Perhaps but I'm not sure why anyone would take that risk given the great evidence they already had.Originally Posted by AP
Not only the personal risk but the risk of completely blowing the conviction.
Owner / Administrator
Re: Making a Murderer
Perhaps but I'm not sure why anyone would take that risk given the great evidence they already had.
Not only the personal risk but the risk of completely blowing the conviction.
Participating Member
Re: Making a Murderer
It didn't stop them before. Were the risks any less. They messed up on DNA evidence then. And then they ignored the corrected DNA evidence for a while. At no less cost then. But they did it anyway.
Has the fact that a well to do educated woman was not able to pick her accoster out of a lineup correctly not dawned on you? She actually saw the crime happen and still got it wrong. Yet you sit here and claim that there is no way these people (jury) who didn't see the crime, nor did anyone else who is investigating it, absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt got it right. How can you? You seem to be taking this so personally. Do you have friends/relatives in law enforcement?
Owner / Administrator
Re: Making a Murderer
Calm down and let's not make this personal. I'm just expressing my opinion and if you don't agree, that's fine by me. I enjoy a good debate.
No, absolutely no connection to law enforcement whatsoever and wouldn't even consider myself sympathetic to them in general; perhaps even shaded a bit the other way.
Not sure how the fallacy of an eyewitness -- who are always problematic in any case -- has anything to do with the jury in this situation.
I don't think anything less of those who believe some or all of the conspiracy theory, I just happen not to see it at all and have done my best to explain why.
Owner / Administrator
Re: Making a Murderer
Never said any of this at all.Yet you sit here and claim that there is no way these people (jury) who didn't see the crime, nor did anyone else who is investigating it, absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt got it right.
Merely said I trust that the jury that was privy to six weeks of testimony and evidence came to the correct conclusions and I don't see any concrete reason to believe otherwise.
Participating Member
Re: Making a Murderer
But what about the actual real life juror who said all of this: Steven Avery Juror Voted Guilty Because of Fear, Filmmakers Say : People.com
Do you believe People fabricated that or maybe the juror did to get attention?
Owner / Administrator
Re: Making a Murderer
I think it should be investigated but as of now is just another unsubstantiated allegation.
Participating Member
Re: Making a Murderer
I didn't mean to make it personal. I've just hardly noticed you being so passionate about a subject that is really not OKC centric. It just seemed strange. I apologize for confronting you like that. Something about the discussion with you reminded me of me having discussions with people about education when they have a sister that is a teacher.
Maybe I should have assumed you have white trash relatives you wish would go away.for a REALLY long time. But don't we all.
Owner / Administrator
Re: Making a Murderer
You may have missed my earlier posts about my experience with crime-related documentaries.
I'm a huge documentary fan in general, see a ton of them, and then enjoy researching the facts afterward. And most the time, I discover them to be incredibly biased and withholding of info that doesn't not support their agenda, and carefully edited towards the same end.
I was absolutely furious after being sucked into Capturing the Friedmans, which is very, very similar to this documentary. The filmmakers intentionally left the viewer with the impression the Friedman's were probably not guilty when in fact, they were guilty of some of the most horrific crimes you could imagine.
You have to understand that 1) these filmmakers start with a story they want to tell (otherwise they wouldn't be pursuing this particular issue); 2) they become very close to the victims and their families through the course of filming, usually over many years; 3) become sympathetic to their plight; and 4) want to help them.
And most importantly, they want to draw viewers to their work and that requires a compelling narrative.
If I have a bias it's from seeing so many of these types of 'documentaries' which are generally huge manipulations of the facts and circumstances.
And when you later learn they purposely left out lot of key details, then I become even more distrustful.
What's so interesting about this is that Avery is portrayed in the series as the protagonist and victim. Hours of selectively edited film were dedicated to advancing this characterization.
Yet, almost zero time was given to Teresa Hallbach and her family who were the real victims here.
And to a lesser extent, the people accused of wrong-doing when nothing has been proven against any of them.
Gold Member
Re: Making a Murderer
People forget that documentaries always have an angle. Most of them are furthering a point.
Owner / Administrator
Re: Making a Murderer
One other bias I will admit to...
I had a long-term relationship then friendship with a woman who was a clerk for a prominent federal judge in Los Angeles. The title of clerk is misleading because she was actually a full-blown attorney and a damn good one, graduating Law Review at Stanford.
The clerks are the people who actually do all the work for a judge. In any case, a motion is filed by one side or the other (nothing is every initiated by the judge) then there has to be a ruling. In the Avery case, there were likely hundreds of motions from both sides.
A clerk is assigned to a case by the presiding judge (most federal judges have two clerks) and then that clerk does all the research on the motion (checking laws and precedents) then making a recommendation to the judge on how the court should rule. I know in the case of my ex girlfriend, the judge almost always agreed, although sometimes after some spirited debate.
