Author Topic: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary  (Read 16400 times)

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2016, 09:33:03 AM »
I liked the series though it had a massive slant toward the accused.  The filmakers have since said it was "objective" but I beg to differ--there seemed to be lots of stuff they were leaving out.

I remember one part which struck me (during the trial) and I said out loud, "They found handcuffs?!   What the fuck?  I want to hear about these!!"  But they never touched on it even for a second.

I think it was pretty objective, and all the players from both sides have been voicing their opinions.  I have yet to see any compelling evidence that was left out as the prosecution keeps claiming.  The one thing Kratz keeps harping on is the sweat DNA from the hood latch that was left out, which the defense has already rebutted.  1. there is no such thing as "sweat DNA", and 2. The crime scene tech that opened the hood admitted that he didn't change gloves before he opened the hood, so he could have inadvertently contaminated it with Avery DNA.

There was a crowd funding effort to obtain the trial transcripts.  You can read them all here if you like:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #51 on: January 27, 2016, 09:35:24 AM »
I really liked his two lawyers, but I don't understand why that juror didn't get striken for cause, and why they didn't get jurors from another county. Both were options available to them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/41ala0/the_issues_with_bias_in_steven_averys_jury_and/

Because you only get 6 strikes to remove people from the jury and the defense used them up to remove even more biased jurors.  Dean Strang did an interview where he explained it, that's where my information came from.

Yes it was.  In fact one of the jurors was the father of a Manitowoc sherrif (and a volunteer sherrif himself), and one was related to a county clerk.  The defense was aware of this, but had already used their 6 pre-emptive strikes to remove jurors that were even more biased than the ones they left in.  It's fucking mind blowing.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #52 on: January 27, 2016, 09:38:54 AM »
So, we, the populace, with our lurid demand for sensationalism (which, in turn, gives rise to its creation in and by the media), are in large part ultimately responsible for robbing people like Steven and Brendan Avery of the opportunity for a fair trial.

Negative.  Ken Kratz is largely responsible.  He held numerous press conferences to describe in detail his graphic account of how the crime went down.  Not only was his account demonstrably false from the evidence collected, it's highly unethical (and I believe illegal) for him to behave that way.

Tainting of the public (and thus juror pool) could have largely been avoided if he simply would not have held press conferences describing his graphic fantasy of how the crime went down.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27197
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #53 on: January 27, 2016, 09:46:00 AM »
I really liked his two lawyers, but I don't understand why that juror didn't get striken for cause, and why they didn't get jurors from another county. Both were options available to them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/41ala0/the_issues_with_bias_in_steven_averys_jury_and/

Because you only get 6 strikes to remove people from the jury and the defense used them up to remove even more biased jurors.  Dean Strang did an interview where he explained it, that's where my information came from.

Yes it was.  In fact one of the jurors was the father of a Manitowoc sherrif (and a volunteer sherrif himself), and one was related to a county clerk.  The defense was aware of this, but had already used their 6 pre-emptive strikes to remove jurors that were even more biased than the ones they left in.  It's fucking mind blowing.

You get 6 strikes for any reason, and unlimited strikes "for cause."  This was a clear case where they could have removed the juror for cause.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 38
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #54 on: January 27, 2016, 09:47:37 AM »
So, we, the populace, with our lurid demand for sensationalism (which, in turn, gives rise to its creation in and by the media), are in large part ultimately responsible for robbing people like Steven and Brendan Avery of the opportunity for a fair trial.

Negative.  Ken Kratz is largely responsible.  He held numerous press conferences to describe in detail his graphic account of how the crime went down.  Not only was his account demonstrably false from the evidence collected, it's highly unethical (and I believe illegal) for him to behave that way.

Tainting of the public (and thus juror pool) could have largely been avoided if he simply would not have held press conferences describing his graphic fantasy of how the crime went down.

That's why, in assigning responsibility to us (the populace), I added the "in large part" and "ultimately" qualifiers (bolded above).  If we (the populace) did not demand sensationalist news stories, then the media would not report them, and lurid prosecutorial press conferences would not taint the jury pool (and, indeed, no reason would exist for holding them in the first place).  (Note that none of this absolves Kratz for any misconduct, to the extent that there was misconduct, in holding the press conferences in the manner in which he did.)

Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #55 on: January 27, 2016, 09:56:44 AM »
While I can't stand the idea of trial-by-public-opinion, on the flipside, knowing the public was completely ignorant of significant trials, imagine the legal abuse that could happen?  Man, most of the people I know don't watch the "real" news as it is--if something doesn't appear in their Facebook newsfeed via friggin' Huffpost, they've never heard of it.  (I wish that wasn't true.  Yeah, I'm more than just a little cynical.)
« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 09:58:28 AM by Kaspian »

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #56 on: January 27, 2016, 10:03:39 AM »
I really liked his two lawyers, but I don't understand why that juror didn't get striken for cause, and why they didn't get jurors from another county. Both were options available to them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/41ala0/the_issues_with_bias_in_steven_averys_jury_and/

Because you only get 6 strikes to remove people from the jury and the defense used them up to remove even more biased jurors.  Dean Strang did an interview where he explained it, that's where my information came from.

Yes it was.  In fact one of the jurors was the father of a Manitowoc sherrif (and a volunteer sherrif himself), and one was related to a county clerk.  The defense was aware of this, but had already used their 6 pre-emptive strikes to remove jurors that were even more biased than the ones they left in.  It's fucking mind blowing.

You get 6 strikes for any reason, and unlimited strikes "for cause."  This was a clear case where they could have removed the juror for cause.

I don't have an answer for that, that's the way Strang explained it.  I'm guessing he is aware how jury selection works and that they were denied the ability to strike him for cause.  With the judge that was presiding over it, and the way everything else went down, I would not be surprised in the least if they simply said that was not a valid cause to strike the juror.

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #57 on: January 27, 2016, 10:07:22 AM »
Yes, you should, and you state with absolute certainty that you would, but how confident can you really be in your own ability to suspend your previously-formed beliefs and impartially weigh the evidence presented to you at trial and arrive at a verdict based solely on that evidence using the burden-of-proof standard required by law should you actually be called to serve on a jury related to this case?

I'm not sure how "Of course, I should, and I will." translates to the "absolute certainly" you accord my statement. I would try to the best of my abilities, as an educated individual who does a pretty decent (albeit imperfect, because, you know that pesky human thing) job in her regular life giving people the benefit of the doubt.

The press does a lot of things wrong, but like someone mentions above, imagine how much worse it would be if we had an unfree press.

I'm not a huge fan of trial by jury, in large part because of all the instances in which juries have gotten it wrong. But I'm not sure what the alternative would be. Trial solely by judge seems rife for abuse. Perhaps eliminating the need for a unanimous verdict? If we had not demanded a unanimous verdict, Avery would likely not have been convicted, considering how they voted the first time around.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #58 on: January 27, 2016, 10:13:42 AM »
Thanks rebs.  Just when I thought I was going to get my life back on track and start being productive at work, you sucked me back in.  If anyone needs me i'll be down the rabbit hole.

According to this article neither side objected to that dude being on the jury, which is fucking mind blowing:

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamurdererjurorvolunteer.html

Obviously i'm not a lawyer, but I can't fathom why the defense didn't strike him for cause. 

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4344
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #59 on: January 27, 2016, 10:20:53 AM »
While I can't stand the idea of trial-by-public-opinion, on the flipside, knowing the public was completely ignorant of significant trials, imagine the legal abuse that could happen?  Man, most of the people I know don't watch the "real" news as it is--if something doesn't appear in their Facebook newsfeed via friggin' Huffpost, they've never heard of it.  (I wish that wasn't true.  Yeah, I'm more than just a little cynical.)
What's your concern, that the judge could effectively silence one counsel?

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 38
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #60 on: January 27, 2016, 10:23:56 AM »
I'm not sure how "Of course, I should, and I will." translates to the "absolute certainly" you accord my statement.

Well, "I will" means "I will," not "I will try to the best of my abilities" or whatever, but I didn't mean in any way to pick on your post in particular; I was just using it as a convenient platform to frame the point I was trying to make (namely, that it is probably impossible for anyone to be completely impartial and limit their judgment to the evidence presented at trial once they've already been exposed in advance to reports regarding the case, which is the situation the actual jurors in the Avery trials found themselves).

Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #61 on: January 27, 2016, 10:27:55 AM »
While I can't stand the idea of trial-by-public-opinion, on the flipside, knowing the public was completely ignorant of significant trials, imagine the legal abuse that could happen?  Man, most of the people I know don't watch the "real" news as it is--if something doesn't appear in their Facebook newsfeed via friggin' Huffpost, they've never heard of it.  (I wish that wasn't true.  Yeah, I'm more than just a little cynical.)
What's your concern, that the judge could effectively silence one counsel?

No, I would think that if we were so worried about 'sensationalism' that details of all trials were not made public, then police, judges, attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants, could all collude behind closed doors and nobody would ever be the wiser.  Knowing people are watching adds a level of transparency to proceedings.  ...For both sides.

michaelrecycles

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 183
  • Location: Monterey Bay
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #62 on: January 27, 2016, 11:07:04 AM »
But presumption of innocence is not a wisconsin thing, it's a USA thing. .

Of course. My point was that it is something that takes place in the courtroom -- not in my living room. I have no obligation to withhold judgement when I am thinking of this case in the privacy of my own home. If I happen to be on a jury in the future? Of course I should, and I will.

Yes, you should, and you state with absolute certainty that you would, but how confident can you really be in your own ability to suspend your previously-formed beliefs and impartially weigh the evidence presented to you at trial and arrive at a verdict based solely on that evidence using the burden-of-proof standard required by law should you actually be called to serve on a jury related to this case?

This is why I believe it important to practice skepticism and suspend judgement, not until when we feel sure, but until proof is made. If we are called to be jurors and not in that practice, I think doing our best to be impartial is harder than if we have already been taking that approach outside the courtroom.

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #63 on: January 27, 2016, 12:38:57 PM »
I'm not sure how "Of course, I should, and I will." translates to the "absolute certainly" you accord my statement.

Well, "I will" means "I will," not "I will try to the best of my abilities" or whatever ...

Fowler seems to agree with justajane's position here. See The King's English (2nd ed 1908), ch 2. Fowler uses very complicated prose, and modern readers might help the original difficult to follow, so I summarise it below.

According to Fowler, "I will" means "It is my will..." and it has two possible uses in English: (1) the "pure" usage, in which case it merely expresses the speaker's wish and does not make any prediction about the future (his example is "I will have my way."), and (2) the "coloured future" usage, where "I will" is used in conjunction with another verb to make a qualified statement about the future. The difference between the two usages is that the first is a statement about the present and the second is a statement about the future. From the context, it looks like justajane intended the second use. The reason that Fowler calls this the "coloured future" is that, although it is a statement about the future, it is "coloured" by the fact that it might not come to pass and is merely a statement of intention, not a definitive prediction (which is consistent with what justajane said she meant).

The original post by justajane also said "I should", and Fowler analyses that as giving a "conditional command" to oneself. In other words, in saying "I should", justajane is saying that if she is in fact on a jury in the future, she will command herself to act as she described in the post.

According to Fowler, the correct form of the uncoloured "plain" first-person future (an "impersonal prophecy" as Fowler calls it) is "I shall...", which justajane did not say.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 01:01:54 PM by Cathy »

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27197
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #64 on: January 27, 2016, 01:02:02 PM »
Thanks rebs.  Just when I thought I was going to get my life back on track and start being productive at work, you sucked me back in.  If anyone needs me i'll be down the rabbit hole.

According to this article neither side objected to that dude being on the jury, which is fucking mind blowing:

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamurdererjurorvolunteer.html

Obviously i'm not a lawyer, but I can't fathom why the defense didn't strike him for cause.

Yeah.  Like I said, I liked Steven's two lawyers, and think in general they did a great job, but they didn't on that one, and then whined about a biased juror afterwards.  IDK wtf was up with that.

Weird case.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #65 on: January 27, 2016, 01:14:41 PM »
Thanks rebs.  Just when I thought I was going to get my life back on track and start being productive at work, you sucked me back in.  If anyone needs me i'll be down the rabbit hole.

