'Making a Murderer' subject Steven Avery denied new trial

D

Dalek

Member
'Making a Murderer' subject Steven Avery denied new trial


tv_making_a_murderer.jpg
Click to expand...
"Making a Murderer" subject Steven Avery has been denied a new trial for the murder of Teresa Halbach after a judge ruled there was not sufficient evidence to warrant one.

Sheboygan County, Wisconsin, Judge Angela Sutkiewicz issued the ruling Tuesday, saying, "The defendant has failed to establish any grounds that would trigger the right to a new trial in the interests of justice," according to ABC affiliate WBAY.

The judge also stated that "no further consideration will be given to this issue."
Click to expand...

But Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, said he's not giving up.

"We are filing an amended petition because we have additional test results and witness affidavits. The scientific testing is not completed. We remain optimistic that Mr. Avery's conviction will be vacated," Zellner said in a statement to WBAY.

Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey were each convicted of first-degree intentional homicide during separate jury trials in 2007. Prosecutors said the duo raped and murdered Halbach, a freelance photographer, on the Avery family's salvage yard in Mishicot, Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

http://nypost.com/2017/10/03/steven-avery-denied-new-trial-in-making-a-murderer-case/

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin man convicted in the killing of a woman that was the focus of the hit Netflix series "Making a Murderer" was denied a request for a new trial Tuesday.

Steven Avery's attorney said she planned to present new evidence to the court to try and revive his request after it was rejected by a state circuit judge. Avery had argued that his conviction in the 2005 death of photographer Teresa Halbach was based on planted evidence and false testimony.

"We have additional test results and witness affidavits," Avery's attorney Kathleen Zellner said in a statement. "The scientific testing is not completed, we remain optimistic that Mr. Avery's conviction will be vacated."

Sheboygan County Circuit Judge Angela Sutkiewicz said in her ruling that based on the evidence presented so far, Avery failed to establish grounds to warrant a new trial. Avery argued that new scientific tests cast doubt on evidence submitted at his trial, presented alternate theories about the killing and questioned motives of police.

Given the totality of evidence submitted at the trial, no reasonable probability exists that a different result would be reached at a new trial, the judge said.

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel praised the decision, saying it "brings us one step closer to providing justice to Teresa Halbach's family." He said the Department of Justice would continue to vigorously defend Avery's conviction.

Avery, 55, was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in the 2005 death of Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer.
Click to expand...
 
So I didn't watch the documentary, but read the wikis, which are surprisingly sparse with details. Usually it's full of detailed timelines and all. If neither he or the younger guy were involved, how is the evidence explained? I understand there are issues about the judgement, but I'm wondering more about what actually happened.

Dalek said:
Which evidence are you referring to?
Click to expand...

The burned car on his property I guess, and remains nearby? Like I said the wiki is very sparse.
 
Ether_Snake said:
So I didn't watch the documentary, but read the wikis, which are surprisingly sparse with details. Usually it's full of detailed timelines and all. If neither he or the younger guy were involved, how is the evidence explained?
Click to expand...

Which evidence are you referring to? There was no blood of the victim found in either Avery's house (where the prosecution claimed he killed her the first time) nor in his garage (where they claimed he killed her again).
 
He burned a cat alive so I do not care what happens to him.

If you are willing to burn a cat alive, you are willing to do it to other living creatures, including humans.

He is a psychopath. Do. Not. Care.
 
Tapioca said:
He burned a cat alive so I do not care what happens to him.

If you are willing to burn a cat alive, you are willing to do it to other living creatures, including humans.

He is a psychopath. Do. Not. Care.
Click to expand...

Besides. The. Point.

His trial was a complete and utter sham.

Avery has clearly never been "all there" but he is still deserving of due process and a fair trial.
 
Tapioca said:
He burned a cat alive so I do not care what happens to him.

If you are willing to burn a cat alive, you are willing to do it to other living creatures, including humans.

He is a psychopath. Do. Not. Care.
Click to expand...

Burning a cat alive = unlawful incarceration for life? He didn't get sentenced for burning a cat, you know.
 
Tapioca said:
He burned a cat alive so I do not care what happens to him.