I learned a tremendous amount about how cases -- civil and criminal -- actually operate. And she was someone who I trusted 100% to be honest about things. Often she couldn't tell me things until after the fact but we discussed dozens of cases in great detail and I learned a lot. I love intellectual discussion.
Also, I have been party to several court cases, on both sides. Also served as a foreperson on a jury trial that lasted about 3 weeks.
So, I have a much, much greater respect for the court systems now as a result. I didn't start at that place and if you would have told me I would have all these experiences personally and through others I know and trust... I would have guessed I would emerge much less confident of the system, not more so.
I have become particularly trustful of the jury system. Simplistically it seems unimaginably flawed but in reality there are so many checks and balances and instructions and limitations that apart from a few cases that get a ton of pub precisely because bad jury verdicts are so rare, the system simply *works*. And even my most cynical lawyer friends agree.
The fact it does work so well does not make compelling news or movies. Think about all the movies you've seen about jury trials... They are almost all about 98% complete fabrications and too many people -- like me, before I had the aforementioned experiences -- think it's a hit and miss system that often fails. And that's why documentaries like this are so able to fan the flames of controversy.
Participating Member
Re: Making a Murderer
The real question is did these guys get a fair trial. I say not a chance. They may very well be guilty but I would support a new trial out of the county and with an unbiased jury pool.
Participating Member
Re: Making a Murderer
Really the case that concerned me the most when it comes to unjust treatment was the Dassey boy's. Even when presented with evidence that his representation was working against him, and the fact that verbal confessions have often (by no means a majority but often) shown to be unreliable, he got no benefit of the doubt. In addition to the fact that there is literally zero evidence outside his own confession that he had anything to do with this.
Banned
Re: Making a Murderer
How come the documentary didn't show that Avery *67 Teresa twice , then called her normal a third time ,leaving a message asking her why she didn't show up? Well it's probably because he was covering his tracks from what he did.....
Banned
Re: Making a Murderer
Where are you getting that Avery left a message during the third unblocked call "asking her why she didn't show up"?
Banned
Re: Making a Murderer
Nancy Grace had a special on last night, I missed it but rewatched this morning.... She laid out a sh**load of evidence against Avery. That if it were shared by the film makers everyone would be singing a different tune.
Participating Member
Re: Making a Murderer
I just finished this series, and I have done a little research regarding what was left out of the documentary. I'm very conflicted about Avery's case. On one hand, I feel like he did it. He showed a history of violence (throwing a diesel covered cat across a fire). He ran his cousin off of the road and threatened her with a gun. THere is a history there. Also, there are too many odd coincidences (phone calls, possession of the vehicle, last person to see her alive, etc) that make me feel like he did it. HOWEVER, the state made some bad mistakes. Why did the county sheriff insist on searching the property even though they had a prior conflict of interest with Steven? Why was the vial of blood pierced? Why did it take them 5 months to find shell casings and a bullet in the garage? Why did it take them 8, YES 8!!, tries to find evidence in that trailer home?? Why did the lead investigator tell the forensics expert to "put [the girl] in steven's home??"
I think they tried way too hard (illegally) to make sure they had enough evidence against Steven. There are so many questions left on the table. Why wouldn't Steven use the car compactor to smash up the toyota? Why didn't he burn her body in the smelter? Where was the rest of the body? HOW IN THE HELL could he have cleaned his garage and house enough to remove every shred of DNA? Makes no sense to me. My gut feeling tells me that I think he did it, but there was too much tampering of evidence and coercion from the police investigators to prove this case without a reasonable doubt.
The person I think who really got screwed was Brendan! That poor kid didn't have a chance from the start. His original lawyer never defended him. He seemed like a snake in the grass. He should have never been interrogated without a lawyer or his mom. The investigators gave him positive feedback (food/water) when he told them what they wanted to hear, and they ridiculed him when he told them what they didn't want them to hear. You put a very low IQ 16-17 year old in a room for 3 hours and do this, and you can get the answer you want out of him. His court case was also a joke. They never play the last part of the phone call with his mom saying the investigators got in his head. The defense never pushed the points that his testimony came from coercion from the investigators. I feel so sorry for that kid. I do NOT believe he was involved...
Participating Member
Re: Making a Murderer
This explains so much.
Owner / Administrator
Re: Making a Murderer
One very important note about Brendan that the docuseries glossed over...
In his confession, he gave details of the rape and murder that completely matched forensics and things he couldn't have possibly known if had was not been at the crime scene.
He also came home with bleach on his jeans that day and told his mom he had been helping Steven clean his garage.
