, and the blinders, they do get worn.

And sometimes, you get evil led by a strong ego and you have quite a bit of falloutlike the Gilchrist mess a few years back.

[Pete]

I disagree that it's easy to get 12 people to be unanimous on a jury.

I've served on them and was the foreperson of a long trial and it amazed me that 12 people who sat and heard and say the exact same evidence and testimony had such wildly different opinions.

However, I've stated before I am a huge believer in the jury system. Everyone loves to point out when there is a breakdown (like the OJ criminal trial) but those are extreme and rare exceptions IMO.

[White Peacock]

But you don't have nearly the information or evidence the jury had.

This series was about 6 hours of running time and the huge majority was not Avery trial footage.

The Avery trial was 6 WEEKS. And in the end, they reached a unanimous verdict, which is darn hard to do with 12 people.

I agree, the jury was privy to a lot more than the TV audience was. But the jury is another thing that I think could be problematic, with potential conflicts of interest that for some reason weren't considered important during jury selection.

Avery jurors have industrial, retiree bent

Jurors have also recently come out and admitted to verdict trading, and fearing retaliation if they delivered a not-guilty verdict, since they were all residents of the same county.

[White Peacock]

Remember, their big embarrassment (if the documentary is to be believed) was that they falsely convicted him the first time.

I don't think it was to save face from the embarrassment; I think it was to spare the county the possible loss of $36M, which was likely to happen had the murder case not come to pass.

[Pete]

So, add the jury to the long list of conspirators?

Let's take stock:

Two police forces, multiple officers in each
The DA's office and prosecutors of this particular case
The FBI
Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation
Dassey's attorney
Investigators used by Dassey's attorney
The various experts and lab technicians that testified
The judge
The jury

And not one bit of conclusive proof of wrong-doing by any of them, other than bad judgment by Dassey's attorney who was merely removed but as far as I can tell, was never disciplined.

BTW, the reason Dassey's attorney was not at the one interview of Dassey was that he was on Army reserve duty, not some nefarious plot. He has admitted he should have rescheduled.

[Pete]

I don't think it was to save face from the embarrassment; I think it was to spare the county the possible loss of $36M, which was likely to happen had the murder case not come to pass.

Except they ended up settling for $400K.

[White Peacock]

Except they ended up settling for $400K.

Do you think the settlement terms would have been the same had he not been in jail awaiting trial for murder?

[Pete]

Do you think the settlement terms would have been the same had he not been in jail awaiting trial for murder?

Really no way to know that but the lawsuit threat had already been completely removed before Avery even went to trial.

So, this constant drumbeat about being framed to remove the financial threat is a bit disingenuous.


Also, his lawsuit against the county, its former sheriff, Thomas Kocourek, and former district attorney, Denis Vogel. Not against the FBI or anyone else implied to be in on this supposed conspiracy.

[checkthat]

Really no way to know that but the lawsuit threat had already been completely removed before Avery even went to trial.

So, this constant drumbeat about being framed to remove the financial threat is a bit disingenuous.


Also, his lawsuit against the county, its former sheriff, Thomas Kocourek, and former district attorney, Denis Vogel. Not against the FBI or anyone else implied to be in on this supposed conspiracy.

So we should completely discount the fact that the insurance said it would not cover any judgement in the suit for gross neglect and malicious prosecution. The County and officers would be liable for any judgement. That seems like a pretty big motive. They also had plenty of opportunity.

How do you feel about the officers being deposed in the suit a few weeks before all of this happened and then not disclosing that to the lead investigator?

[TU 'cane]

For those who believe Avery was innocent, I would like to hear how you think this woman came to be killed.

And do you also believe many members of two different police forces, the FBI, the prosecuters, investigators and judge were all in on it too? Certainly seems like they would all have to be.

I don't think this side of the camp is looking for any challenge. I can only speak for myself, but for one, his first conviction was completely bogus and was all but proven to be driven by the personal motives of the Sheriff's department and subsequent relations, as we all know by now. So, history suggests collusion and framing has been done before, perhaps. Or, rather, a complete disregard for a proper investigation.

Furthermore, I can only say for myself (again) that I'm more interested in how the "authorities" handled everything than determining his innocence. As I've said before, I don't know if he committed this second crime or not.

[Pete]

So we should completely discount the fact that the insurance said it would not cover any judgement in the suit for gross neglect and malicious prosecution. The County and officers would be liable for any judgement. That seems like a pretty big motive. They also had plenty of opportunity.

