Steven Avery & Making A Murderer
- Thread starter green2623
- Start date
I watched it and it did feel like some things werent adding up. Obviously the police and DA were corrupt.
We have all seen that before of course. However, I did see someone post this on facebook and it is compelling evidence against him
that was not presented on the show.
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224
We have all seen that before of course. However, I did see someone post this on facebook and it is compelling evidence against him
that was not presented on the show.
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224
The show is compelling. However, it seems obvious that it was shot to be slanted toward Avery's side. What I mean is that it was shot to persuade the viewer that the police dept/DAs office is corrupt and Avery is not guilty.
Its fairly obvious the police/DA royally f'd up the whole rape investigation. Avery clearly didnt do that and served 18 years for a crime he didnt commit.
The documentary leaves some stuff out that would likely persuade the viewer away from Avery's side. For instance, they breeze over the animal cruelty issue in episode one. They make it sound like Avery was tossing a cat over a fire and it caught on fire by accident. That appears to be a half truth. The cat had been doused in oil/gas and thrown onto a bonfire by Avery. That doesnt mean he committed the murder, but it definitely makes me think much less of him as a person.
The documentary does not mention that in the months leading up to the murder Avery had caled Auto Trader multiple times and had specifically requested that Hallbach come to his house.
The bullet with Hallbach's DNA came from Avery's gun, which always hung over his bed
There is a lot more, but those are a few good examples. Not saying he did it. Im saying the documentary was obviously created to steer viewers towards a certain conclusion. Regardless it is a really interesting and addictive show
Its fairly obvious the police/DA royally f'd up the whole rape investigation. Avery clearly didnt do that and served 18 years for a crime he didnt commit.
The documentary leaves some stuff out that would likely persuade the viewer away from Avery's side. For instance, they breeze over the animal cruelty issue in episode one. They make it sound like Avery was tossing a cat over a fire and it caught on fire by accident. That appears to be a half truth. The cat had been doused in oil/gas and thrown onto a bonfire by Avery. That doesnt mean he committed the murder, but it definitely makes me think much less of him as a person.
The documentary does not mention that in the months leading up to the murder Avery had caled Auto Trader multiple times and had specifically requested that Hallbach come to his house.
The bullet with Hallbach's DNA came from Avery's gun, which always hung over his bed
There is a lot more, but those are a few good examples. Not saying he did it. Im saying the documentary was obviously created to steer viewers towards a certain conclusion. Regardless it is a really interesting and addictive show
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224
This is interesting, all I meant to do is show how it is getting attention by the national media, and what that takes I can't presume guilt or innocence here, but it doesn't sound like a fair trial. Let the lawyers speak. At the very least, a new D.A. and the courts should examine this and the players.
This is interesting, all I meant to do is show how it is getting attention by the national media, and what that takes I can't presume guilt or innocence here, but it doesn't sound like a fair trial. Let the lawyers speak. At the very least, a new D.A. and the courts should examine this and the players.
Somehow I knew FOOTBALL CULTURE was responsible for the satanic rituals of lighting cats on fire and killing human beings. Leave it to the squeaky clean Green Bay Packers organization where the fans own the franchise. Clearly, they all knew - and did nothing.
A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you. A family member has just started as a criminal trial lawyer (and I've observed all of this paterno stuff). let me tell you something...if a crooked detective wants to get you convicted of something, you are 98% done. I'll give you an example: a guy was shot, the police say, while his back was against an outside wall, in the left side of his head by a .357, by a murderer facing him. There is no blood against the wall, body materials are not found in the vicinity, and the defendant is left handed (meaning he'd have had to shoot him with his off of bad hand). But the police tied the guy to a party that was going on in another room, so admitting that the man was shot someplace else and dragged their blew their case. Guilty on all counts. After the trial, the jury was questioned....their first observation was how well dressed the prosecution team was (a man and a woman), their second observation was that the policemen testified that it was "X" so it had to be X. When asked about the wrong hand and lack of body fluid/parts in the area, they said that the police would have pointed this out as a problem if it was a problem. Bottom line was, the police's testimony convicted the guy with no corroborating evidence.
