Making a Murderer Discussion Thread (Spoilers Likely)

[iacas]

21 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Which version, though? The one where Steven shot her outside the garage? The one where Brendan only saw her in the trunk of the car, but she wasn't dead? The one where she was dead before they got to the car? The one where she wasn't? The one where he wasn't involved at all. He tells multiple versions of the story, and I don't know how to tell the difference.

Okay. The point remains that he knew details that are corroborated. I don't care that some of the versions had small details. He kept saying "nothing." They'd say they knew he was lying and then he'd say something. Lather, rinse, repeat. Those all don't count as different versions.

21 hours ago, DeadMan said:

I'm also not sure what physical evidence backs his "correct" confession up, either. They only got the bullet in the garage after prompting him to tell them that it happened in the garage. They only got that Steven shot her in the head after they asked who shot her in the head. I don't know what physical evidence backs up the pond story, but I haven't heard any.

Then look around. I'm sure you'll find it.

21 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Except overturning a verdict in a criminal case is exceptionally hard. And it becomes infinitely harder if you lose the first appeal. I put little stock in what happened on appeal. And you can still have cases where there isn't an issue that has a chance on appeal that are wrongly decided.

They haven't even been granted anything on their appeals. I'm not saying they haven't gotten a new trial - I'm saying they've gotten nowhere with their appeals. Zero inches gained. None. The thing you cited in Avery's appeal was that "he knew people who were around his property and they were other suspects." Weak sauce.

21 hours ago, DeadMan said:

I'm troubled by a lot of things in this, independent of whether Avery and Dassey are guilty:

1. Cops interrogating a mentally disabled teenager without a parent or lawyer present. This happens frequently, by the way.
2. A court appointed lawyer allowing a mentally disabled teenager to be interrogated without the lawyer present again.
3. The Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department being involved in the investigation at all. They should have had nothing to do with this case given their massive conflict of interest.
4. Cops not following up on leads that pointed to other suspects - the other Dassey kid, Halbach's roommate, and her ex-boyfriend, specifically.
5. The cops in the initial rape case not following up on several leads that pointed to someone else.
6. Avery's lawyers not being able to try the case they actually wanted to. My opinion is that Wisconsin's third party liability law is so restrictive that it violates due process. That's pretty out there, though, but I'm really bothered when a criminal defendant doesn't get a lot of latitude to defend himself. 
7. Cops apparently having tunnel vision and confirmation bias. That does not speak to a well run police department.
8. Over reliance on eyewitness evidence and confessions.
9. Both sides using the media to try their cases. Bugs me more with prosecutors, because they have the weight of the state behind them, but so much came out in the media that it was impossible to try the case fairly.

I'm sure I could think of more, but this is the takeaway that I had. Our justice system is messed up. Nothing is perfect, but we could do a lot better.

1. The mom was offered the chance to be with her kid. She declined. The police aren't responsible for asserting his rights, either: he is. Or his mom is. They didn't demand that a lawyer be present. The police are under no obligation to do you the favor of asserting your rights on your behalf.
2. Meh.
3. You say there's a conflict of interest, I say hogwash. They were cleared of any wrongdoing already by the AG and governor.
4. What leads? You stop pursuing other leads when you find the guys who did it. You don't keep pursuing them until the conviction occurs. That weakens your case.
5. I don't care about the original case. Couldn't care less.
6. Sorry, but "there were other people near my property, maybe" is hardly a valid defense.
7. I don't think there was any tunnel vision and confirmation bias. They found the victim's car on his property. She was shot with the gun he kept over his bed. He called her repeatedly that day, and had been obsessed with her for months. His crimes and violence against women were escalating.
8. Barely any eyewitness evidence was used. The confessions backed the physical evidence.
9. Couldn't care less. Avery was a folk hero, so if nothing else, the media may have favored him.

Avery and Dassey were, beyond all reasonable doubt, guilty. The justice system got this one right.

18 hours ago, Silent said:

But the fact that not 1 but 2 seals were broken, shows something illegal happenend there.

No it doesn't.

