Anyone watching Netflix's Making a Murderer?

[treis]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Really? How so? Is the motive (jealousy) any weaker than Stevens motive (which is what? )

Also how is the narrative of this theory super impossible for Scott and Bobby to pull off given their access to the property, guns and lacking an alibi for the time period that anyone else, other than the two of them, can verify?

Because people don’t just kill random strangers to frame someone due to jealousy. This isn’t the movies.

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Colburn, knowing that Steven is the last person who attests to seeing her, does an illegal search of the property verifying the plates and description days before it is found by the searcher. Who says Colburn planted the blood? There is ample time for Lenk to do so after is found but before the investigators collect the evidence. Note his odd testimony that he first arrived at the salvage yard after he signed out without signing in. Also, law enforcement had that property secured for days after the vehicle was found in which MCSD personnel were all over it often without supervision.

No one is opening the SUV except the CSI folks. Almost certainly it was towed to a crime lab for processing. It’s totally unrealistic that anyone could plant blood after it was discovered.

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

where andwhy? can you elaborate on this? What evidence supports this assumption?

The lack of a crime scene inside his trailer or his garage. There’s no (realistic) innocent explanation for Avery’s blood being inside Teresa’s car except if he murdered her (or was involved in).

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Why would he put her in the car only to drag her all the way back to the burn pit and why burn her in the barrel? Why not just the pit?

He’s stupid? Why would you kill someone that a bunch of people know is at your property and then burn her body right next to your house? Beyond that obvious reason, maybe he was waiting for it to get dark to burn her body. Or maybe he changed his mind and decided to burn the body instead of leaving it in the car.

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

What’s the likelihood of finding burnt bones in a place not all that far from two other piles of someone’s burnt bones that aren’t at all related. It’s odd and incredibly coincidental, i think.

The quarry pit had a bunch of animal bones. I haven’t heard the full testimony, but I don’t think any of these fragments were positively identified as human. Only “suspected”. The simplest and most logical conclusion is that these suspected human bones are not in fact human.

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

And yet there was no evidence of blood on the bullet–just a miniscule amount of DNA–nor evidence of damage to the garage from a bullet, no blood or DNA of Halbach anywhere around or in the garage, and it managed to land in a place that was overlooked by numerous investigators despite the presence of a number of shell casings in the garage area. given sherry culhane’s testimony, I’d say this is likelier.

If the bullet is unrelated then the crime becomes easier to explain since there are fewer constraints.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@treis

Because people don’t just kill random strangers to frame someone due to jealousy. This isn’t the movies.

They don’t? what makes you say she was random? And what makes you so sure they didn’t kill her out of opportunity or in the commission of another crime and then cover their tracks by pinning it on someone else; someone whom the police would be only too eager to pursue. So, if you don’t like jealousy as a motive for Scott and Bobby, what do you think Stevens motive was?

No one is opening the SUV except the CSI folks. Almost certainly it was towed to a crime lab for processing. It’s totally unrealistic that anyone could plant blood after it was discovered.

you’re sure of that despite opportunity and motive to do so? Why? It’s not improbable for law enforcement to plant evidence to ensure a conviction. It’s a demonstrable fact that they have done so, framing innocent people for murder. Why else would the Avery’s blood vial that the MCSD had access to have been tampered with? Sort of makes any blood evidence they had on Avery automatically suspicious. It’s also odd that Avery’s blood was found near the ignition when the cut it was supposed to have come from was on his left hand. How does that work exactly?

The lack of a crime scene inside his trailer or his garage. There’s no (realistic) innocent explanation for Avery’s blood being inside Teresa’s car except if he murdered her (or was involved in).

or the sheriffs planted it, just like the key. Still doesn’t explain a lack of Halbach blood anywhere. There is simply no evidence of what the murder took place. For all we know it happened in the woods or on the side of the road somewhere or in her ex-boyfriend’s basement. But the State’s theory is that Halbach was murdered in Avery’s trailer (no evidence) or in the garage (no evidence) and somehow after having her throat slit and being shot in the head at least twice, she spilt no blood anywhere and the only evidence of her blood is impressions made by her bloody hair in the back of her car. Avery may be quite the magician or savvy criminal to make all that blood disappear.

How about you put forth a theory of how Avery managed to kill her leaving no blood evidence? With details more compelling than “he killed her outside” if you please. Convince me.

He’s stupid? Why would you kill someone that a bunch of people know is at your property and then burn her body right next to your house?

Exactly. Why indeed. If you’re smart enough to hide oodles of blood evidence or kill her off of your property, why on earth would you bring it all back? and why wouldn’t you make the best use of the resources at your disposal --the car crusher, the smelter-- to, well, dispose of the evidence. And if you are going to burn a body in your burn pit, you don’t exactly want an audience, so why invite your nephew over? seems so contrary to typical criminal behavior.