How do you feel about the officers being deposed in the suit a few weeks before all of this happened and then not disclosing that to the lead investigator?

Not saying to discount anything, just trying to be realistic.

I don't think there was ever any real threat of Avery winning some huge settlement and even so, it was just the County and these two guys -- long since retired -- who were on the hook. Suits like these frequently start at some absurd number then get negotiated down to a small fraction.

Would not begin to explain what these droves of other people would jeopardize their own careers, reputations and even possible jail time just to 'get' Avery, especially since they already had tons of condemning evidence.

[Eric]

So, add the jury to the long list of conspirators?

Let's take stock:

Two police forces, multiple officers in each
The DA's office and prosecutors of this particular case
The FBI
Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation
Dassey's attorney
Investigators used by Dassey's attorney
The various experts and lab technicians that testified
The judge
The jury

And not one bit of conclusive proof of wrong-doing by any of them, other than bad judgment by Dassey's attorney who was merely removed but as far as I can tell, was never disciplined.

BTW, the reason Dassey's attorney was not at the one interview of Dassey was that he was on Army reserve duty, not some nefarious plot. He has admitted he should have rescheduled.

IF (a big if) there were a conspiracy, it wouldn't necessarily take all those people. Consider the confirmation bias that likely goes on in the groups that you mention.

To address your conspirators:
It wouldn't take an entire Sheriff's department. Only a few (which is more than possible) because what do the others do. They have each other's back. it's like your family. You defend them regardless of their stupidity.

DA had a vested interest financially as he could likely have been on the hook for a considerable amount of money.

FBI - now this one would be hard to believe, but would you believe the Sheriff's department or a potential murderer?

I don't understand how the Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation would have to be in on it.

Dassey's first attorney was colluding with the prosecuting attorneys. What motivates someone to do this?

The judge doesn't have to be in on it. Nor does the jury.

My biggest reason to believe the conspiracy, is the total lack of the victims blood on the premises. How can a man as big of a slob as that clean up every minuscule ounce of blood in a garage as messy as that where she was shot and her throat slit, yet leave his own DNA? And the rape location in the bedroom for that matter. Really...cleaning up that perfectly and forgetting to get rid of the key? Come on. He's no criminal mastermind.

And my stupid comment of the week. My money was that it was the other Dassey brother and Avery's brother in law that were "hunting". I don't think the sheriff's office conspired to kill this woman so much as they conspired to make the financial disaster go away.

[Eric]

Not saying to discount anything, just trying to be realistic.

I don't think there was ever any real threat of Avery winning some huge settlement and even so, it was just the County and these two guys -- long since retired -- who were on the hook. Suits like these frequently start at some absurd number then get negotiated down to a small fraction.

Would not begin to explain what these droves of other people would jeopardize their own careers, reputations and even possible jail time just to 'get' Avery, especially since they already had tons of condemning evidence.

18 years of time has got to be worth far more than $400K. Even if they get down to a few million, you think the officers have those sort of resources? I'm just saying there is infinitely more motive for the sheriff's office to act inappropriately than for Avery & Dassey to have.

[checkthat]

My biggest reason to believe the conspiracy, is the total lack of the victims blood on the premises. How can a man as big of a slob as that clean up every minuscule ounce of blood in a garage as messy as that where she was shot and her throat slit, yet leave his own DNA? And the rape location in the bedroom for that matter. Really...cleaning up that perfectly and forgetting to get rid of the key? Come on. He's no criminal mastermind.

The blood is a big one. How are we to believe that they were able to clean every trace of her blood and DNA from the trailer and garage, yet Avery leaves obvious blood stains in the car. Why aren't Avery's fingerprints anywhere in the car, including under the latch or on the hood? If he was wearing gloves, where did his blood come from? If he wasn't, where are the prints?

[OKCRT]

I disagree that it's easy to get 12 people to be unanimous on a jury.

I've served on them and was the foreperson of a long trial and it amazed me that 12 people who sat and heard and say the exact same evidence and testimony had such wildly different opinions.

However, I've stated before I am a huge believer in the jury system. Everyone loves to point out when there is a breakdown (like the OJ criminal trial) but those are extreme and rare exceptions IMO.

Kratz poisoned the jury pool before the trial ever started. He went on TV and declared that he had a confession and told everyone that Avery & the Child killed the Halbach girl by chaining her up to the bed and raping and then cutting her throat. He was very convincing if you watched his press conference. So IMO that jury went in to that trial already with that on their mind. I mean the DA told us that they had a confession. So I can see how even with very shady evidence presented by the DA that a jury could convict.