18 hours ago, Silent said:

About Dassey, his confessions changed every single time. I'm sure if you go cherry picking you find something that matches something you found. That doesn't change the fact that if he said something regarding the scene that is backed up by evidence, there's still a possibility Steven told him instead of Dassey being actually a part of it. There simply is no physical evidence that Dassey did what he said he did in one of his confessions. Do I think he did it? Yes, I think so... but I can't see how you can say it is proven beyond reasonable doubt and be 100% sure of it.

He admitted to participating. Do you honestly think he's dumb enough to admit to raping a woman, helping kill her, helping to burn her body, etc.? I mean, he's dumb, but c'mon…

18 hours ago, Silent said:

What I said, there was no evidence at all except the testimony/identification. That the several alibi's Avery had contradict that identification was easily swept off the table. In this case I never said someone was in on anything, I said serious mistakes were made that cost a man 18 years of his live, serving time for something he didn't do. 18 years! I said that with the evidence in hand, the jury never should have conficted him. I agree that it's not necessarily someone's fault, but in this case it is. The composition drawing that the sheriff made, not from the victim's testimony but from a earlier muckshot for example.... Not looking into other suspects. The steering of the witness ('that sounds like Steven Avery' etc. This is a clear example of both the systems failing ánd individuals messing up. Looking for a confiction instead of the truth.

I don't care about the original case. It was quite awhile ago, they got the wrong guy, no wrongdoing was found… it was a mistake. But it's a stretch to conclude - as the "documentary" wants you to - that the state was framing Avery for Teresa's death because of it.

Both did what they say they did. I felt that way after looking around for a little bit, and the series of podcasts on that earlier linked site just bumped it from 97% to 99.9% or so - these were soundly conducted trials and convictions. The "documentary" was incredibly slanted.

It wasn't even riveting. At any point I could have stopped watching the series and not cared that I didn't see the end. I didn't care one bit about Avery, Brendan… none of them. The whole sideways angle of the "documentary" was a huge turn-off.

[Silent]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

 

No it doesn't.

 

Seriously? It's not illegal to get your hands on sealed evidence? What's the point of sealing then. We will probably never know who did, and if it's relevant for the case, but somebody did something illegal there, fact. And there are not a whole lot of people who have access.

5 hours ago, iacas said:

He admitted to participating. Do you honestly think he's dumb enough to admit to raping a woman, helping kill her, helping to burn her body, etc.? I mean, he's dumb, but c'mon…

Funny thing... the only high profile case (we know of) in Holland that turned out to be a wrongfull conviction was of two men, and a rape and murder of a woman. After intence interrogations they both admitted to everything (ad they are not nearly as dumb as Dassey, one was a succesful businessman). Later to revoke all that and say it wasn't true. They got senteced, and 10 years later DNA evidence proved they didn't do it, and they were set free. (in fact, by now they have the real killer, no connections to the old suspects at all). So to answer your question: yes, it's possible. My personal opinion is that I think he did it, but that's not relevant. It's about if there's reasonalbe doubt, it's about how much can you trust from one of the xxx confessions Dassey made and cherry pick the one you like best. A confession alone isn't enough...

5 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't care about the original case. It was quite awhile ago, they got the wrong guy, no wrongdoing was found… it was a mistake. But it's a stretch to conclude - as the "documentary" wants you to - that the state was framing Avery for Teresa's death because of it.

You said things about the original case (history, testimony) so I responded to that. This case is very relevant to the point of what the documentary is trying to show you: the system has big flaws. And no wrongdoing was found? Comeone... they stopped the case and no judge ever said something about it because the case was settled with Avery. About the stretching I agree, but I never said anything about possible framing.

 

5 hours ago, iacas said:

It wasn't even riveting. At any point I could have stopped watching the series and not cared that I didn't see the end. I didn't care one bit about Avery, Brendan… none of them. The whole sideways angle of the "documentary" was a huge turn-off.

I don't care too much about them either, but that really isn't the point in my opinion. The point is that the system is quite f'd up, which means that the chances on a wrongfull conviction are higher than you should want it to be. That's why the first case is relevant as well. And the list of wrongful confictions in the USA is really big (and those are just the ones we know of), which kind of proves their point. No matter how guilty someone looks, he has rights, police need to follow the rules, jury need to look at the facts and not the sentiment (again: first case, but also Dassey). By not doing so you can still convict the right guy (which they probably did here), but you will also have a higher chance on convicting innocents.

[nevets88]

I still have this show on the backburner, still catching up with Serial 2.0. But this was interesting reading.

Quote

Toward the end of the series, Dean Strang, Steven Avery’s defense lawyer, notes that most of the problems in the criminal-justice system stem from “unwarranted certitude”—what he calls “a tragic lack of humility of everyone who participates.” Ultimately, “Making a Murderer” shares that flaw; it does not challenge our yearning for certainty or do the difficult work of helping to foster humility. Instead, it swaps one absolute for another—and, in doing so, comes to resemble the system it seeks to correct. It is easy to express outrage, comforting to have closure, and satisfying to know all the answers. But, as defense lawyers remind people every day, it is reasonable to doubt. 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/dead-certainty

[Slowcelica]

So to address the vials of blood that were tampered with, in the show they said that they talked to the lab that previously tested the blood, and asked about the hole in the top. The lab said they do not get puncture the top of the vial. So that was their evidence that it had been tampered with. 

Second, where was the victums dna? There was not one peice of her dna found in the garage, in his room, anywhere. If what dassey said had happened the rape, the cutting her throat, on avery's bed wouldn't there be soaked into the matress? Wouldn't there be blood somewhere? If she was shot in the head in the garage there would have been spatter all over the place. Did you see how much junk was in there? No way someone could have cleaned all the blood up in there, on top of that there were cracks in the floor, blood would have ran down into that the police jack hammered in hopes of finding her blood or dna. They found none. 

Why keep her car on your property? It was a junkyard he had a perfectly good crusher, crush it and get rid of the evidence. 

The blood testing for the preservative is a joke, there is a reason that they don't do that testing anymore and it should never have been used. It's because its either positive or undetermined, the test result came back undetermined in this case.

The DNA found on the bullet, that the lab technician who tested it said it had been compromised, and the rule is that you throw that out, she even admitted that. She even admitted it on the stand that this was a special exception. This was the only dna evidence found on the property of the victum's. 

His nephew and brother in-laws stories were pretty much debunked by the defense, their time lines were shown to be false by evidence, and the testimony they gave was inconsistent with the statements they made to the police previously.

The investigators, didn't even look at any other suspects. They only focused on avery.

Also fishy was the phone call the deputy made about the victum's car. Where he was calling to check on a license plate number, and it turned out to be the victum's car. This was after she was reported missing, but before the car was found. Why was he calling the plates in? Was he looking at the car? This was never answered.

The sheriff's department should have not even been on the property when it was being searched, they should have stayed as far away as possible from the whole thing. They had an obvious conflict of interest, they were being sued for 36 million for ruining someones life. They were the ones to find the key, which miraculously just appeared after his room had been search several times before. Not to mention the key that had been used by victum for years, had not trace of her DNA on it just Avery's?

In his previous case, they ignored other leads, even when the P.D. called and told them of someone they suspected, that fit the description of the rapist they ignored it and persued Avery. Even though he had an aliby for the time of the crime. Then in the 90's when the original rapist was caught and he confessed to the crime, the P.D. once again called the sherriff's dept and told them that they had the wrong persone locked up for the crime and they ignored it. They didnt even file a report on it, until after avery was released from prison. 

They ruined this guys life, talking about the first 18 years. For anyone who has kids, the guy didn't even get to see his kids grow up, he can't get that back. There is no $$ amount that could replace that for me. 

Do I think he did it? I don't know, but I definatly think he did not get a fair trial, how could he with as much publicity and talking about the case, before the jury was even selected, in the media could he get a fair trial? If you are going to put someone away for life without the possibility of parole then you should be 100% sure that they did the crime. In this country it is supposed to be innocent until guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. For me there would have been to many questions that did not get answered to find him guilty.

Dassey's trial was a complete sham, the "confession" he gave to his attorney should have been thrown out and in-admissable in court. The detectives even coerced him into calling his mom and confessing to the crime, because they knew the phone call would be recorded, and they could use it against him. The kid is clearly slow, and I really feel like the cops took advantage of that to try and get all the evidence against avery that they could. Where was the physical evidence that proved what dassey said was the truth? 

The point of the show was our justice system is seriously flawed when it comes to someone who doesn't have the financial means to hire a good attorney to help them. If you dont have $$ and you get accused of a crime, your pretty much screwed. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by Slowcelica

[Silent]

I think different discussion can be held. Whether you think Avery and Dassey are quilty or not, is a different discussion reagarding the question if it's proven beyond any reasonable doubt. For some that's one and the same, and if they think the first is true, the second doesn't matter and they don't care. In a courtroom however, it's all about the second. FWIW I think they are both guilty for what they are convicted for (besides the fact that you can ask if Dassey is fully accountable). But with the evidence in hand, should there be a conviction? In Avery's case I'm in doubt, but I think yes. The DNA on the bullet should have been excluded, but still there's a lot of evidence pointing at him. His blood and other DNA in the car, his yard, the key was found with his DNA in his bedroom, he had a meeting with her.... is it strange that only his DNA was found on the key? Yes, but one can easily argue that he cleaned the key himself, and after that his DNA got on it. No blood-spatter in the garage? Well, he could have shot her while pushing a pillow in her face. Is the blood in the car planted? There's no proof of that. Is it weird that his blood was found, but no fingerprints (while the blood came from his finger/hand, according to the DA); yes. But is it enough to say: that's enough reasonable doubt? Not sure...

Dassey is a whole other story in my opinion. His 'confession' should have been excluded, and besides that with his lawyer and his investigator messing up big time he deserved a new trial. They basically admitted in court how big they messed up. And without the confession (they cherry picked from a million other things he said), there's nothing. Nothing at all. 

[phan52]

I thought it was very compelling TV. It obviously has some holes in the assertions of innocence but, with regard to Dassey, if it was anything like he said in his "confession" there should have been rivers of physical evidence in the trailer. Yet there was none. I am fairly convinced that the detectives took advantage of Dassey in building a narrative. And the behavior of his original defense attorney should have been enough to strike a lot of his "confession". That guy was a complicit dunce just looking to plea.

Interestingly, Avery's attorneys are going on tour.

http://www.keswicktheatre.com/events/detail/306549

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by phan52

[iacas]

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

So to address the vials of blood that were tampered with, in the show they said that they talked to the lab that previously tested the blood, and asked about the hole in the top. The lab said they do not get puncture the top of the vial. So that was their evidence that it had been tampered with.

One of the lab techs said they put the puncture there. That's why it was never really shown as being talked about in court. Think about it… the producers set you up to think that there was this massive tampering, and yet… they never show what should be their "banner day" or "gold star day" or whatever they called it… in the court version? The producers were entirely slanted in how they showed things, yet they didn't show this? Because it wasn't shown in court, as it didn't help the defense.

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

Second, where was the victums dna? There was not one peice of her dna found in the garage, in his room, anywhere.

Pretty sure there was some on the bullet. And DNA is destroyed pretty well by a fire.

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

If she was shot in the head in the garage there would have been spatter all over the place.

So you're a spatter expert now? How much spatter does a .22 produce? What if there was a tarp? They could have burned that in the fire, too.

How did Steven Avery's sweat DNA get on the hood latch?

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

Why keep her car on your property? It was a junkyard he had a perfectly good crusher, crush it and get rid of the evidence.

Crushing it wouldn't get rid of the evidence. It would just crush it. Furthermore, you're talking about a pair of guys with IQs in the low 70s. Why was Avery's sweat DNA on the hood latch? His blood in the car? Her blood in the back seat?

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

The blood testing for the preservative is a joke, there is a reason that they don't do that testing anymore and it should never have been used. It's because its either positive or undetermined, the test result came back undetermined in this case.

