PrivateWHudson
Member
No. They would have needed evidence of a motive...which as lawyers, not cops, they didn't have. The actual cops never asked, and let the ex run the search and get all up in the "crime scene".
'Making a Murderer' subject Steven Avery denied new trial
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
No. They would have needed evidence of a motive...which as lawyers, not cops, they didn't have. The actual cops never asked, and let the ex run the search and get all up in the "crime scene".
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
Nope. Even Avery's lawyer couldn't deny that one. He actually said that the bullet was similar, but couldn't be proven to be 100% the case because apparently ballistic evidence is just a theory, according to him.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
This motive idea is rather dumb. Some people are just crazy. The lawyer should be able to propose a reason for having someone testify and let the judge evaluate it.
PrivateWHudson
Member
She had to have the dna test signed off and given a waiver on because she got her own dna in the control sample and there wasn't enough dna for another test. Only time it had ever happened in that office.
Also wouldn't let SA's attorneys witness the testing because they didn't want contamination of such a small sample, but then had a bunch of students in the room or something.
Also, a note from the investigators suggesting that she put Teresa in the trailer our garage.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Is there actual proof she planned to go on Avery's property? If so which? Did he admit she did go there?
She was a photographer who took photos for a sales paper. He sold cars. So they had an appointment for her to come out and photograph a vehicle for sale which she would then publish in the paper.
Vincent Alexander
Member
And to further this, she might have actually not had Avery as her last stop of the night like was claimed, and may have even gone out to the last place after him THEN gone missing. This is all conjecture with no proof, as defense claims it was on the voicemail that was conveniently deleted that no one got to hear. And wasn't it the ex that deleted the voicemail? I know the voicemail itself was brought up in the documentary, but I don't think it came out until his new lawyer what the deleted voicemail might have shown.
So dudes who eat animals would probably eat people?
Ballistic evidence is kinda bullshit with a pretty weak scientific foundation in general:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_firearm_examination#Criticisms
If I recall she had two stops to do that night-Avery and one other. And if I recall correctly, yes the evidence on the voicemail was erased by the boyfriend who also miraculousy found the hidden car on the property immediately.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
Well done just quoting part of the "Criticisms" section of an article, without mentioning all of the evidence that is pro ballistic science. There's also Climate change criticism too.
PrivateWHudson
Member
The whole thing is a mess, so much that they made a 10 hour serious out of it, and are working on a part 2. Most of the witnesses had her going somewhere after Avery, but then answering machine recordings got weird, times don't match up, and the cops start saying that Avery was the last to see her alive...because he's the only one that admitted she came by, did her job, and left.
The other stop, they didn't let the cops in to ask questions and the cops just left. Didn't interview them until a day or two after the news broke.
RustyNails
Member
Can LawyerGAF weigh in? From what I read elsewhere, it seems like Kathleen Zellner fucked up somehow?
Thats what Im reading too which seems even more crazy.
It was just the quickest link to find. National academy of science says:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12162
There is some validity to ballistic evidence, but not a slam dunk.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
To increase the chances of framing Avery someone would have had to know she was going to visit him that day, meet up with her somewhere after, kill her apparently with a rifle, (I assume it was proven she was shot and the distance), bring her body and car to his lot if they were not with her already or if they did not kill her there, then presumably leave the lot on foot to go back to their own vehicle or walk all the way home.
Sounds complicated.
Sounds complicated.
Baraka Obama
Banned
Jesus Christ
Look even if you value a cat that much don't you think the real murderer needs to be found?
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
The sad truth is, is that the investigation was so fucked from Day 1, and the obvious creation of false evidence is so blatant, that it overshadows Avery's very likely guilt. Guy has a history of psychopathic cruelty, abduction of women, and bought bondage gear weeks before the murder. But the fact is, evidence WAS created and shit WAS planted.
The emotionally manipulative documentary didn't quite help either, but the true blame lies on the shitty ass cops who created this whole mess. Now even real evidence is looked as, as potentially fake. Because they wanted to nail to guy. So they went full illegal and horrible. And jeopardized the whole thing, and honestly justice should be above this. This taints the whole system. If there is a case for retrial, this is it.