According to this article neither side objected to that dude being on the jury, which is fucking mind blowing:

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamurdererjurorvolunteer.html

Obviously i'm not a lawyer, but I can't fathom why the defense didn't strike him for cause.

Yeah.  Like I said, I liked Steven's two lawyers, and think in general they did a great job, but they didn't on that one, and then whined about a biased juror afterwards.  IDK wtf was up with that.

Weird case.

From that article I posted:

Quote
This may have been because, during questioning, Wardman, who used to work in a foundry, said that he had been arrested once for OWI 10 years ago, during which an officer from another agency took $3 cash he had and then lied under oath about Wardman "robbing" him, suggesting Wardman might be open to a framing defense despite his ongoing ties to the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department. Asked if he thought officers could plant evidence or alter evidence, he said in jury selection "depends if they didn't like him." He also said he had "no opinion" about Avery's guilt or innocence and that he believed he could give Avery a fair shake.

"I ain't really got no view," he said.

He also said he believed that police officers are capable of lying under oath, and that he had not talked to his son about the Avery case. "No," he said. "But he had to take training or something for some kind of gizmo they've used. Other than that, no." He said he was referring to a stun belt, according to the court transcripts obtained by OnMilwaukee.

"Do you think that, um do you think the police officers would come into court and lie?" Wardman was asked during jury selection. "Yeah," he said. "Because they can get away with it. Some judges believe them." Juries, too, he agreed.

Empahsis mine.  Sounds like it may have been a risky strategic move.  On the one hand he is the father of a sherrif and a volunteer sherrif himself, on the other hand he claims to have personally encountered officers lying and seems open to the possibility of a framing defense.  I don't know, seems like such an obvious wrong call to not strike him though.

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 38
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #66 on: January 27, 2016, 01:46:10 PM »
Fowler seems to agree with justajane's position here.

Ok, fair enough, I unfairly assigned to the word "will" (as used in justajane's post) the meaning of the word "shall" (according to Fowler), but, again, only as a matter of convenience in making the point that it may be impossible for someone to totally suspend preconceived beliefs (even if one fully intends to do so and "commands oneself" to do so (subject, of course, to the "colouring" of the future by its inherent uncertainty)), which is exactly the task the legal system asks of jurors like those who served in the Avery trials.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #67 on: January 27, 2016, 02:11:55 PM »
I think it's pretty likely that an Avery killed her, too.  Probably not in the garage and definitely not in the bedroom (that was all from the Brendan guessing game confession).  I think her vehicle was probably spotted on the property illegally (hence the check-in call), and not reported, so that the search could be done by the volunteers.  Otherwise it's a poisoned fruit that would have to be thrown out. 

Key was almost certainly planted.  As was the bullet in the garage.  Likely the shooting happened elsewhere on the property.  How does the garage figure in?  I think they probably stored the body in there while trying to figure out what to do.  Hence a small area (pooled blood) to clean up and not a massive spray.  Although, with a .22 rifle, there's a chance the bullet didn't have an exit wound, and if that's the case they very well could have killed her in the garage.  But I think elsewhere on the property is more likely and the bullet in the garage was a plant to bolster Brendan's "confession".

Also, some of the other facts that swirl around Steven bother me.  The fascination with fire.  Torture and killing at least 1 animal we know of.  His ex-fiance now coming out and saying he beat her and threatened her.  Blocking his number when he called the victim.  Any one of them alone is bothersome, but all together paints a pretty dark picture of this guy. 

2lazy2retire

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2016, 07:14:12 AM »
I've watched the first 9 episodes over the last few days.  I am in shock and haven't fully processed everything.  There seems to be a lot of unanswered questions, and a whole lot of stuff that doesn't make any sense.  I need to think about this for a few more days. Just posting to follow along at this point.

haha - yeah

It's a story being presented to us, so I do genuinely wonder how many details are left out (intentionally or not).

While watching the show, I kept thinking there must be an episode where these shitty cops and investigators get a chance to speak. But the fact they declined to be interviewed makes me feel like they had more to hide.