And keep in mind, the court ruled he was not coerced into making a confession AND he also confessed to his mom on a recorded phone call from prison.
He was totally guilty.
Participating Member
Re: Making a Murderer
I finally got caught up on all 10 episodes and I have to say it was very interesting. Lots of great view points being shared here by all as well and I've enjoyed reading every one of them. Early on in the series I asked myself "what are they not telling us?"
I agree I wasn't there so this is just my take on it. I don't think there was a great big conspiracy conducted by the many law enforcement officials involved, but rather only by a small handfull... Mainly Lenk and Colborn, and there was much malpractice going on by others afterwards.
Though there wasn't much elaboration on Deputy Colborn's running of Teresa Halbach's tag other than his red faced admission while on the stand, it made me wonder if Colborn and Halbach crossed paths after she had left Avery's place and something went horribly wrong and Lenk, his superior, helped him cover it up. This is just purely my speculation of course.
The fact that they weren't even supposed to be on the property but showed up anyway to "help out" and were admitedly not in continuous view of the Calumet County Deputies like they where supposed to have been should have been a red flag.
The evidence box that contained Avery's blood had it's external and internal seals broken, not to mention the needle puncture in the top of the vial should have been a red flag as well.
Avery's blood spots themselves shown in the Rav 4 were of an odd shape. They weren't smears and they weren't drops. What they showed actually looked like it was drawn on from the end of a syringe. Again, just my take on it.
And while the defense didn't prove wrong doing, the points where there were obvious shenanigans going on were ignored by the judge.
While I'm not saying Avery and Dassey are innocent, there was plenty of doubt to declare a mistrial, or a retrial.
Banned
Re: Making a Murderer
So, was your answer to the question, "Nancy Grace said so"? Because, I haven't seen that in any document or transcript.
Owner / Administrator
Re: Making a Murderer
Evidence that's missing from ?Making a Murderer' - NY Daily News
Here’s the evidence missing from the show:
9. The animal cruelty story was worse than described
In a sympathetic portrayal, the show refers to misbehavior with a cat as it quickly highlights Avery’s criminal past.
However, in addition to a burglary charge, a young Avery actually poured gasoline on a cat and then threw it into a bonfire, according to The Associated Press.
8. Avery was violent to other women
The docuseries mentioned Avery once held his female cousin at gunpoint, but the list of violence apparently didn’t end there.
The now-53-year-old allegedly raped a young girl and threatened to kill her family if they spoke out, according to a story by the Appleton Post Crescent.
Another older woman told to keep quiet also accused Avery of rape, according to the paper.
And, during a bail hearing for Avery, prosecutors said Avery had drawn up diagrams while in prison for a torture chamber to kill women.
7. Avery once met Halbach wearing only a towel
Special prosecutor Ken Kratz, who helped land Avery in prison, has called out the documentary for its bias.
He recently recounted to People magazine evidence he believes the show glossed over to not “muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy movie.”
Kratz, who resigned from office in 2010 over a sexting scandal with one of his clients, claimed Avery once opened the door to Halbach “just wearing a towel.”
The 25-year-old photographer was allegedly “creeped out” and told a co-worker she wouldn’t work with Avery again.
The information was excluded not only from the documentary, but also from Avery’s trial, as the judge ruled the information about the incident was unclear, according to the AP.
6. Avery requested Halbach as his photographer
Prosecutors argued Avery knew Halbach was wary of him and used a different name when he called her job, specifically asking for Halbach.
On the day of Halbach’s disappearance, Avery called to request “the photographer who had been out to the property previously,” according to testimony.
Halbach had already visited the Avery residence six times that year to document cars for Auto Trader magazine.
Avery used his sister’s name — who owned the car being photographed — when he made the photo appointment.
5. Avery called Halbach three times on the day she went missing
Prosecutors cited three phone calls Avery made to Halbach in their efforts to explain that Avery lured Halbach to his home.
For two of those phone calls, phone records indicated he used the star-67 feature, which is dialed to hide a caller’s identity.
4. Avery had recently ordered leg irons and handcuffs
Avery admitted to owning these restraining tools, but claimed they were to use on his girlfriend Jodi, according to a 2006 story in Milwaukee Magazine.
The items match what Dassey described to police as being used to tie Halbach to Avery’s bed.
However, when tested, Halbach’s DNA wasn’t found.
3. Avery’s sweat was found in Halbach’s car
The documentary describes in lengths Avery’s blood in Halbach’s car and the possibility it was planted by police.
However, it barely mentions traces of his sweat that were also found.
DNA from Avery’s sweat was found on the hood latch of the vehicle and on the car keys, according to testimony from the trial.
2. Avery allegedly molested Dassey
In a phone conversation shown in the docuseries, Dassey admits his role in Halbach’s murder to his mother — a statement he later denies.