I don't think you understand how tests like that work. It came back as negative for the presence of EDTA. They can't state for absolute certainty that it didn't have EDTA, like they can for a positive test. Either way, it doesn't support the defense position at all. It supports the prosecution. Not as much as if you could have a definitive negative. Most chemical tests will never say "negative proof." They'll almost all say "undetected."

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

The DNA found on the bullet, that the lab technician who tested it said it had been compromised, and the rule is that you throw that out, she even admitted that. She even admitted it on the stand that this was a special exception. This was the only dna evidence found on the property of the victum's.

a) Pretty sure that she said the control sample was contaminated only.
b) Also pretty sure Teresa's DNA was found in her bloody hair stains in the back of her car.

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

His nephew and brother in-laws stories were pretty much debunked by the defense, their time lines were shown to be false by evidence, and the testimony they gave was inconsistent with the statements they made to the police previously.

You seem to believe what the show wants you to believe.

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

The investigators, didn't even look at any other suspects. They only focused on avery.

And they managed to get a conviction that hasn't come close to getting a retrial or anything like that. So… they seem to have gotten the right person from the start. Her car was found on Avery's property. She was shot with his gun. His DNA was found on the car. Her DNA was found on a bullet. Her bones were found in his burn pit.

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

Also fishy was the phone call the deputy made about the victum's car. Where he was calling to check on a license plate number, and it turned out to be the victum's car. This was after she was reported missing, but before the car was found. Why was he calling the plates in? Was he looking at the car? This was never answered.

It was answered. He said he wasn't looking at the car. That the show leads you to believe something other than what he says happened, is not the fault of the deputy. It sounded to me he was calling to confirm what he was looking for.

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

The sheriff's department should have not even been on the property when it was being searched, they should have stayed as far away as possible from the whole thing. They had an obvious conflict of interest, they were being sued for 36 million for ruining someones life. They were the ones to find the key, which miraculously just appeared after his room had been search several times before. Not to mention the key that had been used by victum for years, had not trace of her DNA on it just Avery's?

You do get that it's really difficult to plant sweat DNA or touch DNA, right?

It's also not like the sheriff's department was going to fine everyone and they would have to pay out the $36M themselves. The state AG found them innocent of their previous conviction. You're using a botched earlier imprisonment as "proof" that a second one was botched.

Avery was obsessed with Hallbach. He called her twice that day from a blocked account and once after he'd already killed her. He bought leg irons and handcuffs. He shot her with the gun he kept over his bed. The defense never raised the phone records showing that Brendan was home to receive those phone calls at the times he said. They ignored Dassey's bleach soaked jeans. They ignored the sweat DNA on the hood latch, and countless other things. Look around.

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

In his previous case, they ignored other leads, even when the P.D. called and told them of someone they suspected, that fit the description of the rapist they ignored it and persued Avery.

That's got almost nothing to do with this case. You can't fall into the trap the producers set up for you.

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

Then in the 90's when the original rapist was caught and he confessed to the crime, the P.D. once again called the sherriff's dept and told them that they had the wrong persone locked up for the crime and they ignored it. They didnt even file a report on it, until after avery was released from prison.

Why didn't the PD call… you know… Avery's lawyers? It's not the sheriff's office's job to investigate convictions in perpetuity.

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

They ruined this guys life, talking about the first 18 years. For anyone who has kids, the guy didn't even get to see his kids grow up, he can't get that back. There is no $$ amount that could replace that for me.

Yeah, the guy was a real saint, threatening to kill his children's mother and all that…

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

Do I think he did it? I don't know, but I definatly think he did not get a fair trial, how could he with as much publicity and talking about the case, before the jury was even selected, in the media could he get a fair trial? If you are going to put someone away for life without the possibility of parole then you should be 100% sure that they did the crime. In this country it is supposed to be innocent until guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. For me there would have been to many questions that did not get answered to find him guilty.

A whole lotta allegations there.

At the end of the day, 12 jurors were convinced beyond reasonable doubt, and convicted him. And he's yet to get even a sniff of a retrial, an appeal, etc.