If you are willing to burn a cat alive, you are willing to do it to other living creatures, including humans.

He is a psychopath. Do. Not. Care.
Click to expand...
I pray you have no part in our justice system.
 
Tapioca said:
He burned a cat alive so I do not care what happens to him.

If you are willing to burn a cat alive, you are willing to do it to other living creatures, including humans.

He is a psychopath. Do. Not. Care.
Click to expand...

I agree he is a POS but if he didn't do it (I think he did) then the real killer is walking free and a real innocent (Brendon Dassey) is sitting behind bars
 
Tapioca said:
He burned a cat alive so I do not care what happens to him.

If you are willing to burn a cat alive, you are willing to do it to other living creatures, including humans.

He is a psychopath. Do. Not. Care.
Click to expand...

You don't care that the documentary basically laid out how the police manipulated evidence and a mentally retarded child in order to lock him up after already putting the man through court for another crime he didn't commit? Or rather, you "Do. Not. Care."?
 
Tapioca said:
He burned a cat alive so I do not care what happens to him.

If you are willing to burn a cat alive, you are willing to do it to other living creatures, including humans.

He is a psychopath. Do. Not. Care.
Click to expand...

I hope you're joking. This guy and his nephew got fucked so badly, especially his nephew.
 
MarauderShields said:
I agree he is a POS but if he didn't do it (I think he did) then the real killer is walking free and a real innocent (Brendon Dassey) is sitting behind bars
Click to expand...
Brendon was released.

EDIT - Reading into it, I guess he wasn’t? I though I read he was.
 
I think Avery is 100% guilty, but sadly the cops and prosecution literally had to go and mess up a good case by doing all the horrible shit they did. So he should be allowed a retrial. His nephew on the other hand is probably innocent.
 
Tapioca said:
He burned a cat alive so I do not care what happens to him.

If you are willing to burn a cat alive, you are willing to do it to other living creatures, including humans.

He is a psychopath. Do. Not. Care.
Click to expand...

You are the fucking problem with our justice system and shit like this enables them to keep up with the systemic injustice done to minorities as well.
 
Tapioca said:
He burned a cat alive so I do not care what happens to him.

If you are willing to burn a cat alive, you are willing to do it to other living creatures, including humans.

He is a psychopath. Do. Not. Care.
Click to expand...
The very definition of bias.

I'm all for no cruelty against any animal but that's just jumping to conclusions.
 
Eh, the series didn't convince on balance of any probable innocence.

- Teresa's last known meeting was with him
- Her car was found in his salvage yard
- A key to her vehicle was found in his bedroom
- Bloodstains in the car matched him
- Her remains were found in his fire pit

If he didn't murder her, who did? It seems pretty far fetched to suggest the Sherriff's Department murdered Teresa, just so they could frame him up for it. You might suggest he didn't do a very good job covering the crime up, but he clearly isn't the sharpest crayon in the box to begin with.
 
F0rneus said:
I think Avery is 100% guilty, but sadly the cops and prosecution literally had to go and mess up a good case by doing all the horrible shit they did. So he should be allowed a retrial. His nephew on the other hand is probably innocent.
Click to expand...

Calling it a good case is a stretch. What prosecutors said happened doesn't make sense, where did he the shooting happen?

If he didn't murder her, who did? It seems pretty far fetched to suggest the Sherriff's Department murdered Teresa, just so they could frame him up for it.
Click to expand...

No one is saying the Sherrif's department killed her. The argument is that she was murdered and the Sherrif's department manipulated the evidence to fit Steven Avery as the murderer.
 
Polari said:
Eh, the series didn't convince on balance of any probable innocence.

- Teresa's last known meeting was with him
- Her car was found in his salvage yard
- A key to her vehicle was found in his bedroom
- Bloodstains in the car matched him
- Her remains were found in his fire pit

If he didn't murder her, who did? It seems pretty far fetched to suggest the Sherriff's Department murdered Teresa, just so they could frame him up for it.
Click to expand...

That’s not how a trial works. You’re thinking of it completely backwards.
 
