I think we are in agreement about all these points and I believe they did plant the evidence. I’m just amazed at the boldness of the gamble. But I guess at some point there’s not much difference in getting sued for $36 million and getting sued for a much bigger number if the plan went wrong - they were screwed either way.
I realize this thread is now a bit dated, but I just finished watching the show. I don’t really want to rehash all of the evidence or whether either person was involved with the killing. But I will say I was:
a) stunned that Steven Avery talked to the police without a lawyer being present, or didn’t call a lawyer the minute the cops showed up with a search warrant. Yes, I know most people don’t do either of these things, but they also haven’t spent 18 years in prison innocent of a crime. He should have known better, whether he killed the young lady or not, to not immediately lawyer up.
b) absolutely appalled with how Brendan was treated and manipulated by the police and prosecutors - from start to finish. I can’t believe the cops are allowed to interrogate a 16 year old without either his parent or a lawyer present. How were his statements and confession not thrown out? And how did the jury watch his interrogation and not see that he was too inexperienced and confused and unable to comprehend what was happening? I don’t think he probably even understood what the Miranda warning meant.
c) disgusted with several cops and prosecutors. The apparent disregard for finding the truth - rather than securing convictions at any cost - is reprehensible. But far from rare, I am certain.
I think there was plenty of reasonable doubt regarding Avery, and based on what I saw, I could never have given a guilty verdict. I also think there were some shenanigans with the jury. But I can also understand that the documentary might not have shown everything, and realize that juries are unpredictable. But how could anyone watch Brendan on video and not see the blatant manipulation by the cops?
Dean Strang, one of Avery’s lawyers, was interviewed recently. He has some very insightful and truthful thoughts on the justice system. He comes across as genuine, thoughtful and honest, just as he did in the documentary.
I particularly liked these quotes:
“We live in a country in which every time the police department or a prosecutor wants to issue a press release or hold a press conference, the overwhelming majority of media outlets treat what the police or prosecutors say as received wisdom. As if it came down on tablets, from the mount. There’s almost never a critical examination of what the police or prosecution has to say.”
“When you get called as a juror, how about making a real effort to apply presumption of innocence? How about making a real effort to hold the state to the burden of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt? How about being honest about what your biases are, and asking to be excused from a jury if you can’t set them aside? How about participating in a national debate about how police relate to the communities they serve?”
[QUOTE=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.
[/quote]
I don’t think they did so dishonestly. I think they did so incompetently. Look at Dassey in a microcosm. They bullied him into confessing to a crime that obviously didn’t happen. They then trumpet that version of the crime to the world only to have to backtrack because they were so clearly wrong. There’s no evil or scheming there, just garden variety incompetence.
I have to disagree. It isn’t just incompetence to manipulate Dassey like they did, or hold a press conference announcing details which they had to seriously doubt. If the woman was shackled, raped and stabbed in the bedroom, there would have been rub marks on the bed and blood evidence on the walls and floor.
The police and prosecutors were out to pin this on Dassey and Avery. If I give them every benefit of the doubt, it is that they thought they did it, and weren’t above not exploring other possibilities. I don’t give them that much benefit, however, and think the two county cops planted evidence to bolster their case.
I saw plenty of evil in how the police and prosecutors treated Dassey, a minor of limited capacity.
Im watching this doc and the filmmakers dont even pretend to give a balanced view of the events. They whitewash Averys propensity fir violence against women. His gf who supported him in the doc has recanted and said that he abused her and threatened her if she didnt go along with his story.
Avery was screwed by the system for the original rape but he screwed himself for the murder. He tricked the victim back out to his place after she refused to deal with him again. And just how did his sweat get on her hood latch? The police couldnt have planted that DNA.
Sure they could have. One thing I read is that the cop or CSI might have transferred the DNA from inside the vehicle to the hood latch when they moved from inside the vehicle to open the hood.
Now, I’m not saying this is certain, or that Avery was innocent, but this sort of cross-contamination can easily happen by cops, techs or anyone else with access to the car.