On January 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Slowcelica said:

Dassey's trial was a complete sham, the "confession" he gave to his attorney should have been thrown out and in-admissable in court. The detectives even coerced him into calling his mom and confessing to the crime, because they knew the phone call would be recorded, and they could use it against him. The kid is clearly slow, and I really feel like the cops took advantage of that to try and get all the evidence against avery that they could. Where was the physical evidence that proved what dassey said was the truth? 

In other words, you're just going to fall into every little trap the producers set up for you.

Why would he call and confess to his mother? C'mon. Why would you ever admit to helping commit a murder if you didn't do anything of the sort? Why would you know details about how and when things happened? Why would you draw leg irons like the ones Avery had recently purchased?

Avery was a sick puppy. Still is, I'm sure. He was increasingly violent toward women. He plotted their rapes and murders. He sketched torture chambers. He abused his girlfriend, threatened to kill his wife and the mother of his children… He molested his nephew (and nieces IIRC?).

[colin007]

[Silent]

Curious about what Avery's new lawyer might acomplish: she has quite a track-record in the wrongful conviction department;

Quote

Steven Avery has the most successful appeal lawyer in America now on his case, and she’s already destroying the prosecution’s evidence on Twitter.

Kathleen Zellner has overturned more wrongful convictions than any other private US attorney, she claims, securing nearly $90 million for her clients betrayed by the US justice system. Her firm "is looking forward to adding Mr Avery to its long list of wrongful conviction exonerations”, it said in a statement. 

 

Quote

Almost immediately after announcing that she was taking the case, teaming up with Midwest Innocence Project legal director Tricia Bushnell, Zellner told the media that she was not doing any interviews preferring to focus on the case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-new-lawyer-destroys-prosecution-case-on-twitter-a6829741.html

http://wncy.com/news/articles/2016/jan/24/new-avery-attorney-ignores-media-takes-destruction-of-prosecution-to-twitter/#.Vq1GrVXHxoI.twitter

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/01/15/kratzs-pretrial-behavior-called-unethical/78630248/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/steven-averys-attorney-discusses-making-murderer-case/story?id=36614686

 

[Silent]

On 1-2-2016 at 3:59 AM, iacas said:

Why was Avery's sweat DNA on the hood latch? His blood in the car? Her blood in the back seat?

These actually are some interesting questions. There's no such thing as 'sweat DNA', but that doesn't really matter: his DNA was found on the hood latch, true. His blood in the car makes it interesting; why is his blood in the car, but no fingerprints from him at all. That is a bit strange, especially since the prosecutors argue that the blood in the car came from a wound on his finger/hand. It's quite a stredge to assume the blood was planted (so I'm not going to assume anything, there's no solid proof for that), but logically it doesn't make sense that they find blood from Avery, but no fingerprints. Fingerprints you can whipe off, but then the (visible) blood would be whiped also. Fingerprints can be avoided by wearing gloves, but then there would be no blood also.... it does raise some questions. Not proving his innocents at all, but it's a small step towards reasonalbe doubt.

The second question (her blood in the back seat) is in my opnion even more interesting. Avery is convicted with the assumption that she was raped in his bedroom, dragged to the garage where she was shot, then her body was trown in the fire in front of the house/garage. So... finding her blood in the back (with blood spatter suggestions it was from hair of her head, suggesting that she was moved in the car) contradicts with that assumption. In the story of the DA the car is not part of the crime scene regarding the rape and murder. Again, this doesn't prove innocence at all, I still think he did it, but Avery doesn't need to prove anything. It's the DA's job to prove things beyond reasonalbe doubt. The story of how Halbach was raped, murderd and burned at one side, and finding her blood in the back of the car on the other side don't match up.

It's an interesting case, very interesting. I've done a lot of reading about it, and there's no doubt that the documentary is very one-sided to say the least. There's a lot of evidence pointing towards Avery, but in both cases (Dassey and Avery) a lot of mistakes seemed to be made as well. The swift the jury made (according to the excused juror) is also remarkable, but I don't know if that's common or happens more.

Point is that in court the defence doesn't need to prove anything, they can fill in the blanks of the story (like 'this could have happenend', speculate, create doubt). The prosecution on the other hand does need to prove their story. The job of the jury is not pick the most likely scenario of the things they heard, their job is to decide if that 1 scenario (from the prosection) is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The irony (for me) in this case is that I think the jury convicted the ones who did it, but I'm in doubt if there should be a conviction.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Silent said:

Curious about what Avery's new lawyer might acomplish: she has quite a track-record in the wrongful conviction department;

We'll see. To this point, it's a whole lot of nothing.

2 hours ago, Silent said:

There's no such thing as 'sweat DNA', but that doesn't really matter: his DNA was found on the hood latch, true.

Of course. Sweat is just a liquid with some salts, etc. I was just using the one guy's words… he should have just said DNA, or epithelial DNA, or something more accurate.

2 hours ago, Silent said:

His blood in the car makes it interesting; why is his blood in the car, but no fingerprints from him at all. That is a bit strange, especially since the prosecutors argue that the blood in the car came from a wound on his finger/hand. It's quite a stredge to assume the blood was planted (so I'm not going to assume anything, there's no solid proof for that), but logically it doesn't make sense that they find blood from Avery, but no fingerprints. Fingerprints you can whipe off, but then the (visible) blood would be whiped also. Fingerprints can be avoided by wearing gloves, but then there would be no blood also.... it does raise some questions. Not proving his innocents at all, but it's a small step towards reasonalbe doubt.

Simple logic here: there was blood on the outside of the glove. Maybe he got it from an injury on his hand while putting on the gloves? If I cut fingers on my left hand open, and then put gloves on, there would be blood on the outside of the right glove and the inside of the left glove.

2 hours ago, Silent said:

The second question (her blood in the back seat) is in my opnion even more interesting. Avery is convicted with the assumption that she was raped in his bedroom, dragged to the garage where she was shot, then her body was trown in the fire in front of the house/garage. So... finding her blood in the back (with blood spatter suggestions it was from hair of her head, suggesting that she was moved in the car) contradicts with that assumption. In the story of the DA the car is not part of the crime scene regarding the rape and murder. Again, this doesn't prove innocence at all, I still think he did it, but Avery doesn't need to prove anything. It's the DA's job to prove things beyond reasonalbe doubt. The story of how Halbach was raped, murderd and burned at one side, and finding her blood in the back of the car on the other side don't match up.

There are still a lot of ways her blood could have gotten there. Maybe he whacked her upside the head when she was near her car, before taking her back to his room. The blood was somewhat freely flowing (I think) - it didn't look like the kind of smear that you'd get from well dried blood.

At the end of the day none of us were in the court room to hear how and where and what evidence was submitted.

[Silent]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

We'll see. To this point, it's a whole lot of nothing.

Obvisously... she took his case about a month ago. On one hand I hope Avery is guilty as hell, on the other hand it would be an amazing story and twist if turns out to be set up and she can prove that. I think that chance is less than 1%, but still.....

13 hours ago, iacas said:

Simple logic here: there was blood on the outside of the glove. Maybe he got it from an injury on his hand while putting on the gloves? If I cut fingers on my left hand open, and then put gloves on, there would be blood on the outside of the right glove and the inside of the left glove.

Possibly, good point. Should be quite some blood though since they found 'drops', meaning it was dripping from (in this theory) his glove.

13 hours ago, iacas said:

There are still a lot of ways her blood could have gotten there. Maybe he whacked her upside the head when she was near her car, before taking her back to his room. The blood was somewhat freely flowing (I think) - it didn't look like the kind of smear that you'd get from well dried blood.

Exactly my point. I don't think the blood was freely flowing, because than there should be a lot more blood in the car. They found blood consisting with bloody hair. Seems to me, and I know I'm not an expert, that she was already dead when she was in the car, because that would explain the little amount of blood found (no pumping of the heart, no flow of blood) and the place it was found (in the back). One can easily argue that he killed in the garage, moved her to the car, and only then got the plan to burn her instead and moved her again; to the pit. But the 'problem' is that that's not what the DA said what happenend. In my opinion that blood in the car contradicts the story (or truth) he wants us and the jury to believe, and contradicts also with the story of Dassey which is the only thing that links Dassey to the case: his own words. That doesn't mean Avery is innocent, but it might raise some doubt. The DA should stick with the facts, not filling in the blanks with guessing. If he can't prove exact chronologically he shouldn't state it as 'fact'.

 

13 hours ago, iacas said:

At the end of the day none of us were in the court room to hear how and where and what evidence was submitted.

Absolutely. I'm not convinced in anything, not in my opinion, not in yours, not at all in the people who made the documentary. Also not a fan of conspiracy theory's. I don't think the murder was planted on him, but I do think some mistakes were made by the justice system. Mistakes that possibly should have lead to his and maybe even more Dassey's release, even though there's a big chance he did it. That's for me perhaps the most interesting part in this case and in the discussion. If we want a justice system where the chance is close to 0% that we convict someone innocent, and the prosecution and police need to follow the rules, it means sometimes the guilty walk free. I think everything they found on the compount while Manitowoc detectives were present should have been excluded. I think the DNA on the blood of the bullet should have been excluded. I think the 'confession' of Dassey should have been excluded. I think Dassey should have given at least a new trial, but that was denied by the same judge which handled his initial case (?!).

[Silent]

Quote

Steven Avery’s lawyer will bring a new appeal to the court in 30 days, and claims she will present new forensic evidence that proves Avery’s innocence.

Kathleen Zellner believes she will be able to achieve the total exoneration of Mr Avery with the presentation of this new evidence. “We are confident Mr. Avery’s conviction will be vacated when we present the new evidence and results of our work to the appropriate court.”

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/steven-avery-innocent-making-a-murderer

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Silent said:

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/steven-avery-innocent-making-a-murderer

 

Quote

The key piece of new evidence Zellner will present is said to be provided by advanced Luminol testing. Luminol reactions are used to detect blood residue that is unseen to the naked eye, by reacting in such a way that stains become visible under a blacklight. It’s basically the trick that you’ve seen in every episode of CSI/Silent Witness/NCIS ever: but for some reason no one has ever thought to use it until now. Go figure.

This will allegedly prove the complete historical absence of Teresa’s blood from key areas of the Avery’s property, proving that Teresa Halbach was killed in neither Steven’s trailer, nor his garage, as former State Prosecutor Ken Kratz had claimed.

Eh.

Ten bucks says he's not released because of this.

The Dassey kid's pants were stained (or the opposite of stained? ) with bleach.

Luminol has been used since the 1940s. This isn't a "new" tactic at all.

 

I don't believe everything I read online, but if this is true, well…

[Silent]

I don't think she's claiming it's a 'new tactic', she's claiming it wasn't used in this case.

For the rest I agree with you, I think she's just firing shots and try to make waves and get the public opinion on her side (basically like the DA did with the early, premature press conferences back in the day). Either way I found it interesting information and suitable to this topic to post the article. At least she's taking her job seriously

[iacas]

I don't even know (there's a limit to how much time I care to spend looking into things) if Luminol was used before. The commenter above says it was.

[Silent]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

I don't even know (there's a limit to how much time I care to spend looking into things) if Luminol was used before. The commenter above says it was.

I see what you mean. Maybe it's just semantics and 'advanced luminol' is something else than, euhm, regular (?) luminol. I don't know... but I can't imagine she's openly making such a claim without doing her homework. That being said, not finding blood doesn't prove innocence at all. It just proves there's no blood on that particular surface. Like I said, I think it's more like making waves than anything else at this point, but we'll see.

[Silent]

Not directly information about this case, but an interesting read about false confessions, how common they actually are and how it's possible to confess a to a crime you did not do (for those who reject the possibility that Dassey could have confessed to something he might not have done). Question is, did Dassey have knowledge of things he could only know being present there, or was (some) information fed to him by the police (like the fact Halbach was shot in the head for example).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession

(not a big fan of Wikipedia articles, but obviously a lot of external links there as well)