I think he killed her, but there's no way it happened like the prosecution said it did. He's human garbage, but he deserves a new trial.
 
Polari said:
Eh, the series didn't convince on balance of any probable innocence.

- Teresa's last known meeting was with him
- Her car was found in his salvage yard
- A key to her vehicle was found in his bedroom
- Bloodstains in the car matched him
- Her remains were found in his fire pit

If he didn't murder her, who did? It seems pretty far fetched to suggest the Sherriff's Department murdered Teresa, just so they could frame him up for it.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone argues that he didn't kill her. He totally did. But the cops might have tampered with evidence, and had big conflicts of interest, which makes the whole trial a sham sadly. They decided to steamroll him because of a past case of which, he actually was innocent of.

robochimp said:
Calling it a good case is a stretch. What prosecutors said happened doesn't make sense, where did he the shooting happen?
Click to expand...

Oh the prosecution's story was garbage sure, but he still most likely did it.
 
Polari said:
Eh, the series didn't convince on balance of any probable innocence.

- Teresa's last known meeting was with him
- Her car was found in his salvage yard
- A key to her vehicle was found in his bedroom
- Bloodstains in the car matched him
- Her remains were found in his fire pit

If he didn't murder her, who did? It seems pretty far fetched to suggest the Sherriff's Department murdered Teresa, just so they could frame him up for it. You might suggest he didn't do a very good job covering the crime up, but he clearly isn't the sharpest crayon in the box to begin with.
Click to expand...

Did you even watch the show? I thought the first set of investegators never found a key in his house until that sleazy cop from the other county decided to come and all of a sudden they "found" a key
 
Polari said:
Eh, the series didn't convince on balance of any probable innocence.

- Teresa's last known meeting was with him
- Her car was found in his salvage yard
- A key to her vehicle was found in his bedroom
- Bloodstains in the car matched him
- Her remains were found in his fire pit

If he didn't murder her, who did? It seems pretty far fetched to suggest the Sherriff's Department murdered Teresa, just so they could frame him up for it. You might suggest he didn't do a very good job covering the crime up, but he clearly isn't the sharpest crayon in the box to begin with.
Click to expand...

Based on watching the show, I'm pretty sure at least 3 of your bullet points were probable framing by the police.
 
Polari said:
Eh, the series didn't convince on balance of any probable innocence.

- Teresa's last known meeting was with him
- Her car was found in his salvage yard
- A key to her vehicle was found in his bedroom
- Bloodstains in the car matched him
- Her remains were found in his fire pit

If he didn't murder her, who did? It seems pretty far fetched to suggest the Sherriff's Department murdered Teresa, just so they could frame him up for it. You might suggest he didn't do a very good job covering the crime up, but he clearly isn't the sharpest crayon in the box to begin with.
Click to expand...

you can read the lawyer's motion here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1387805 + https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...6.07+-+Motion+for+Post-Conviction+Relief2.pdf

Says the ex-bf (featured in the show) did it
 
F0rneus said:
I don't think anyone argues that he didn't kill her. He totally did. But the cops might have tampered with evidence, and had big conflicts of interest, which makes the whole trial a sham sadly. They decided to steamroll him because of a past case of which, he actually was innocent of.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was definite flaws in the process. I guess the question the judge weighs up is whether they impact the credibility of the case enough to justify a new trial.
 
Dark Cloud said:
Did you even watch the show? I thought the first set of investegators never found a key in his house until that sleazy cop from the other county decided to come and all of a sudden they "found" a key
Click to expand...

His room was searched by police 5 times.

Then the guy from another county walks in the room when no one is looking and says “hey look what I found!”

netflix-key-5.jpg
 
DTU said:
Burning a cat alive = unlawful incarceration for life? He didn't get sentenced for burning a cat, you know.
Click to expand...

I think anyone who burns a cat alive should be in prison for life. They are a danger to all animals and humans.

The documentary was extremely one sided anyway. There is a ton of evidence that the documentary left out that sure makes it look like he did it.

People watch a documentary and then think they are an expert on the case...... um.. sure you all are.

I hope you all didn't watch "Loose Change".
 