However, the show cut out an important revelation in which Dassey said his uncle inappropriately touched him.
“I even told them about Steven touching me,” the then 16-year-old said, according to the transcript of the conversation.
He goes on to tell his shocked mother that he and his brothers were touched on occasions before the Halbach murder.
1. The bullet matched Avery’s rifle
The bullet linked to Halbach’s DNA was forensically tied to Avery’s gun.
In Dassey’s confusing interview with police, the teen also said his uncle used a gun that hung above his bed.
Despite the exclusion of evidence dissected across the internet, the films producers are standing by their work.
“The things I’ve heard listed as things we’ve left out seem much less convincing of guilt than Teresa’s DNA on a bullet or her remains in his backyard," filmmaker Moira Demos told The Wrap.
Owner / Administrator
Re: Making a Murderer
Steven Avery Prosecutor Ken Kratz Says Netflix Series Omitted Key Evidence : People.com
Kratz Claims Further Evidence Against Avery
During his time in prison for a rape he was later cleared of, Kratz says Avery allegedly "told another inmate of his intent to build a 'torture chamber' so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released." Kratz adds, "He even drew a diagram."
Kratz also claims that "another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to 'burn it.' " Halbach's bones were discovered in the fire pit behind Avery's house. He says "were 'intertwined' with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn," says Kratz, disputing the defense's allegation that Halbach was burned elsewhere and her bones were later moved.
"Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere – never identified as Teresa's – were from this murder was never established," he adds.
According to Kratz, Avery's DNA, which he says was not taken from his blood, was also found under the hood of Halbach's car, a Toyota RAV4. "How did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car? Do the cops have a vial of Avery's sweat?" asks Kratz. Defense attorneys alleged that Avery's blood, which was found in Halbach's car, may have been planted, taken from a vial of Avery's blood that was 11 years old.
Kratz also claims that a bullet, recovered from Avery's garage, couldn't possibly have been planted by police, as the defense also alleged. "Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery's rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since Nov. 6, 2005," says Kratz. "If the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from [Avery's] gun? This rifle, hanging over Avery's bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa's DNA on it. The bullet had to be fired before Nov. 5."
Banned
Re: Making a Murderer
I find this a bit odd. We met with a DNA expert while preparing for the Holtzclaw trial and we were assured that you can only detect the origin of DNA (within a forensic lab) if the source is saliva, semen or blood. We were told skin cells containing DNA are a very common mode of transport for DNA. And, while you can assume the transfer happened from sweat on the skin, you can't prove it. I think the term sweat was introduced by the prosecution to try and cast doubt on it being planted. In reality, my understanding - and I read several peer reviewed articles on DNA transfer - that this is nothing more than a case of touch DNA (if Avery actually touched the car and bullet) or secondary transfer (meaning Avery's DNA got onto those object without him ever touching them). Not to mention, we are supposed to believe he was doing all this sweating in October in Wisconsin. It was probably in the 30's or 40's temperature wise.3. Avery’s sweat was found in Halbach’s car
The documentary describes in lengths Avery’s blood in Halbach’s car and the possibility it was planted by police.
However, it barely mentions traces of his sweat that were also found.
DNA from Avery’s sweat was found on the hood latch of the vehicle and on the car keys, according to testimony from the trial.
Example: In the Holtzclaw trial, prosecutor Geiger said the DNA on Holtzclaw's pants came from the accuser's v-aginal fluid. The defense contends it came from a secondary transfer after Holtzclaw patted down the accuser and searched her purse and then later touched his pants. The OCPD DNA expert testified there would be no way to tell by examining the DNA alone - and that's all they found (no public hairs, semen, etc.).
*Disclosure: I still think Avery is guilty of the murder. I just firmly believe there were illegal and unprofessional shenanigans by investigators to insure Avery's conviction.
Participating Member
Re: Making a Murderer
^^^ All of this sure offers up a different view than just the documentary series alone doesn't it?.
Banned
Re: Making a Murderer
And yet, amazingly, as damning as this sounds..... I've yet to see presented this "diagram of a torture chamber."Kratz Claims Further Evidence Against Avery
During his time in prison for a rape he was later cleared of, Kratz says Avery allegedly "told another inmate of his intent to build a 'torture chamber' so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released." Kratz adds, "He even drew a diagram."
Kratz also claims that "another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to 'burn it.'
Anyone with any real experience in our judicial system will admit, the worst evidence you have is the testimony of inmates. They will literally say anything about anyone if they think for a second it will help them.
I can't think of a single case I've been a part of where snitch testimony from an inmate made any difference in a case.
Wire an inmate up and get them to make their target talk and then I'll take them seriously - otherwise, their motives are too bias.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks