Making a Murderer

[checkthat]

I get what you're saying. Regardless, he told them specific details that were not coached out of him and matched the forensics evidence. Parent or lawyer present or not, that doesn't change the fact he told them things that if innocent he shouldn't have known.

Are you able to provide some examples of the specific details that matched the forensics?

[BBatesokc]

Are you able to provide some examples of the specific details that matched the forensics?

I don't have any special access to the transcripts than anyone else does. You're welcome to do what I did and spend the time to read them - its all there. Sounds like Pete may have done the same thing and drawn the same conclusion. Not speaking for him - as we disagree on some points - but that's what I got from his comments.

When you read the transcripts you will see Dassey's story change from interview to interview. That said, you will also see him offer details that are not spoon fed to him and match what prosecutors claim happened. You also read details that lead to more questions.

[FighttheGoodFight]

I don't have any special access to the transcripts than anyone else does. You're welcome to do what I did and spend the time to read them - its all there. Sounds like Pete may have done the same thing and drawn the same conclusion. Not speaking for him - as we disagree on some points - but that's what I got from his comments.

When you read the transcripts you will see Dassey's story change from interview to interview. That said, you will also see him offer details that are not spoon fed to him and match what prosecutors claim happened. You also read details that lead to more questions.

Transcript of one.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwg...Kelly.pdf?dl=0

[Pete]

Prosecutors and investigators said Dassey shared details in his confession that were not known to the public at the time and turned out to be completely accurate.

In the courtroom, Dassy sadly tried to say he might have read such details in the book "Kiss the Girls" but it's been established that there were no parts of that novel that matched his description.

[OKCRT]

^

Testimony shows that Dassey told his mother and investigators he had bleach on his jeans because he was helping Steven clean his garage floor the day of the murder.

That's what is important.

I thought that was because of deer blood. That's what was mentioned by one of the lawyers in the doc. anyway. BTW,Dassey was interviewed several times by police. At his school,at a hotel and at the police station. I don't think there was ever a lawyer or adult with him for any of these.

[Pete]

This is an interesting article about Avery's case written after his arrest but before his conviction.

Blood Simple: Steven Avery


Couple very interesting things:

Both of Avery's brothers thought he was guilty. Neither were interviewed in the docuseries and I don't remember them even being mentioned.

Even Avery’s family turned against him. The stark and explicit nature of Dassey’s confession convinced his own siblings that Halbach met her end in Avery’s trailer.

“At first I had my doubts,” said his brother, Chuck, sitting in the salvage company’s office. “The way the evidence was coming in, it wasn’t adding up.”

“I got the same feelings,” said the younger brother, Earl. “Now… he’s no longer my brother. He can rot in hell.”

Also says that Avery parked Hallbach's SUV near the car crusher and planned to crush it "sooner rather than later".

Also says that Hallbach's key was found only after it dropped out of a pile of books in Avery's bedroom, which would explain why it had not been found previously.

[OKCRT]

This is an interesting article about Avery's case written after his arrest but before his conviction.

Blood Simple: Steven Avery


Couple very interesting things:

Both of Avery's brothers thought he was guilty. Neither were interviewed in the docuseries and I don't remember them even being mentioned.



Also says that Avery parked Hallbach's SUV near the car crusher and planned to crush it "sooner rather than later".

Also says that Hallbach's key was found only after it dropped out of a pile of books in Avery's bedroom, which would explain why it had not been found previously.

Hard to believe it took them searching Avery's room 6 times before they found the key. And guess who the investigating officer was that found it? I believe that would be Colburn, the same officer that held back info. from Avery's rape that could have set him free early on in his sentence. The investigator said he moved a bookshelf out and the key appeared on the floor. I find it hard to believe that this bookshelf and everything on it and in it wasn't already checked in one of the previous investigations. It Just all seems a little fishy to me.

[OKCRT]

Guilty or not, what's mind-blowing is the way the local authorities handled the situation and the case not being thrown out. Find a bullet 6 months later and not one drop of blood splatter found in the garage. The plates of the Rav-4 called in by Colburn before the car actually found. The contaminated blood sample. Why was James Lenk (or anyone from the sheriffs department) even allowed to search the Avery property? The case was supposedly turned over to Calumet county sheriff's department, but not so much. Seems like enough reasonable doubt to me but that's just me.

[Pete]

^

A lot of that was completely sensationalized.

In a case like this, there are hundreds of pieces of evidence and interviews. The only hope for the defense is to try and build some massive conspiracy which they don't have to prove; just hope one of the jurors buys into reasonable doubt.


To demonstrate on how wildly they were flailing around trying to discredit virtually everyone in law enforcement or even that people that just provided testimony...

One of the defense attorneys openly stated that he didn't trust the FBI and fully expected them to tamper with test results that were ordered during trial. Why on earth would anyone in the FBI do this? They didn't even bother to explain because it was so silly. Then, when they got the answer they didn't want, they just restated their distrust.

Then, they say they thought the lady and her daughter who found the car on Avery's lot were completely lying. Why would they?? And all the testimony around that event completely lined up: Volunteers organized the search party, distributed maps, were given a direct line to the sheriff if they found anything, etc. They received no guidance on input from law enforcement whatsoever. Yet the defense just wanted to think she was lying because her testimony was so condemning and they had no other way to dispute what she had to say. In the end they offered absolutely no reason to explain why they thought she wasn't telling the truth. She was just some random citizen that was part of the search.

They also imply Hallbach's former boyfriend had some nefarious role without giving any reason, and implied he should have been treated like a suspect.

On and on and on. Most of it was completely ridiculous.


I rewatched most of this series and it almost makes me angry watching it and seeing how incredibly slanted it was and how the defense offered dozens and dozens of conspiracy theories from judges to law enforcement (from no less than 5 different and distinct agencies) to witnesses and anyone else who contributed to the mountain of evidence against their client.

Avery was stone cold guilty and so they were doing nothing but grasping at straws the whole time.

[OKCRT]

^

A lot of that was completely sensationalized.

In a case like this, there are hundreds of pieces of evidence and interviews. The only hope for the defense is to try and build some massive conspiracy which they don't have to prove; just hope one of the jurors buys into reasonable doubt.


To demonstrate on how wildly they were flailing around trying to discredit virtually everyone in law enforcement or even that people that just provided testimony...

One of the defense attorneys openly stated that he didn't trust the FBI and fully expected them to tamper with test results that were ordered during trial. Why on earth would anyone in the FBI do this? They didn't even bother to explain because it was so silly. Then, when they got the answer they didn't want, they just restated their distrust.

Then, they say they thought the lady and her daughter who found the car on Avery's lot were completely lying. Why would they?? And all the testimony around that event completely lined up: Volunteers organized the search party, distributed maps, were given a direct line to the sheriff if they found anything, etc. They received no guidance on input from law enforcement whatsoever. Yet the defense just wanted to think she was lying because her testimony was so condemning and they had no other way to dispute what she had to say. In the end they offered absolutely no reason to explain why they thought she wasn't telling the truth. She was just some random citizen that was part of the search.

They also imply Hallbach's former boyfriend had some nefarious role without giving any reason, and implied he should have been treated like a suspect.

On and on and on. Most of it was completely ridiculous.


I rewatched most of this series and it almost makes me angry watching it and seeing how incredibly slanted it was and how the defense offered dozens and dozens of conspiracy theories from judges to law enforcement (from no less than 5 different and distinct agencies) to witnesses and anyone else who contributed to the mountain of evidence against their client.

Avery was stone cold guilty and so they were doing nothing but grasping at straws the whole time.

Check out James (Whitey) Bulger and the FBI. In fact that has an Ok. connection with the murder of Roger Wheeler. The FBI was in it up to their necks. Not saying I believe they had anything to do with the Avery case but they can def. be corrupted.

[Pete]

Anybody can be corrupt but in this day and age, to *expect* the FBI to be dishonest over something that didn't even really affect them...

To me that just demonstrates how out in the weeds they were with all this.

Same with attempting to discredit the woman who found the car.


Both those situations conclusively proved to me that everything else they put forward as conspiracy was generally fabricated.

[krisb]

The motive for the Sheriff (and two deputies specifically) to frame Steve Avery seems more plausible than any motive Steve had to murder a woman and leave evidence all over his property following 18 years of time in prison.

[krisb]

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.

What details did he provide other than the ones the detectives were leading him with? He also said a lot of things that were entirely made up or unrelated to the crime scene because he couldn't figure out what they wanted him to say. The interrogation was botched and would never meet the standards of protocol based on what we know today about the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and suspects under duress.

Did the murder happen in the bedroom or the garage? It is unlikely that they could have cleaned up the entire mess in either or both places.

Just because the court ruled the confession as admissible does not make it more reliable, as the documentary well demonstrated. When he supposedly confessed to his mom on the phone he had just been manipulated into pleading guilty to get a lesser sentence and he only called his mother to tell her at the leading of the investigators.

Your last statement about him being "totally guilty" is the most troubling of all. The biggest thing I took from the documentary is that we need to approach justice from a place of humility and acknowledging that none of us really know what happened and that in the U.S. individuals are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Eric]

Discrediting Sturm isn't all the crazy. She was claiming God led her to it. I'm not saying that's not necessarily possibly, just not very plausible.

The woman who found the Rav 4 is actually related to the Holback's (second cousin I believe). She is also some kind of investigator, which lends itself to her credibility. I'm guessing God (as in the one who led her to it) in this case was probably the x-boyfriend and his buddy, and Colburn. The two gentlemen "found" it on private property, called sheriff. Colburn responded, called in the plates, and told them to get lost or they may blow the case. Then by the grace of God fed it to Ms. Sturm. Who then coincidentally is the only one who took a camera and a phone, and walked roughly 1,500 yards in 10 or 15 minutes and "found" the vehicle. It either took longer than she recalls or the two did not look at a single other vehicle along the way to have made it there so quickly.

And in regards to the blood evidence found in the Rav 4 and the DNA bullet:

Thoughts, Life Lessons, Irony, Logic, and Love: Some Clarity to Some of the Evidence in "Making a Murderer"

In short, the author was perplexed that either was admitted in court as in his opinion they both inconclusive at best.

[Eric]

Your last statement about him being "totally guilty" is the most troubling of all. The biggest thing I took from the documentary is that we need to approach justice from a place of humility and acknowledging that none of us really know what happened and that in the U.S. individuals are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What I was expecting to read more of and haven't really seen all that much of is this:

The DA/county acted totally unethical. That's a fact jack.

But I haven't really seen that, and the unusual thing of it is, I think that was the jist of the entire show. I don't think the focus was intended to be Avery necessarily. He just fit perfectly in that he has potentially been convicted of a serious crime twice while being innocent (hypothetically, 1 for a fact). I'm sure that scenario hasn't happened often.

[Pete]

Your last statement about him being "totally guilty" is the most troubling of all. The biggest thing I took from the documentary is that we need to approach justice from a place of humility and acknowledging that none of us really know what happened and that in the U.S. individuals are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You're 'troubled' by the fact I trust the jury and legal system to render the proper verdict?

Both men WERE found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Silly, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories by defense attorneys and slanted and biased films by people with an agenda are far more troubling, especially when it motivates large groups of people to overturn completely valid convictions of two men who committed horrific crimes.

[Pete]

The DA/county acted totally unethical. That's a fact jack.

You realize the special prosecutor and lead investigators were not from Maintowoc County, right?

Nor were the FBI and several other agencies involved.

And the volunteers were now part of a conspiracy theory?


But of course, they were all out to get Steven Avery too, even though they had absolutely zero motive and tons of risk to their reputations and careers.

That is surely more plausible than all the evidence against both of these guys and that they were just stone cold guilty.

[AP]

Both men WERE found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So this isn't true then? Steven Avery Juror Voted Guilty Because of Fear, Filmmakers Say : People.com

[Pete]

^

Don't know if it's true or not and have said before that should be investigated.

As things stand now, nothing has changed.

[checkthat]

You realize the special prosecutor and lead investigators were not from Maintowoc County, right?

Nor were the FBI and several other agencies involved.

And the volunteers were now part of a conspiracy theory?


But of course, they were all out to get Steven Avery too, even though they had absolutely zero motive and tons of risk to their reputations and careers.

That is surely more plausible than all the evidence against both of these guys and that they were just stone cold guilty.

Not everyone has to be involved in the conspiracy. Some folks could be persuaded by those involved. Others could just be incorrect in their interpretation of the evidence. For example, the FBI was incorrect on forensic analysis for decades:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...310_story.html

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

[Pete]

Not everyone has to be involved in the conspiracy. Some folks could be persuaded by those involved. Others could just be incorrect in their interpretation of the evidence. For example, the FBI was incorrect on forensic analysis for decades:

And who were these master persuaders who influenced scores people across many different government agencies, all with absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose?


You guys watch too much TV and too many movies. I'm not saying there isn't occasional corruption or mistakes made, but we also have a legal system to ferret that stuff out. It's not like any of these claims went unaddressed. The info on both sides was presented and the jury decided -- unanimously.

The only time any of this matters is after a trial and NEW evidence not previously considered is submitted.

And that is not at all what is happening here. The filmmakers are trying to use things already vetted at trial to create controversy and promote their docuseries. It clearly worked.

[Goon]

I don't post often here, but figured I would weigh in due to this being "up my alley" because of my job in law enforcement.

I think people get wrapped up in the "is he guilty" or "is he innocent" trope so much that they forget that our criminal justice system is predicated on the idea that all it takes for a not guilty verdict is the establishment of reasonable doubt.

I know a lot of people here realize what that means, but often juries find that concept vague at best. It's why highly successful attorneys like Mark Garragos swear that trials are won and lost at jury selection; the facts, evidence, etc are only as important as those 12 people say it is.

Personally, I think what the prosecutor said in his closing statements is pretty spot on: for the jury to find Avery not guilty, they would have to lend credibility to the idea that the police either (A) killed the victim, or (B) knew about her murder and planted evidence to implicate Avery. That's a pretty steep hill to climb.

Despite the statement above, If I was a juror, I would have voted not guilty. Not because I think Avery is innocent, but because I understand that "innocent" and "not guilty" (to me) are not exactly the same thing. In the legal sense, being not guilty simply means that reasonable doubt was established. This could be due to the fact that you are innocent, but not always. IOW, all innocent people may be not guilty, but not all findings of not guilty mean the person was innocent. So, I would have voted not guilty with the knowledge that it is very likely IMO that he did it or had a hand in it, but that the prosecutor/police did not do their job to convince me beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Doesn't mean he isn't responsible in some way for her death, only that the actions of both sides in total result in a finding of not guilty.

[Pete]

I think it's presumptuous to say how you'd vote if you had been on the jury unless you sat through the full 6 weeks of trial and then sat in a deliberation room with 11 others who did the same.

We saw a very tiny sliver of what they saw and heard, and what was presented to the viewer was biased and carefully edited to forward the idea of reasonable doubt.

We also don't know what their instructions were, what testimony and evidence they were asked to consider and what they were told specifically not to consider.


Unless you've sat on a long jury trial you don't have an appreciation for how seriously jurors take their jobs, especially with someone's life literally on the line.

[Eric]

You realize the special prosecutor and lead investigators were not from Maintowoc County, right?

Does not change my opinion that they acted unethically. And yes, I was aware. However, the Manitowoc sheriff's office assisted unethically as well.

And the volunteers were now part of a conspiracy theory?

Officer Colburn had all the opportunity in the world to clear up what happened. But he didn't. And do I believe volunteers would have gone on to private property without asking if they thought it would help them find their loved ones, yes. And no, that is not a conspiracy at this point. It is concealing the truth, but not a conspiracy. Colburn probably really thinks that Avery did it. He knows that the process that just occurred might compromise the evidence. I'm not calling it malicious at this point, just wrong. The volunteers are certainly not in on it, they just defer to what they perceive is a moral authority on the subject.

[Eric]

And who were these master persuaders who influenced scores people across many different government agencies, all with absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose?


You guys watch too much TV and too many movies. I'm not saying there isn't occasional corruption or mistakes made, but we also have a legal system to ferret that stuff out. It's not like any of these claims went unaddressed. The info on both sides was presented and the jury decided -- unanimously.

The only time any of this matters is after a trial and NEW evidence not previously considered is submitted.

And that is not at all what is happening here. The filmmakers are trying to use things already vetted at trial to create controversy and promote their docuseries. It clearly worked.

I don't think (or I am certainly not) contending that the conspiracy involves all these agencies. They are all acting (IMHO) according on their own. It's just that the justice system (which the documentary was attempting to point out) works to convict people of crimes, sometimes at the expense of those who didn't actually commit them.