Beyond that obvious reason, maybe he was waiting for it to get dark to burn her body. Or maybe he changed his mind and decided to burn the body instead of leaving it in the car.

or maybe someone else put there.

The quarry pit had a bunch of animal bones. I haven’t heard the full testimony, but I don’t think any of these fragments were positively identified as human. Only “suspected”. The simplest and most logical conclusion is that these suspected human bones are not in fact human.

Inconclusive. But it’s a pile of burnt bones found less than a half mile from two other piles of burnt bones, one of which happens to be in a barrel. Why the barrel? Well it makes a great container for moving a pile of bones from one location to another. I can’t imagine a good reason why Avery would do that. But I certainly could if someone who happened to have such a container behind their house wanted to make it look like someone else did it.

If the bullet is unrelated then the crime becomes easier to explain since there are fewer constraints.

It’s part of the state’s theory that Avery shot Halbach in the garage with his own .22. It’s one of many questionable pieces of evidence that pokes holes in their theory rather than supports it.
Obviously, I can’t say with any certainty who killed Theresa Halbach, but this other theory just reinforces how poorly the evidence supports the State’s theory. The Scott/Bobby theory makes more sense, frankly.

[pyromyte]

If one is concerning them self with whether Steven Avery is guilty or not, then they’re missing the whole point of the documentary, which is to point out some pretty major issues with the justice system.

1. People of little means, or from a “good-for-nothing” family stand little chance when accused of a crime. They are tried and convicted in our minds before they ever go to trial. Our founding fathers recognized the tremendous power of the state and intended to give the defendant some semblance of equal footing, i.e. proof beyond a reasonable doubt, public attorneys, trial by peers, etc. I think the documentary illustrates that despite those supposed advantages for the defendant, the state’s power is overwhelming. For example, look at the contrast between Avery’s attorneys and Dassey’s appointed attorneys. Had Avery been appointed a public attorney would this thread even exist?

2. Being in law enforcement doesn’t somehow make you incapable of improprieties.

3. Juries don’t care / aren’t sufficiently educated to understand their roles. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecution to prove their version of what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion the fact that Manitowoc county involved themselves in the investigation at all after handing it over to the next county is enough reasonable doubt to acquit.

4. Confessions can be false. Juries nearly never acquit someone who has confessed. Does anyone believe Dassey’s confessions at this point?

My gut says Avery probably did it, but law enforcement / prosecution screwed up the case so bad, there is no way he should have been convicted. My gut doesn’t equate to beyond a reasonable doubt.
[ul]
[li]Conflict of interest w/ Manitowoc co. involvement = reasonable doubt[/li][li]Key = reasonable doubt[/li][li]Blood vial tampering = reasonable doubt[/li][li]No blood = reasonable doubt[/li][/ul]

Further I’m not sure Dassey was involved at all, beyond maybe seeing something.

[davidm]

Avery has filed a new appeal.

'Making a Murderer': Steven Avery Files New Appeal

In papers filed Tuesday, Avery — who submitted the filing on his behalf — claims a number of grievances, including an improper warrant, inadequate legal representation and a juror who tainted the rest of the jury with claims of Avery’s guilt.

The papers, filed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, claim that the first search warrant in the case lists multiple properties, but that “state law and statute clearly has stated limitations on a search warrant, such as 1 property, NOT multiple properties … this warrant is clearly a warrantless search or could clearly be stated that evidence seized or used at trial is clearly ‘fruit of the poisonous tree,’ illegally obtained evidence. The affidavit was based on clearly falsified, misleading information.”
…
Avery also alludes to planted evidence in Tuesday’s paperwork, saying that if Halbach’s car had been sealed with tamper-proof evidence tape, “it would be more likely than not evidence blood, etc. could not be placed in victim’s vehicle.”
…

Is he right about the warrant? If so, then it seems that he must have had poor representation.

[TriPolar]

@davidm

Avery has filed a new appeal.
'Making a Murderer': Steven Avery Files New Appeal - TheWrap

Is he right about the warrant? If so, then it seems that he must have had poor representation.

The warrant was broad and vague. Someone pointed that at on the show. If his lawyers challenged it I don’t recall seeing that. He either had poor representation or his lawyers did challenge the warrant and all of the evidence but the judge didn’t agree with them. I’d say both.

[davidm]

If they challenge it, you’d think that it would have come up in one of the appeals since then, or maybe it was and was denied.

[davidm]

@davidm

If they challenge it, you’d think that it would have come up in one of the appeals since then, or maybe it was and was denied.