Second note, in the state of ohio, you can be convicted of speeding if a cop says you were speeding.
Third note: I know of a teen age gal who was invited to an empty house by her boyfriend and some of his friends. Gal was just about to graduate from nursing school. She was told it was the boyfriend's buddy's house. Police get called by a neighbor, turns out its an abandoned home. She gets charged and convicted of trespassing, breaking and entering, and burglary. Two felonies and a misdemeanor. Instead of graduating and making $45,000/year, she is now out of jail, can't get a job, and we taxpayers are paying her bills. What has been accomplished here? We took a naive gal who deserved a slap on the wrist and made her unemployable....congratulations.
I could go on...but the criminal justice system is broken.
Last edited:
Pretty riveting series.
I rarely watch TV series, or those produced online, but a family member suggested this, and I'm glad I watched it.
I did recall a few aspects of the case (just from being a news junkie), but the vast majority of the story was new to me.
I was captivated by the 1st episode, and had to make a real effort to avoid stories about the series, or the cases upon which it is based, which have been springing up on a number of web sites in recent days.
I finally watched the last 3 episodes this evening. It certainly does not make you feel good about the justice system, at least in Wisc.
I did feel that the court scenes were somewhat manipulative, in that you did not always see both direct examination and then cross examination of each witness, and there were times where it appeared that portions of the defense's case where shown in the middle of the prosecution's case.
I'm curious to see if there is a Season 2. Season 1 covered quite a few years, and ended in 2015, so I wonder how much material they will have in a year.
I rarely watch TV series, or those produced online, but a family member suggested this, and I'm glad I watched it.
I did recall a few aspects of the case (just from being a news junkie), but the vast majority of the story was new to me.
I was captivated by the 1st episode, and had to make a real effort to avoid stories about the series, or the cases upon which it is based, which have been springing up on a number of web sites in recent days.
I finally watched the last 3 episodes this evening. It certainly does not make you feel good about the justice system, at least in Wisc.
I did feel that the court scenes were somewhat manipulative, in that you did not always see both direct examination and then cross examination of each witness, and there were times where it appeared that portions of the defense's case where shown in the middle of the prosecution's case.
I'm curious to see if there is a Season 2. Season 1 covered quite a few years, and ended in 2015, so I wonder how much material they will have in a year.
you're touching on a subject we Penn Staters have mulled the last few years all too well:
is it enough to make someone "appear" guilty to convict them? are we OK as a society if someone doesn't get a fair trial as long as we "believe" he/she is guilty?
there is a great little gem of a movie called The Star Chamber starring Michael Douglas and Hal Holbrook which is also pretty compelling viewing in light of this. and Yaphet Kotto is in it so there's really no excuse for people to have missed it.
Well, it was either him or one of his brothers. Maybe they got the right brother, maybe not...
Or someone else killed her then dumped the remains on Steven's burn pit and parked her car conveniently on the Avery lot. The police never even treated the ex boyfriend or roommate as suspects and never looked into who it was that kept calling her shortly before she went missing.
If Steven was trying to cover up a murder why didn't he use the car crusher he had ON HIS PROPERTY and why leave her car on his property for authorities to find? Somehow this guy was able remove all of the supposed blood/DNA from his house/garage (enough so that forensic experts couldn't find any) yet he didn't have the foresight/ability to think about getting rid of her car/car key? Sorry...not buying it.
The DNA evidence found on the car key (which was coincidentally found by the Manitoiac County Police Lt. Lenk who wasn't even supposed to be there due to his massive COI with Steven) only had Steven's DNA and not the girls...hmm...that's odd......the bullet DNA evidence was tainted and couldn't be re tested since the lady used up all of the sample...boy that's convenient...the blood vile that was supposed to be in a sealed evidence box (it wasn't sealed) had a hole poked into the top....nothing to see here!!
When you add up all of the above there's no way IMO that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven did it. Plus you have to factor in this guy was about to get MILLIONS of dollars from the county right and was deposing high level county folks right as this girl went missing so what would his motive be to throw that all away and kill some girl who takes the pictures for Auto Trader?
