0
mistercwood

Making of a Murderer - Steven Avery

Recommended Posts

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

I searched everywhere and couldn't find an existing thread, apologies if this has been discussed previously. My partner and I have just finished watching this recent Netflix series, about the trial of Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey for the murder of Theresa Albach, and the defence's contention that he was being set-up by the local Sheriff's department.

*SPOILERS BELOW*

Anyone on here seen it or familiar with the case? I'm of the opinion he didn't do it, while still allowing that I could be wrong and he may in fact be the killer. What I don't get is that regardless of that, how on earth a jury could have come back with a Guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt? The prosecution's case was RIDDLED with holes, speculation, coercion and all around gross misconduct on the part of prosecutors and several of the LEO's involved. Even after searching around online, the additional incriminating evidence that apparently was left out of the series doesn't seem sufficient to remove all doubt.

Very interested in hearing from lawyer's and LEO's on this one (do Andy or Lawrocket still pop in here?).
You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If all you've seen is the "documentary", then you only have half of the story.

I'm familiar as can be with this story. It happened about 40 miles from where I live.

He's guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a lot more evidence than was shown in the film.

He was wrongly convicted of a sexual assault. But he was also convicted of numerous other crimes.

He spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. But he also spent several years in for crimes he did commit. He is a pretty evil dude. More than likely a psychopath. Almost certainly a murderer.

Here is just one link that covers some of the evidence that convicted him:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

If all you've seen is the "documentary", then you only have half of the story.

I'm familiar as can be with this story. It happened about 40 miles from where I live.

He's guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a lot more evidence than was shown in the film.

He was wrongly convicted of a sexual assault. But he was also convicted of numerous other crimes.

He spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. But he also spent several years in for crimes he did commit. He is a pretty evil dude. More than likely a psychopath. Almost certainly a murderer.

Here is just one link that covers some of the evidence that convicted him:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/



I was expecting/hoping someone on here may have been local. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Steven is any kind of saint, but a few burglary convictions don't necessarily mean he's ready to make the leap to homicide (nor does it mean he's not).

The link you've given is actually one of the ones I found myself - I went looking for articles that still maintained his guilt, for what was left out of the series. To be honest, I'm still not seeing anything damning to my mind. A few of the repeated elements I've found discussed elsewhere, with clarifications that make them less weighty. A few examples (please let me know if you've got finer details on any of these):

- The bullet that (allegedly) had JA's blood on it being tied forensically to Steven's rifle. I can't find anything that indicates it was actually type-matched from rifling or anything, as the fragment was too small to be reliable - only that it was a .22 round, and his rifle was also a .22.

- The fuzzy handcuffs. No DNA from Teresa was found on these, and I believe there's no way Steven could clean them that thoroughly and still leave them in as good a condition as they were. They also don't match Dassey's "confession" of how she was tied up - he said ropes and chains.

- The 2 allegations of sweat DNA - once on the car key and once on the hood latch of Teresa's car. The accounts I've come across are that refining it to "sweat" was an embellishment from Katz, and that there was simply contact DNA. This is easily (and often inadvertently) transferred e.g. on an investigator's glove. The car key situation is weirder, because it has Steven's DNA on it, but not Theresa's. How the hell does that happen? More on the key later.

- The "false name" allegation when booking Teresa to take the photos of the truck. He used his sister's name, who was the one actually owned the truck. This doesn't seem as odd as people are making it out to be.

The main points that still for me just haven't been explained to a reasonable degree (or at all):

- The key turning up magically in Steven's bedroom, found by Lenk practically in the open, despite numerous searches having missed it previously. Also why just that key, would she not have her house keys etc on a single fob or lanyard?

- Lenk's conflicting testimony on the timeline for arriving at the crime scene. He wasn't off by a little bit, he said it was around 6-7pm the first time then 2pm the second. That's not an error - one of those statements (under oath) was a flat out lie.

- Sgt Colborn calling in the license plate, and stating the year and model without prompting, while Teresa was still missing.