That should have read: “If they challenged it, you’d think that it would have come up in one of the appeals since then, or maybe it was and was denied.”

[HMS_Irruncible]

In a nutshell, I am forced to consider the odd proposition that Avery murdered Halbach, and he was also framed for murdering Halbach. But to me that is less interesting than the fact that if the law enforcement and justice system really need for you to be convicted, then you’re going to be convicted in spite of blatantly unfair and illegal tactics.

[davidm]

@HMS_Irruncible

In a nutshell, I am forced to consider the odd proposition that Avery murdered Halbach, and he was also framed for murdering Halbach. But to me that is less interesting than the fact that if the law enforcement and justice system really need for you to be convicted, then you’re going to be convicted in spite of blatantly unfair and illegal tactics.

I wonder how odd that proposition really is. I fear that it may not be all that unusual for police to attempt to sweeten the evidence when they believe that an individual is guilty. I don’t think that most, or even a large majority, do it, but I do think it happens. We know that it happens at the “plant a bag of pot” level, so why wouldn’t it happen occasionally for greater crimes?

[kenobi_65]

I watched some of the series yesterday. It hit home for me, in unexpected ways, largely because the events take place in northeastern Wisconsin, where I grew up.

The victim in the first murder was a relative (by marriage) of my Homecoming date during my senior year of high school (that murder took place just after I graduated).

And, several of the camera shots of the Green Bay Correctional Facility (one of the places where Avery has served time) were shot up the street from the house where I grew up.

Kinda spooky.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@davidm

I wonder how odd that proposition really is. I fear that it may not be all that unusual for police to attempt to sweeten the evidence when they believe that an individual is guilty. I don’t think that most, or even a large majority, do it, but I do think it happens. We know that it happens at the “plant a bag of pot” level, so why wouldn’t it happen occasionally for greater crimes?

For murder? And what a huge gamble for the police department to fabricate such an elaborate coverup on a guy who just did 18 years for a crime he didn’t commit. I mean, wow.

[Disheavel]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Colburn, knowing that Steven is the last person who attests to seeing her, does an illegal search of the property verifying the plates and description days before it is found by the searcher.

Quick question about the plates: I thought that they weren’t on the car- this goes along with my memory about the searcher having to find the VIN to positively identify the car. So where were the plates found? The plate held up in court looked quite abused. And if the plates weren’t on the vehicle when found, how does this change the relationship and timing of Colburn and when the blood tampering could have occurred?

[MikeF]

The prosecution’s theory in Avery’s trial is that the killing took place in the garage. In Dassey’s trial they use his confession and postulate that it took place in the trailer. They can’t have it both ways, morally anyway. I don’t see how the defense couldn’t point to the absolute lack of forensic evidence in the trailer do discount the confession. Combined with the coercive nature of the confession, it would seem to pretty obvious that there was a reasonable doubt. Then again, the show portrayed only limited parts of the second trial so I have no idea what the defense offered.

[davidm]

@HMS_Irruncible

For murder? And what a huge gamble for the police department to fabricate such an elaborate coverup on a guy who just did 18 years for a crime he didn’t commit. I mean, wow.

I don’t understand your objection. What does his previous conviction have to do with it?

[Locrian]

Has anyone tuned into the Jodi interview from yesterday?

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/nancy-grace/articles/2016/01/13/steven-avery-s-former-fiancee-jodi-stachowski-exclusive-interview

A little eye-opening IMO…

[TriPolar]

@Locrian

Has anyone tuned into the Jodi interview from yesterday?

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/nancy-grace/articles/2016/01/13/steven-avery-s-former-fiancee-jodi-stachowski-exclusive-interview

A little eye-opening IMO…

But totally irrelevant to his case. And she’s not what most people would call credible.

[fachverwirrt]

Yeah, I think there is very little question that Avery is pretty much a shit. It really doesn’t have anything to do with the case.

[davidm]

It’s about more than just Avery and Dassey. It’s about our dysfunctional justice system. It’s about police and prosecutors who decide that they’re going to put someone away even if they have to do so dishonestly.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@davidm

I don’t understand your objection. What does his previous conviction have to do with it?

The Manitowoc sheriff’s dept. already had a black eye and was facing a $36 million lawsuit. Imagine how screwed they’d be if they got caught planting evidence and failed to obtain a conviction. That’s a pretty risky gamble. That kind of boldness suggests either very poor judgment, or absolute confidence in rigging the outcome. Whichever it is, I find it pretty stunning.

[davidm]

Yes, but that $36 million lawsuit was also a very strong incentive to plant evidence, especially since the two officers themselves were being personally sued and the insurance company had indicated that they would fight paying it because of the circumstances.