Also, while I'm rambling --- I did initially think it was surprising that Steven Avery did not testify. But then I think maybe the lawyers suggested he not go on stand since he's not the smartest guy and they could probably easily confuse him up there.

It was a several week murder trial.  Tons of stuff was necessarily left out.  To include every possible detail that was presented to the jury would have turned it into a several hundred hour documentary.  I just watched an interview with Ken Kratz and he raised some objections of evidence left out:

1. Steven Avery's DNA found on the hood latch of her car
2. The bullet that was found in his garage was in fact fired from his personal gun
3. Brendan's confession went into detail about how they cleaned up the garage with bleach, and police did confiscate a pair of Brendan's pants with bleach stains

1.  I don't know how convincing this is.  DNA could have been transferred from the blood in the vehicle (or some other source) and incidentally placed there when an officer attempted to open the latch of the car.  That was the rebuttal offered by Dean Strang at least.

2. This isn't surprising and honestly seems like an irrelevant detail if you buy the story that it was planted evidence in the first place.  Seems entirely plausible that if you were going to plant DNA on a bullet, it just makes sense to use one of the thousands of bullets you would surely find on his property.  I mean they had 40 acres, plenty of guns, and used the guns all the time.  They never hid that fact. I never had any doubt that the bullet originated from a gun that was on the property.

3. I also have bleach stained clothing in my house.  It was not from cleaning up a murder scene though.  I find it hard to believe that those two were able to stab, slit her throat, cut off her hair, and shoot her 11 times in the garage, and then meticulously sanitize every last trace of DNA from the garage.  While at the same time leaving bone fragments in multiple locations, his own blood all over the inside of the car, which was parked on his own property and not crushed like the thousands of other cars he crushed (they own a 40 acre salvage lot and had tons of crushed vehicles), and left the key just chilling on his bedroom floor.  It seems totally inconsistent to me that were able to sanitize the garage so thoroughly that no DNA was ever recovered (although I was led to believe there was a plethora of deer and human DNA in the garage, just none of Teresa's (except on the bullet)) like some kind of forensic experts, but they totally neglected all of the other evidence that pointed to them.  They are simultaneously criminal mastermind forensic experts, and totally inept mentally handicapped yokels.


Speaking of being inept mentally handicapped yokels, the entire family seemed mentally handicapped.  Just about every member of the family, as well as spouses and girlfriends associated with the family all seemed to be severely mentally handicapped.

On that subject Len the lawyer came across as a character straight out of the movie deliverance

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2016, 07:27:54 AM »
I think it's pretty likely that an Avery killed her, too.  Probably not in the garage and definitely not in the bedroom (that was all from the Brendan guessing game confession).  I think her vehicle was probably spotted on the property illegally (hence the check-in call), and not reported, so that the search could be done by the volunteers.  Otherwise it's a poisoned fruit that would have to be thrown out. 

Interesting. I had never thought of it in those terms. But what do you mean by spotted illegally?

This lends credence to the possibility that an Avery other than Steven did it, because why in the hell would you "hide" a car on a massive lot so close to your trailer? In general, that's what I don't get about any of this if Steven is the killer. Why burn the body by your trailer?

Or maybe he's just that stupid. But I think the media has unfairly conflated class/education level and intelligence with this case. It's obvious Brendan is delayed, but I didn't get the sense that either Steven or his parents are stupid. Sure, they use bad grammar, but I'm not one to think that class is necessarily tied to intelligence. They seemed pretty savvy to me, and Steven even granted after that fact that he was an idiot for moving back to Manitowoc County.

It seems pretty likely that she was killed somewhere else on the property and either transported injured or dead in the car, as evidenced by her blood and hair in the back of the car. Obviously Steven's blood in the car is a stumbling block. I have seen it convincingly rebutted that pin pricks in blood vials by the actual phlebotomist is fairly common, so I don't know what to think about that anymore. 

HairyUpperLip

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2016, 07:44:02 AM »
It seems pretty likely that she was killed somewhere else on the property and either transported injured or dead in the car, as evidenced by her blood and hair in the back of the car. Obviously Steven's blood in the car is a stumbling block. I have seen it convincingly rebutted that pin pricks in blood vials by the actual phlebotomist is fairly common, so I don't know what to think about that anymore.