- The ex-boyfriend "guessing" Teresa's phone account password while trying to "help" and see if there was anything useful in there, combined with the clear evidence that messages were deleted after she had disappeared. The fact that he wasn't looked at more closely is bizarre to me.

- How the hell did the pelvis fragments end up in the quarry? Why would you burn most of the body in your backyard, then take a couple tiny pieces down the road and leave the bulk outside your house? It defies all logic.

- The total lack of physical evidence tying Teresa to either of the alleged murder locations, either the garage or the bedroom. The only piece was the bullet fragment, and the DNA analysis on that was compromised. The circumstances of its discovery are less than pristine, also.

- How Dassey's confession could even be admissible. It's blatant coercion of a kid who is, to be blunt, dumb as shit. Even if you think Steven did it, Brendan deserves a retrial at the bare minimum. He was NOT provided with an adequate defence, by any stretch of the imagination. >:(


I guess I just don't get the disconnect between Steven being supposedly smart and skilled enough to remove every trace of blood and DNA from the bedroom and garage (after multiple stab wounds, a cut throat, a head-shot and dismemberment??), but so dumb as to "hide" the car at the front of the lot rather than crush it and hide it deeper, and still leave his blood in it, and leave the car key in his bedroom. After killing a woman who people are going to come looking for at his house first. That's the crux of why I don't think he did it.
You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

If all you've seen is the "documentary", then you only have half of the story.

I'm familiar as can be with this story. It happened about 40 miles from where I live.

He's guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a lot more evidence than was shown in the film.

He was wrongly convicted of a sexual assault. But he was also convicted of numerous other crimes.

He spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. But he also spent several years in for crimes he did commit. He is a pretty evil dude. More than likely a psychopath. Almost certainly a murderer.

Here is just one link that covers some of the evidence that convicted him:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/



Ken Kratz was a guest with Judge Jeanine Pirro last night. He stated the documentary also excluded evidence indicating Halbach's cell phone and PDA remains were found in Avery's burn barrel.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mistercwood

[
- The bullet that (allegedly) had JA's blood on it being tied forensically to Steven's rifle. I can't find anything that indicates it was actually type-matched from rifling or anything, as the fragment was too small to be reliable - only that it was a .22 round, and his rifle was also a .22.


I guess I just don't get the disconnect between Steven being supposedly smart and skilled enough to remove every trace of blood and DNA from the bedroom and garage (after multiple stab wounds, a cut throat, a head-shot and dismemberment??), but so dumb as to "hide" the car at the front of the lot rather than crush it and hide it deeper, and still leave his blood in it, and leave the car key in his bedroom. After killing a woman who people are going to come looking for at his house first. That's the crux of why I don't think he did it.



One problem with refuting this is the "information overload" we have today. Every single detail is available with a quick search. Finding the original news stories from when it happened is not that easy. Often, searching the archives for older stuff takes a paid subscription.

He was a lot more than a burglar. He was convicted of (and credibly accused of) sexual assault and cruelty to an animal. The documentary (apparently) made it sound like an accident, but he deliberately doused his cat with gas and threw it into a bonfire.

As far as the bullet goes, the prosecution claimed a match to the rifle, not just the same caliber.

He wasn't all that smart. He was extremely arrogant.

I never met him personally, but I know people who did business at the junkyard and had met him.

Short version, after his exoneration and successful lawsuit, he thought he could do just about anything, and if he was accused, claim "I was framed."

And after OJ's acquittal, the "I was framed by the cops" became a common defense. I was used here in another pretty horrific murder, again of a young woman. The defense claimed it, but didn't really provide any adequate backup for it.
It was pretty clear, at least at the time, that Avery was targeting her, and more than likely killed her.

One thing to keep in mind - The psychology of "guilt vs innocence."

You saw the documentary and became convinced of his innocence. Reversing that mindset will be rather difficult.