Then we go on to find that Katz, the special prosecutor, is a sex pervert who viewed himself above the law (a la fina) who was sexually harassing domestic violence victims he supposed to be representing/protecting. Yeah, the guy has the highest of ethics and morals!
Spoilers
I've watched the series and seen all the evidence (from both sides). I came away (from the series) thinking Avery likely did it, his nephew totally innocent, and that Avery shouldn't be in jail based on that conviction.
Since examining all the evidence, especially "the most damming" stuff, it feels more like a total set up.
I don't have time right now to go through it all, but I'll point out one thing. The DNA on the hood latch, which Kratz claims is a silver bullet, is beyond shady.
First, go back to his disgusting press conference where described the crime in detail. He stressed the word sweat to the point I wanted to punch him in the face, and this was before I knew anything about the hood latch. It sticks out like a sore thumb. He was pushing a narrative.
Here's the problem, they didn't have test results when he did this.
Then there's the fact the cops clearly fed Brendan the hood latch. I'll post the transcript later. They totally forced it on him.
Edit: the transcript of the hood latch confession- F is the detective, B is for Dassey
F: OK, what else did he do, he did somethin' else, you need to tell us what he did, after that car is parked there. It's extremely important. (pause) Before you guys leave that car.
B: The he left the gun in the car.
F: That's not what I'm thinkin' about. He did something to that car. He took the plates and he, I believe he did something else in that car. (pause).
B: I don't know.
F: OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to the car?
B: Yeah.
F: What was that? (pause)
W: What did he do, Brendan?
W: It's OK, what did he do?
F: What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did? (pause)
B: I don't know what he did, but I know he went under.
F: He did raise the hood? (Brendan nods "yes") You remember that?
B: Yeah.
I've watched the series and seen all the evidence (from both sides). I came away (from the series) thinking Avery likely did it, his nephew totally innocent, and that Avery shouldn't be in jail based on that conviction.
Since examining all the evidence, especially "the most damming" stuff, it feels more like a total set up.
I don't have time right now to go through it all, but I'll point out one thing. The DNA on the hood latch, which Kratz claims is a silver bullet, is beyond shady.
First, go back to his disgusting press conference where described the crime in detail. He stressed the word sweat to the point I wanted to punch him in the face, and this was before I knew anything about the hood latch. It sticks out like a sore thumb. He was pushing a narrative.
Here's the problem, they didn't have test results when he did this.
Then there's the fact the cops clearly fed Brendan the hood latch. I'll post the transcript later. They totally forced it on him.
Edit: the transcript of the hood latch confession- F is the detective, B is for Dassey
F: OK, what else did he do, he did somethin' else, you need to tell us what he did, after that car is parked there. It's extremely important. (pause) Before you guys leave that car.
B: The he left the gun in the car.
F: That's not what I'm thinkin' about. He did something to that car. He took the plates and he, I believe he did something else in that car. (pause).
B: I don't know.
F: OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to the car?
B: Yeah.
F: What was that? (pause)
W: What did he do, Brendan?
W: It's OK, what did he do?
F: What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did? (pause)
B: I don't know what he did, but I know he went under.
F: He did raise the hood? (Brendan nods "yes") You remember that?
B: Yeah.
Last edited:
Watched this over the holidays and I'm on the fence. Some questions I can't get over (for both sides of the table):
One thing that doesn't add up for me was why was her blood in the RAV4 if he murdered her in his house or his garage? Why would he have put the body BACK in the RAV4, when all he had to do was move her over to the fire pit (the prosecution's theory)? If he killed her there was no reason to put her in the car. Her blood in the car makes me think she died elsewhere and her body was transported in the vehicle.
And the other side of things...if the cops set this up or someone else did it, how did they know Steven was going to have a bonfire that night? How did they know to put the body in the fire pit? Was this an annual bomb fire on Halloween that he has? If not, it's a hell of a coincidence that he got a fire going the same day she was murdered.