And that's not talking about his barely functional, blatantly innocent nephew that got swiped up into this godawful mess.
Jmanunknown
Member
The bondage gear thing is bs was Teresa Halbach's DNA on the handcuffs? As for his past he served his time for the crimes he committed and even freely and honestly admitted to doing them.
Brendan Dassey is functional your really trying to over sell your point needlessly. Its just that like Steven Avery they both suffer from Intellectual disabilities. They both basically have the same iq.
If you want an innocent person to go to jail for murder, does that make you as bad as him?
Tender Joe
Member
At the very least, it DOES make that person sound like my mom on Facebook who has no grasp on reality.
Dr. Feel Good
Banned
I used to live in this town. The people are incredibly dense and dimwitted... it does not surprise me at all that they cannot manage to get their shit together on this.
Quite a few people do. I'm not convinced at all that he did kill her.
And he "found" that after "violently shaking" that bookcase on the right, and somehow managing not to disturb at all any of the many coins and pieces of paper that were on it.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!"
Okay.
"Him"? You should probably look beyond the documentary and see what Zellner's been up to.
ProfessorLobo
Banned
I was almost certain it was the creepy uncle, but it's been awhile.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
It's not even part of the documentary. The film is well made but it's very manipulative, and refused to show a lot of the actual facts to support it's tale. I think people should look further than Making a Murderer actually.
Again no one is denying that the police and prosecution went out of their way to fabricate evidence. But what's there, points to Steven Avery. Sad thing is, is that the honest to God conspiracy is now making people think that he's innocent.
Again the guy had kidnapped a woman before.
Avery is 70, (pro-Avery source even) which is the limit for self-autonomy. Brendan Dassey is in the deficiency ranges.
So... Zellner?
While I'm still not sure what you're referring to there, he could have bombed Pearl Harbor, that still wouldn't mean he killed Teresa Halbach.
the_darkness
Banned
FTFY. Good question.
He also might be innocent.
Daffy Duck
Member
Theres also the hilarious part of the crime that she was murdered in the bedroom (according to police) yet the place was spotless, like Avery managed to get every single piece of blood from every crevice of the room to leave no trace whatsoever.
They stitched him up proper.
Sad theres no retrial.
They stitched him up proper.
Sad theres no retrial.
Jmanunknown
Member
Yes i know it was in the making a murder documentary. Did he rape her? Did he kill her? Let me answer for you no. He let her(his cousin) go was arrested and did his time in jail for it.
I already know all of that your not telling me anything new. Given all of the bs evidence what makes you think he is guilty? I mean he is not smart enough to completely get rid of pretty much all of the physical evidence yet be dumb enough to not rid of her car when he had time and opportunity.
forknknife
Banned
This is BS
Always-honest
Banned
Such a bizarre story.
Funny how some forummembers are 100% certain of his innocence or guilt. Scary stuff.
It's great most gaffers aren't working in court.
Funny how some forummembers are 100% certain of his innocence or guilt. Scary stuff.
It's great most gaffers aren't working in court.
Aika'svyse
Banned
Some things that make me believe Avery didn't do it.
The boyfriend deleted the messages after entering murder victims phone, he magically figured out the password according to himself. Same dude is granted access to Avery property.
Seems Teresa was being stalked by someone she knew other than Avery.
Avery too dumb to clean up murder scene so well, something that's near impossible for brilliant people.
Police clearly planted evidence imo.
Brendan Dassey was cleary pressured to make things up about the crime, he seemed clueless, if Avery did it he wouldn't have had to make things up.
The boyfriend deleted the messages after entering murder victims phone, he magically figured out the password according to himself. Same dude is granted access to Avery property.
Seems Teresa was being stalked by someone she knew other than Avery.
Avery too dumb to clean up murder scene so well, something that's near impossible for brilliant people.
Police clearly planted evidence imo.
Brendan Dassey was cleary pressured to make things up about the crime, he seemed clueless, if Avery did it he wouldn't have had to make things up.
You realize most people consider him innocent because there wasn't enough there to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (meaning not having any doubt) and because his trial was filled with prosecutional misconduct along with shoddy and suspect police work and phony testimony from forensics?