I saw the whole thing unfold in the local news. Disappearance, search discovery, arrest & trial. I was highly skeptical when they found her car in the junkyard. I couldn't believe that he would be that careless or stupid. But as the story came out, I changed my mind. I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. Reversing my opinion will take more than a clearly biased documentary. They ignored, minimized or were incorrect on the evidence used to convict him. They focused on the exculpatory evidence and the "oddities" that foster that doubt.

Those "oddities" are present in just about every case. Big or small. That's what the "conspiracy theory" wingnuts focus on. They ignore the larger picture to focus on the little inconsistencies.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mistercwood

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

I searched everywhere and couldn't find an existing thread, apologies if this has been discussed previously. My partner and I have just finished watching this recent Netflix series, about the trial of Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey for the murder of Theresa Albach, and the defence's contention that he was being set-up by the local Sheriff's department.

*SPOILERS BELOW*

Anyone on here seen it or familiar with the case? I'm of the opinion he didn't do it, while still allowing that I could be wrong and he may in fact be the killer. What I don't get is that regardless of that, how on earth a jury could have come back with a Guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt? The prosecution's case was RIDDLED with holes, speculation, coercion and all around gross misconduct on the part of prosecutors and several of the LEO's involved. Even after searching around online, the additional incriminating evidence that apparently was left out of the series doesn't seem sufficient to remove all doubt.

Very interested in hearing from lawyer's and LEO's on this one (do Andy or Lawrocket still pop in here?).



I am reminded of the description of Robert Stroud in Alvin Karpis' memoir. Karpis described 'The Birdman of Alcatraz' as being one seriously evil sonofabitch, and noted that the push to grant clemency was by people wanted Burt Lancaster released, not Robert Stroud.

It is an unfortunate reality that our legal system is beyond imperfect. Little in the Judicial system is on a par with Perry Mason or 'Law and Order.' Even when a suspect is caught dead to rights, both the prosecution and defense are often so focused on procedural and legal nuances that the case becomes garbled beyond recognition.

Even at the Supreme Court level, the general perspective is that whether or not the defendant acted as claimed by either the prosecution or defense is largely irrelevant. Once something goes to court, whether there is factual guilt or innocence is immaterial.

Though there are most certainly people in the system who are entirely beyond redemption, and truly deserve to be put to sleep humanely, the capacity of the legal system to determine when execution is appropriate is nonexistent. As John Edgar Hoover put it, "justice is incidental to law and order."

Logic is a branch of mathematics. Faulty logic will render even the most rudimentary computer inoperative. Unfortunately, there is no math requirement to receive a Juris Doctor degree, nor is there one for the Bar. Cases can, and all too often are, based entirely upon classical fallacies of relevance, such that the arguments of both the prosecution and the defense are entirely meaningless.

Add to that the typically muddled collection of 'evidence,' such that there is no resemblance to 'CSI' whatsoever, and you have the blind leading the blind through the whole process.

The good news is that attorneys of any stripe tend to make TV Weather reporting look like an exact science - and they make a pretty good living while doing so.

Back to whether Steven Avery was involved in the demise of the woman in question. I haven't followed the case at all, but from what I can gather A) the woman is dead, B) her remains were apparently burned in a location under Avery's control and C) he was not demonstrably far, far away while all this took place. He is, and most likely will remain, screwed.

Given the track record of people who were released for emotional reasons, such as Jack Abbott I would want to see a coherent reevaluation of the case by something along the lines of The Innnocence Project before setting him loose again.

One of the charming aspects of our legal system is that, in defense of Truth, Justice and the American Way, we put miscreants in an environment where the conditions are entirely ghastly. Even the most 'innocent' of convicts has to adapt to prison social 'norms' in order to survive, wherein gangs, rape and raw brutality are the rule, not the exception. After a decade or two of daily life wherein the concept of 'fairness' is completely alien, one is badly suited to populating a free society.

Thus we have a situation where, after 18 years of incarceration for something that he did not do, there is a nonzero likelihood that he became someone who was quite capable of doing something much worse than that for which he was originally falsely convicted.

Did he do it? Opinions vary.