One thing that doesn't add up for me was why was her blood in the RAV4 if he murdered her in his house or his garage? Why would he have put the body BACK in the RAV4, when all he had to do was move her over to the fire pit (the prosecution's theory)? If he killed her there was no reason to put her in the car. Her blood in the car makes me think she died elsewhere and her body was transported in the vehicle.
And the other side of things...if the cops set this up or someone else did it, how did they know Steven was going to have a bonfire that night? How did they know to put the body in the fire pit? Was this an annual bomb fire on Halloween that he has? If not, it's a hell of a coincidence that he got a fire going the same day she was murdered.
Last edited:
You forgot Kratz was chairman of the crime victims rights board. He the most annoying animal I've ever come across.
The body was burned elsewhere and planted in the fire pit.
There were burnt remains found in 3 different places. They were found at the quarry, in a burn barrel, and the fire pit.
It doesn't help Avery all that much, it's still his property. But the remains were almost certainly moved.
As far as the blood, it doesn't make sense for any blood to be in the RAV on a couple levels:
A. Steven Avery somehow managed to clean up a rape/torture/throat slashing/murder scene without leaving a trace but he left blood in the vehicle?
B.The supposed source of Avery's blood was a cut on his finger but he didn't leave a single print in the vehicle. So he either wore gloves (preventing the blood from being left) or wiped the vehicle clean of prints but left the blood.
Obviously the doc was meant to make you see one side. The fact that it completely ignored all the strange stuff with Avery and Halbach (answering the door on just a towel once, specifically asking for her to come take the pics repeatedly, concealing that it was him calling so she would come), it ignored that he owned the types of restraining devices Brendan described him as using on her (he said it was for Jodi), etc., makes me value the doc much less.
That said, there was some awful stuff done by that PD. Their officers never should've been in his house or on his property during the investigation. The needle in the blood vial. The key magically appearing on the 5th search. The disgusting manner Brendan's confession was taken, etc.
If I were guessing, still not having seen all the evidence, I think there's a good chance Avery committed the crime, but that police planted some evidence to make sure it stuck. Terrible case all the way around.
That said, there was some awful stuff done by that PD. Their officers never should've been in his house or on his property during the investigation. The needle in the blood vial. The key magically appearing on the 5th search. The disgusting manner Brendan's confession was taken, etc.
If I were guessing, still not having seen all the evidence, I think there's a good chance Avery committed the crime, but that police planted some evidence to make sure it stuck. Terrible case all the way around.
Washington Post article on the Steven Avery case and the doc on Netflix:
I'm not really into this but this article seems to be a good summing-up of the particulars. Seeing that this is a hot topic on the board, I thought I'd share.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/01/06/how-listening-to-serial-made-us-doubt-making-a-murderer/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_makingamurderer-9pm:homepage/story
I'm not really into this but this article seems to be a good summing-up of the particulars. Seeing that this is a hot topic on the board, I thought I'd share.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/01/06/how-listening-to-serial-made-us-doubt-making-a-murderer/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_makingamurderer-9pm:homepage/story
What makes this story different is how egregious the first wrongful conviction was and how corrupt the second one is.
Spoilers***************
The discussion about what was left out has become big in the last week or so because the DA who prosecuted Both Avery and Dassey (Ken Kratz) has come out swinging.
The problem is Kratz, true to form, isn't very bright, makes deeply flawed arguments based on misleading statements, and outright lies.
He was on FOX news a couple days ago talking out his ass. He claimed he didn't use different theories of the crime for each trial when he clearly did. It's kind of hard to make a compelling argument when you blatantly lie while doing it.
His list (of what was left out) is a bunch of circumstantial, inadmissible, and questionable evidence. The good part is he is digging his own grave with one of his arguments.
Spoilers***************
The discussion about what was left out has become big in the last week or so because the DA who prosecuted Both Avery and Dassey (Ken Kratz) has come out swinging.
The problem is Kratz, true to form, isn't very bright, makes deeply flawed arguments based on misleading statements, and outright lies.