Have you spent much time on salvage yards? Cars aren't really "hidden" on them and if you're looking for a particular make/model your eyes will find it. I'm sure anyone that has spent time in salvage yards sourcing parts would agree with me on that one. Also the piss poor job of putting cardboard boxes on it is weird/interesting itself.

But with the blood vial, it wasn't just the prick it was also pretty clear that the evidence box was opened, but not in any official manner.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2016, 08:24:30 AM »
I think it's pretty likely that an Avery killed her, too.  Probably not in the garage and definitely not in the bedroom (that was all from the Brendan guessing game confession).  I think her vehicle was probably spotted on the property illegally (hence the check-in call), and not reported, so that the search could be done by the volunteers.  Otherwise it's a poisoned fruit that would have to be thrown out. 

Interesting. I had never thought of it in those terms. But what do you mean by spotted illegally?

This lends credence to the possibility that an Avery other than Steven did it, because why in the hell would you "hide" a car on a massive lot so close to your trailer? In general, that's what I don't get about any of this if Steven is the killer. Why burn the body by your trailer?

Or maybe he's just that stupid. But I think the media has unfairly conflated class/education level and intelligence with this case. It's obvious Brendan is delayed, but I didn't get the sense that either Steven or his parents are stupid. Sure, they use bad grammar, but I'm not one to think that class is necessarily tied to intelligence. They seemed pretty savvy to me, and Steven even granted after that fact that he was an idiot for moving back to Manitowoc County.

It seems pretty likely that she was killed somewhere else on the property and either transported injured or dead in the car, as evidenced by her blood and hair in the back of the car. Obviously Steven's blood in the car is a stumbling block. I have seen it convincingly rebutted that pin pricks in blood vials by the actual phlebotomist is fairly common, so I don't know what to think about that anymore.

I'm fairly certain they mentioned in the documentary that Steven's IQ was about 70 as well.  I don't know where they got that from, or how how accurate it is, but I don't really doubt it either.  Of course this assumes you give weight to an IQ test in the first place.  I wouldn't be surprised if the entire family had generations of inbreeding and all of their IQs were around that level.

The pin prick in the blood vial is ubiquitous - it's how the blood gets into the vial.  Why they made such a big deal about it, and why the lab that Buting initially called told him "we don't do that" I don't understand unless it was some miscommunication between him and the lab.  It ended up not being a big deal in the trial or the documentary for those reasons.  I wish the documentary would have taken the extra 10 seconds to explain that it was not sinister though and it is common practice instead of misleading viewers.  The evidence seal being broken was also not a big deal, because it was broken in 2003 in the presence of his lawyer when they used it to obtain a sample of his DNA to exonerate him.  However I think the vial should have been resealed with evidence tape after it was accessed, so that if you needed to access it at a future date there would still be a valid seal and valid chain of custody.  I don't know why that procedure wasn't followed, because they obviously kept the vial.

I think what he is alluding to with "spotted illegally" is from Colborn's suspicious call about the license plate.  It's never identified exactly when he call was placed, but Colborn guessed it was on November 3 or 4 I believe (before the car was officially found).  Many have suggested that Colborn was illegally searching the property while off duty, found the car, and called it in with the suspicious call we heard.  If he was in fact looking at the car when he called it in, and it was before the car was officially found, it would mean he performed an illegal search and the evidence would be inadmissible in court.  So the speculation goes that he called it in from his cell phone (off duty) to confirm (the suspicious call to Lynn we heard in the documentary), and then made sure it was found legally on Nov 5 so it would be admissible.   Or alternatively he spotted it off property, called it in to confirm, and then moved it to Avery's property to be "officially" found on Nov 5.

As much as I dislike Colborn and that entire sheriff's department, I think either of those scenarios is a stretch and the truth is probably less sinister. 

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2016, 08:38:53 AM »
Have you spent much time on salvage yards? Cars aren't really "hidden" on them and if you're looking for a particular make/model your eyes will find it. I'm sure anyone that has spent time in salvage yards sourcing parts would agree with me on that one. Also the piss poor job of putting cardboard boxes on it is weird/interesting itself.