Either way, I suspect he knows exactly who DID do it if he didn't.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
winsor


...Thus we have a situation where, after 18 years of incarceration for something that he did not do, there is a nonzero likelihood that he became someone who was quite capable of doing something much worse than that for which he was originally falsely convicted...

Did he do it? Opinions vary.

Either way, I suspect he knows exactly who DID do it if he didn't.


BSBD,

Winsor



Not disagreeing with the other stuff you posted, but there's a pretty good case for Avery being a psychopath before he spent 18 years for the wrongful conviction. Don't forget that he spent several years behind bars for stuff he did before. And part of the "bad" 18 years was sentenced for other stuff that he did around the same time.

The people I know who had met him (some before the long stretch, some after) all agreed that he was a seriously spooky guy. As I noted above, these were people who did business with the junkyard, either buying parts or selling junk cars. None of them had any desire to get to know him any better.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand why this show is so popular at the moment.

I watched the first 2 episodes and was depressed by how entirely unlikable absolutely everyone in it is. The Averys. The Cops. The Judicial folks... I can't watch any more because I just don't care enough about anyone in the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you just expressed most people's feelings on our judicial system.

It's a depressing show to me as well. I've always liked crime detective type shows and a lot of the documentaries on major crimes, but this one, meh. I just felt sad for almost everyone in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have watched it all and also done a reasonable amount of reading up on it.

Quote

Back to whether Steven Avery was involved in the demise of the woman in question. I haven't followed the case at all, but from what I can gather A) the woman is dead, B) her remains were apparently burned in a location under Avery's control and C) he was not demonstrably far, far away while all this took place. He is, and most likely will remain, screwed.



A few points on the above: A) Yes, she is. B) It is most likely that she was burned in a quarry about 3 miles from the yard and then moved there in a barrel and dumped on the fire pit. Bones were found in the quarry, the barrel and the fire pit but there is no reason for them to be moved from the Avery's to the quarry at all so logic makes it the other way round. Also the fire wouldn't have burned hot enough in the fire pit to burn her to the extent she was burned. C) He was there but he has a pretty good alibi: calls from prison, seen by others etc.

I think the line I read that summed it up for me the most (and I believe he is innocent) is that he can't be both a criminal mastermind and a bumbling idiot. Apparently he can expertly clean up DNA from a gunshot in a cluttered garage, leaving no evidence at all, but he can't wipe his own blood off the car. He can simultaneously hide evidence of his crimes whilst leaving a key in his bedroom and a car on his own property.

The problem with the case lies in that TA is dead and is found on his property so it is either: a) Him, b) One of his relatives who live on the property (I think this is most likely, probably his brother in law but no evidence really for this, just a gut feel), c) A random 3rd party who knows SA is likely to take the fall or d) the cops (very unlikely). In my mind there is no doubt at all that, regardless of who killed her, SA was framed for the murder - the key, the blood, the lack of physical evidence, the bullet and Lenk all make it look like they had decided on the murderer and built the case around it rather than using the evidence to point to the guilty party.

What is most disturbing about the whole thing, to me, is his nephew. The video of the defense council's "investigator" getting his statement is some of the most disturbing TV I have ever watched. This kid is essentially mentally handicapped and is coerced into his testimony by cops and this investigator - for fucks sake they use this statement as a evidence for the prosecution. It is utterly outrageous and I am 100% sure that kid had nothing to do with any murder and yet he will rot in prison until 2048 at the earliest unless his case is reopened.

As with Adnan Syed in Serial, these shows highlight the very worst of the US legal system and it is truly scary to watch. Decide who you think is guilty and then build a case to get them, regardless of who actually committed the crime. Add to this 'Trial by Media' and you have a really fucked up situation.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While Avery would never be accused of being a Boy Scout, there are several things that bothered me about this situation.
His 10 million lawsuit against the county.
A Milwaukee news chopper did some aerial footage of the burn barrel and the snow wasn't melted around it.
The nephew seemed to be undergoing some serious sleep deprivation and/or phsycotropic drug use during his testimony.
The prosecuting attorney was leading him around like a horse on a bridle while there was no objection from the defense.
While by no means conclusive, it does make a person wonder.
“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if he was guilty or not, but I do know that I think there was a lot of dirty shit being pulled by the cops and prosecution, enough so that I'd rather see him walk. Based on what I saw on the show, and what I've read rebutting the show's viewpoint, I still think there was enough reasonable doubt to let him go.