He was on FOX news a couple days ago talking out his ass. He claimed he didn't use different theories of the crime for each trial when he clearly did. It's kind of hard to make a compelling argument when you blatantly lie while doing it.
His list (of what was left out) is a bunch of circumstantial, inadmissible, and questionable evidence. The good part is he is digging his own grave with one of his arguments.
They're far worse.
They KNOWINGLY left a rapist on the street to put Avery away. Because the depositions for the civil suit were stopped when Avery was charged with murder it's never been proven on the record.
The timing of the charge prevented the two most important depositions. Both of them (DA and Sheriff) had no plausible deniability about the real perp. The real perp that was so dangerous he was under surveillance and had committed a sex crime at the exact same place as the sexual assault Avery was convicted of.
Another woman was brutally attacked and raped because of it.
I've never seen anything like it. It's so surreal that I had to breakdown and Google the case by episode 5 to see if it was real.
Is it too early to start a "Making a Murderer" discussion (potential spoilers)?
I just finished last night, which coincided with an interview of Jodi Stachowski where she apparently revealed that Avery had threatened her, beat her, and that she thought he was guilty.
I have to say, the documentary was well done and very compelling. I'm left feeling somewhat conflicted on what actually happened. I can't make a 100% conclusion either way. If I had to guess, I would say that there is a strong likelihood that the police were unethical and did manipulate evidence in this case. Their behavior was far from professional, but, I think it is more likely than not that Avery did the deed.
If you haven't read yet, there apparently is a handful of evidence that was omitted from the documentary. Two things that caught my attention - 1. Avery had called and specifically asked for Teresa on several occasions before the murder, 2. Avery had soaked the cat in kerosene before throwing it in the fire. Cruelty to animals is often an indicator of potential future violence.
I'm curious to get others impressions.
I just finished last night, which coincided with an interview of Jodi Stachowski where she apparently revealed that Avery had threatened her, beat her, and that she thought he was guilty.
I have to say, the documentary was well done and very compelling. I'm left feeling somewhat conflicted on what actually happened. I can't make a 100% conclusion either way. If I had to guess, I would say that there is a strong likelihood that the police were unethical and did manipulate evidence in this case. Their behavior was far from professional, but, I think it is more likely than not that Avery did the deed.
If you haven't read yet, there apparently is a handful of evidence that was omitted from the documentary. Two things that caught my attention - 1. Avery had called and specifically asked for Teresa on several occasions before the murder, 2. Avery had soaked the cat in kerosene before throwing it in the fire. Cruelty to animals is often an indicator of potential future violence.
I'm curious to get others impressions.
I'm not sure whether he did or not I just know that if I'm ever arrested for a crime I certainly hope it's not in Wisconsin. I'm also shocked that the police didn't at least look into the ex-boyfriend or roommate. Seems like natural places to look. I also think it's kind of coincidental that this came on the heels of a $36 million dollar lawsuit that looked as though the city would lose. Pretty wild situation all around. The only thing I'm sure of is there were some crooked cops involved and the DA was very shady (as was proven later).
The cops and DA's made it clear that they still believed Avery raped the woman for which he was cleared by the DNA test. The irony to me was at one point one of the cops implied that evidence in the rape case was tampered with i.e.: someone planted the pubic hair that cleared him of the crime, the same thing the defense implied about cops and the evidence on which the jury found him guilty in the murder trial. I got the impression the sheriff's' office wasn't going to let him walk again and wanted to make sure he was convicted.
I know this crap goes on everywhere and the people involved were not the brightest but I am permanently avoiding the state of Wisconsin.
I know this crap goes on everywhere and the people involved were not the brightest but I am permanently avoiding the state of Wisconsin.
I agree with all three opinions. The police were clearly biased and likely tampered with this case (and the original rape). That said, do you think he did it anyway?
Thought the series was pretty good. A lot of inconsistencies that make you think. If you like that kind of thing I would highly recommend listneng to the Serial podcast of An American Life about the Adnan Syed case. Thought it was awesome. PSU connection too. The narrator is from state college and married to a PSU professor.