Or, to move the needle further over, a crooked cop could easily have planted DNA anywhere on or in the vehicle.
They planted non-blood DNA on the key, didn’t they? So the hood latch would not be a challenge.
Any actual evidence that they planted DNA? I will say it again, the doc is a defense propaganda piece that leaves out or minimizes evidence that makes Avery look bad.
Agree completely with everyone on the treatment of Brendan Dassey. My understanding is that his mother was aware of and allowed many, if not all, of his interviews and declined to be present.
In closing statements the prosecutor basically said, “Ok, let’s say the key was planted. Just forget about it - there’s so much other evidence!” I mean, if he’s willing to make that statement, you have to have reasonable doubt about his whole damn case.
I don’t know if Steven Avery killed that woman. He may be guilty. But the police and prosecutor epically fouled up. And Brendan Dassey almost certainly had nothing to do with any of it.
I agree that the documentary was biased, but certain individuals supporting the prosecution’s side of things (specifically Ken Kratz and Nancy Grace) are also very biased.
There is no evidence that sweat was under the latch. That idea has been pushed heavily by Ken Kratz. What was found was non-blood DNA. It’s possible that sweat transferred the DNA to the latch, but it’s certainly not the only method of transfer. In any case, it was DNA that was found, not “sweat”. It would be much easier to plant this evidence than the blood evidence, since this DNA could be transferred using pretty much any object that Steven was in heavy contact with (slippers, shirt, a sock, toothbrush, whatever) whereas blood evidence would require, well, blood.
There is also no reason to believe that Steven “tricked” Halbach. She was well aware of where she was going - to Avery Salvage, on Avery Road, where she had been multiple times before. There is no evidence at all that she “refused to deal with him again”. Again, this is a story made up by the prosecution out of virtually thin air. (A coworker of Halbach’s did testify that Halbach had told a story about Steven answering the door on one occasion wearing only a towel. Halbach reportedly described this as “ew”, and the two shared a laugh about it. As far as I can tell, this is the start of the “she refused to go back there” narrative.)
Steven Avery may very well be guilty of murder, and the “Making a Murderer” documentary was definitely one-sided. But people who believe Steven Avery is guilty are just as capable of distortion as people who believe him to be innocent.
There are any number of takeaways from this excellent series, but it sure does underline how MESSY life is. I don’t believe for a minute that Brendan Dassey was involved and yet we have his whole story, which drove the police investigation, which was repeated by his cousin and which was then recanted. That blew a hole into the police’s version of events, but didn’t preclude another series of events where Avery could have committed the murder.
Throw in the possibility that the policy may have planted evidence to ensure a (rightful, IMHO) conviction and you get a true-life story that I would never have bought on ‘Law and Order’.
Crazy.
“Making a Murderer season 2 going ahead: ‘Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey’s cases are still pending’”
I watched this this week. One thing that strikes me is that everyone seems to assume that Halbach was raped. I don’t recall there being any physical evidence of rape. The only evidence of rape is from Brendan Dassey’s false confession. Most people seem to agree that Dassey was lying about Halbach being murdered in Steven Avery’s trailer because there was no physical evidence that she was ever in the trailer. Shouldn’t the allegation of rape also be dismissed on the same basis?
He was never tried for raping Halbach. The charge was dismissed before the trial.
I’m not talking about what he was charged with. If you read through any discussion of the case people say that Halbach was raped and try to work the rape into their theory of what happened. There’s no evidence that she was raped so there’s no need to complicate theories by including it.
Brendan Dassey’s conviction overturned.
I just came here to post this. This is big news.
Here’s the decision. I haven’t read it, it’s 91 pages.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3011723-Dassey-Decision.html
Thank you for this update. Brendan’s treatment by the police and prosecutors, and ultimate conviction, were the parts of the documentary that were most outrageous. Glad to see his conviction overturned.
From the CNN link:
Sounds like the prosecutors have 90 days with him still in jail to decide if it’s possible to retry him. Wouldn’t THAT make a heck of a sequel to the series–trying to convict him without the original confession?