The fact that the nephew was convicted is a SERIOUS miscarriage of justice, and the fact that his first lawyer has cancer is nowhere near enough punishment for that sleazy piece of garbage.

I'd rather have a hundred murderers walking free than one innocent person in prison. Why? Because I don't want to be the innocent person in prison.
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grue

I don't know if he was guilty or not, but I do know that I think there was a lot of dirty shit being pulled by the cops and prosecution, enough so that I'd rather see him walk. Based on what I saw on the show, and what I've read rebutting the show's viewpoint, I still think there was enough reasonable doubt to let him go.

The fact that the nephew was convicted is a SERIOUS miscarriage of justice, and the fact that his first lawyer has cancer is nowhere near enough punishment for that sleazy piece of garbage.

I'd rather have a hundred murderers walking free than one innocent person in prison. Why? Because I don't want to be the innocent person in prison.



What!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cvfd1399

***I don't know if he was guilty or not, but I do know that I think there was a lot of dirty shit being pulled by the cops and prosecution, enough so that I'd rather see him walk. Based on what I saw on the show, and what I've read rebutting the show's viewpoint, I still think there was enough reasonable doubt to let him go.

The fact that the nephew was convicted is a SERIOUS miscarriage of justice, and the fact that his first lawyer has cancer is nowhere near enough punishment for that sleazy piece of garbage.

I'd rather have a hundred murderers walking free than one innocent person in prison. Why? Because I don't want to be the innocent person in prison.



What!!

Just like it says. I'm not willing to have my life ruined by the government for something I didn't do, and it'd be hypocritical of me to expect others to be subjected to the same
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had time to do a bit more research, from the link you provided especially. I even read all 150 pages of Dassey's "confession" (the 3rd one, I think), after someone on the "guilty" side of the fence linked to it.

I still don't consider the evidence that the doc left out to be iron clad. Much of it isn't evidence at all, it's hearsay or incredibly easy to explain away logically.

I do believe it's still possible that Steven killed her. There is, however, no way in hell it happened the way Brendan described it, and his "confession" was a cornerstone of the State's case against Steven.

The case was mismanaged from the get-go, and when people questioned the cops/prosecution they doubled down on their belief that they had the right guy. There was reasonable doubt, and no matter how much of a creep Steven actually is (and even if he killed her), he should not have been convicted on the evidence presented.

Brendan is guilty of being dumb, nice enough, and believing everything he's told. That's about it in terms of the case. It's terrifying that the "confession" dragged out of him could actually be admissible in court.

Finally on a side note - I'm glad to see that Boobies has maintained their rightful high position in the poll... ;)

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quinlan: Our friend Vargas has some very special ideas about police procedure. He seems to think it don't matter whether killers hang or not, so long as we obey the fine print.

Vargas: Captain, I don't think a policeman should work like a dog catcher in putting criminals behind bars. No! In any free country, a policeman is supposed to enforce the law, and the law protects the guilty as well as the innocent.

Quinlan: Our job is tough enough.

Vargas: It's supposed to be. It has to be tough. A policeman's job is only easy in a police state. That's the whole point, Captain - who's the boss, the cop or the law?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For you guys following this closely. Was the actual conviction based heavily on the confession of his nephew. I'm curious if his case being thrown out will also mean that SA's case will lose it's footing.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJL

For you guys following this closely. Was the actual conviction based heavily on the confession of his nephew. I'm curious if his case being thrown out will also mean that SA's case will lose it's footing.



I believe in the end it was left out of the trial for Steven, mostly because of how dubiously legal it looked.
You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0