Dalek said:
His room was searched by police 5 times.

Then the guy from another county walks in the room when no one is looking and says “hey look what I found!”

netflix-key-5.jpg
Click to expand...

It wasn't just a guy from another county, it was deputy Lenk of the Manitowoc Sherrif's department who wasn't supposed to be there.
 
Amory said:
He did that shit anyway.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the trial was a complete sham with a lot of evidence tempering, and police and prosecution fuckery. I mean a frame job doesn't get that more obvious. They really wanted to make sure they nailed him for this, and thus...well they destroyed actual justice. That's why there needs to be a retrial.
 
Tapioca said:
I think anyone who burns a cat alive should be in prison for life. They are a danger to all animals and humans.

The documentary was extremely one sided anyway. There is a ton of evidence that the documentary left out that sure makes it look like he did it.

People watch a documentary and then think they are an expert on the case...... um.. sure you all are.
Click to expand...

That's not true, most of that so called list of evidence is covered in the documentary, the source on most of those lists in Ken Kratz.
 
Dalek said:
His room was searched by police 5 times.

Then the guy from another county walks in the room when no one is looking and says “hey look what I found!”

netflix-key-5.jpg
Click to expand...

Exactly. This shit head found a magical key in plain sight when nobody else found in the numerous times it was searched before.
 
Dark Cloud said:
Exactly. This shit head found a magical key in plain sight when nobody else found in the numerous times it was searched before.
Click to expand...

Happened to me once. But I'm no evidence planting detective.

Eta- this reminds me of recent Baltimore case where a gun magically appears.
 
sangreal said:
Yes, but everyone deserves a fair trial and a fair investigation
Click to expand...

F0rneus said:
Sure, but the trial was a complete sham with a lot of evidence tempering, and police and prosecution fuckery. I mean a frame job doesn't get that more obvious. They really wanted to make sure they nailed him for this, and thus...well they destroyed actual justice. That's why there needs to be a retrial.
Click to expand...
I agree, 100%. But at the very least we arent talking about someone who's an innocent man.

And anyway, the last time he got let out for being railroaded he murdered someone.

Sucks he got railroaded again but who wants to find out what he'll do next?
 
Tapioca said:
I think anyone who burns a cat alive should be in prison for life. They are a danger to all animals and humans.

The documentary was extremely one sided anyway. There is a ton of evidence that the documentary left out that sure makes it look like he did it.

People watch a documentary and then think they are an expert on the case...... um.. sure you all are.

I hope you all didn't watch "Loose Change".
Click to expand...

Jesus christ.
 
Tapioca said:
I think anyone who burns a cat alive should be in prison for life. They are a danger to all animals and humans.

The documentary was extremely one sided anyway. There is a ton of evidence that the documentary left out that sure makes it look like he did it.

People watch a documentary and then think they are an expert on the case...... um.. sure you all are.
Click to expand...

Oh look its another condescending know it all who believes the sexual predator of a prosecutor Ken Kratz. That man is despicable.

Link said:
Brendon was released.

EDIT - Reading into it, I guess he wasn't? I though I read he was.
Click to expand...

Brendon is never gonna get out despite the obviously coerced confession. They used the bs confession to convict Avery despite none of the evidence actually connecting to the confession.
 
Tapioca said:
I think anyone who burns a cat alive should be in prison for life. They are a danger to all animals and humans.

The documentary was extremely one sided anyway. There is a ton of evidence that the documentary left out that sure makes it look like he did it.

People watch a documentary and then think they are an expert on the case...... um.. sure you all are.

I hope you all didn't watch "Loose Change".
Click to expand...

This mentality says you’re fine letting a man who committed Crime A go to prison for Crime B-which means there’s an actual murderer still on the loose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

First look at Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun in their new film ‘LOVE ME’
31
2K
jonnyp replied
A new year, a new Netflix price hike
2
60
4K
EverydayBeast replied
Anyone interested in a free dc universe infinite trial?
4
637
Little Mac replied
Sammy Sosa apologizes for making mistakes
31
2K
OmegaSupreme replied
New Brew
19
798
Days like these... replied
Top Bottom