No, I've never been to a salvage yard. But I understand the concept of one. In my post, I put "hidden" in parentheses to imply that it would not, in fact, be hidden.

The point still stands, though -- if you were Avery, why would you place the car so close to your trailer when you could have placed it at the opposite end of the salvage yard?

I agree that all the stuff stacked around the car was bizarre.

I don't put much stock in IQ tests, in large part because they are classist. It does not surprise me in the slightest that the Avery family would score lower on an IQ test. People from lower class backgrounds tend to score lower.

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2016, 08:45:28 AM »

No, I've never been to a salvage yard. But I understand the concept of one. In my post, I put "hidden" in parentheses to imply that it would not, in fact, be hidden.

The point still stands, though -- if you were Avery, why would you place the car so close to your trailer when you could have placed it at the opposite end of the salvage yard?

I agree that all the stuff stacked around the car was bizarre.


Another thing that doesn't make sense is why try to hide it in the manner at all?   There is a car crusher on the property that Avery knew how to operate.  Instead of stacking stuff on the car to hide it, why not just crush it and get rid of it that way? 

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2016, 08:59:57 AM »
I think it's pretty likely that an Avery killed her, too.  Probably not in the garage and definitely not in the bedroom (that was all from the Brendan guessing game confession).  I think her vehicle was probably spotted on the property illegally (hence the check-in call), and not reported, so that the search could be done by the volunteers.  Otherwise it's a poisoned fruit that would have to be thrown out. 

Interesting. I had never thought of it in those terms. But what do you mean by spotted illegally?

This lends credence to the possibility that an Avery other than Steven did it, because why in the hell would you "hide" a car on a massive lot so close to your trailer? In general, that's what I don't get about any of this if Steven is the killer. Why burn the body by your trailer?


Burning the body is easy - they probably thought that once the body was reduced to ash that it wouldn't be identifiable.  They didn't account for teeth, which is pretty easy to understand - I wouldn't have thought about that either, I think most people would miss that. 

The car on the lot?  Yeah that's a tough one.  I don't think Colborn or anyone else moved the car, but I do think that he saw it at night on the 4th and then made sure that it was found later on during the official search of the property.  That would also explain why the brother and boyfriend were acting so oddly when interviewed that day. 

HairyUpperLip

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #75 on: January 29, 2016, 09:47:22 AM »
Have you spent much time on salvage yards? Cars aren't really "hidden" on them and if you're looking for a particular make/model your eyes will find it. I'm sure anyone that has spent time in salvage yards sourcing parts would agree with me on that one. Also the piss poor job of putting cardboard boxes on it is weird/interesting itself.

No, I've never been to a salvage yard. But I understand the concept of one. In my post, I put "hidden" in parentheses to imply that it would not, in fact, be hidden.

Yeah, I misunderstood that - my apologies. :)


brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #76 on: February 01, 2016, 06:30:15 AM »
For those interested, there's a free rebuttal podcast available on iHeart Radio titled "Rebutting a Murderer." I believe it's a 10 episode podcast. I thought it was interesting to listen to at least. It's definitely not unbiased, as the host comes right out and says the documentary is a "slanted piece of storytelling." But it's interesting to hear arguments against the documentary all in one place.

FLA

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #77 on: February 02, 2016, 02:51:04 AM »
I tend to believe domestic violence stories and I am not saying Steven Avery is not guilty of hurting his GF (the one in jail when this went down), but I wonder if she had other motives for calling it off with him.  He was about to get his payday and she was standing next to him, I believe, on the courthouse steps.  Then not only did that not materialize in  a way in which she could use any of the money, Steven gets hauled off to jail for a horrific crime.  And the next mention of her is her saying he is a violent man, etc.  Sour grapes perhaps?

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #78 on: February 02, 2016, 05:22:51 AM »
I tend to believe domestic violence stories and I am not saying Steven Avery is not guilty of hurting his GF (the one in jail when this went down), but I wonder if she had other motives for calling it off with him.  He was about to get his payday and she was standing next to him, I believe, on the courthouse steps.  Then not only did that not materialize in  a way in which she could use any of the money, Steven gets hauled off to jail for a horrific crime.  And the next mention of her is her saying he is a violent man, etc.  Sour grapes perhaps?

She also said to the media that she ate two boxes of rat poison to get away from him, which, if it were actually true, would mean that she would be dead many times over.

FLA

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #79 on: February 02, 2016, 07:14:02 AM »
I remember one part which struck me (during the trial) and I said out loud, "They found handcuffs?!   What the fuck?  I want to hear about these!!"  But they never touched on it even for a second.

Wasn't it brought out that he said these were for sex acts with his GF?  I'm practically positive that was in the doc

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #80 on: February 02, 2016, 03:14:27 PM »

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #81 on: February 02, 2016, 03:44:10 PM »
picture of handcuffs

Must've been hard to make those presentable at trial.  Cleaning all the blood off and restoring them to a like new condition.  One wonders why they would go to all that trouble.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #82 on: February 08, 2016, 10:17:35 AM »
picture of handcuffs

Must've been hard to make those presentable at trial.  Cleaning all the blood off and restoring them to a like new condition.  One wonders why they would go to all that trouble.

I believe those were the cuffs found in Barb's trailer and were presented at Brendan's trial (and not at Steven's).

Zellner just posted another tweet.  Here is the link, and I quoted the tweet as well:

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw

Quote
Police reports: Only SA suspect but BIG RED FLAGS on others. Must have to do w/BIG GREEN DOLLARS.


And for you simpson fans, here is a nicely done mash up spoof using homer.  I got a chuckle out of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtlu123dg0I

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27197
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #83 on: February 08, 2016, 11:53:43 AM »
And for you simpson fans, here is a nicely done mash up spoof using homer.  I got a chuckle out of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtlu123dg0I

That was amazingly well done!
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

Parizade

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #84 on: February 08, 2016, 12:39:33 PM »
Brendan broke my heart, IQ of 70, his mother not present, no lawyer, they coerced him.  I cried when he thought he was going back to school and wanted to be back in time to take an exam. That's how poorly he understood the circumstances and what would happen when he finally just "confessed".  I think the original timeline he gave rings so much more true for a 16 yo teen than the one he "confessed" to.  Ie: got off bus, played video games, had snacks, etc., etc. The mother saying she was never told he was being interrogated and she could be in there but the prosecution claims she was offered the opportunity. What mother would say no to that?  No one. 

I don't believe Steven Avery is an innocent man, I suspect he is capable of everything they accused him of, but I do have reasonable doubt regarding his guilt in this particular crime. I think it's pretty clear the evidence was tampered with and Mr Avery was framed.

Brendan, on the other hand, is the victim of horrendous child abuse by the prosecutors. He should be freed immediately and compensated for the atrocities committed against him. There is absolutely no excuse for what they did to that boy, and the perpetrators should be thrown in prison for a good long time.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27197
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #85 on: August 03, 2016, 05:58:17 AM »
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #86 on: August 12, 2016, 03:21:35 PM »

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27197
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #87 on: August 12, 2016, 04:21:12 PM »
Brendan Dassey's conviction got over turned. 

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Judge-Overturns-Conviction-for-Making-a-Murderers-Brendan-Dassey-390019181.html

w00t w00t

I just came here to post this!  Awesome!  :D

The judge gave prosecutors 90 days to decide whether to retry Dassey.

I'm betting they'll decline to do so.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #88 on: August 12, 2016, 04:28:45 PM »
Brendan Dassey's conviction got over turned. 

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Judge-Overturns-Conviction-for-Making-a-Murderers-Brendan-Dassey-390019181.html

w00t w00t

I just came here to post this!  Awesome!  :D

The judge gave prosecutors 90 days to decide whether to retry Dassey.

I'm betting they'll decline to do so.

Me too, but I can't believe they ever tried him in the first place either.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4344
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Making a Murderer- Netflix Documentary
« Reply #89 on: November 14, 2016, 06:43:37 PM »
Oh they're still fighting it alright.

The release was ordered today, but Wisconsin is seeking an emergency stay:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/11/14/brendan-dassey-ordered-released/93804596/