Regardless of whether or not he did it, he should have been found innocent for all of the above reasons.
Jmanunknown
Member
The justice system is a joke what happened in making a murder usually never happens in states or federal cases. 97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains most cases never make it to trial so whether or not gaffers were jurors would not really matter in the end.
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!
1. the key
That is probably her spare key. This is the valet key and wont open the glove box.
After the documentary someone found a photo of Theresa holding the regular keys:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-tv/hot-tv/489131/Making-A-Murderer-Teresa-Halbach-keys
Doesnt help that they only found his dna on it, and that they could not find the key the 6th times they previously searched the room .
2. The burning
The burning i think took place somewhere else? wasnt this explained? Also even if steven is not the most intelligent guy, why would he burn her in the pit when he could just burn everything in the industrial oven located on the salvage yard?
3. The car
The car was found by her ex-boyfriend or someone. A guy that should not have been allowed to search for it in the first place. Also there is the part where the creepy officer calls in and ask about the cars'< registration number like he is actually looking at it. Also again, why wouldnt Steven just smash the car? It was in the salvage yard after all.
4. no murder scene.
No dna found in the garage nor in the bedroom. The garage was not bleached they concluded. So that is weird.
5. Dna evidence
The lady performing the tests did not follow protocol, and usually they do throw such test results out. But not in this case for some reason.
Any blood evidence is under doubt because they found that the blood vial had been tampered with ect.
Alot of shady stuff going on here, even if he did it.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
You guys really should watch The Confession Tapes on Netflix.
Not only did he clean up all the blood-but he also made sure the rest of the room remained a fucking pig sty. Clearly covering his tracks!
I've always just thought he was guilty as fuck but the case against him and a lot of the evidence was clearly fabricated or planted.
IlGialloMondadori
Member
Yeah, amazing how so many completely missed the point of the documentary.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
Dude....
Whenever I hear about or see a video of someone doing something disgusting to animals my first reaction is always that I hope something really bad happens to him/her and that's a natural reaction I would say. However did he actually burn a cat alive? It's been a while that I saw the documentary but I do remember something that he was very sorry about that. I can't deny though that I was rooting for him until that part happened and I was like "wtf, he actually did this?"
However that doesn't take away from the fact that there's a possibility he didn't kill this woman at all. And we can't deny that many things about this case aren't right at all. It shows how far they are willing to go to put you behind bars and it means it can happen to anyone and that's scary. It's insane that he just can't get a new trial.
Also, that first murder he did time for, turned out he was innocent of that, wasn't he? I do remember the interrogation video of Brendan and also his ex wife. How she used to stand by him and then turned against him. That was rather odd too.
It is true that the Documentary is rather one sided but wasn't it said the prosecution didn't want anything to do with it?
You're even fudging the facts in the case, the car was never burned. And yes her charred remains were found in two different areas.
There is a list sourcing Ken Kratz, the prosecutor, of things he said were left out. Many of them actually being covered in the documentary.
It's always interesting to me how, whenever this documentary comes up, a lot of people mention the later internet counterpoints of stuff the documentary left out, as if that proves guilt, but without mentioning the exact details of that evidence. The fact that the discussion exists at all seems to be enough for some people, as long as they can lord over people who just watched the documentary. I dare say most of the people bringing up the internet stuff aren't exactly experts either (I'm definitely not). It's important to know that those counterpoints have been heavily challenged as well, and frankly I can't say anything there is very compelling or convincing after all these months.
It's a complicated case. He might have done it, he might not. To me, the documentary was more about the complete disregard to justice by the police force. That needs to be cracked down on. Hard. Incredible mistakes were made, a lot of them intentional. At the very least, those responsible need to be punished for that and removed from service. They can't be trusted with a badge.
Yes, Kratz is the source for most of it. Frankly, a proven liar.
It's hard to know hard facts about any of that proof without having access to it ourselves. Anything directly sourced from Kratz is automatically very biased. The man killed his own believability. Interesting to see what a second season would say about that stuff.
It's a complicated case. He might have done it, he might not. To me, the documentary was more about the complete disregard to justice by the police force. That needs to be cracked down on. Hard. Incredible mistakes were made, a lot of them intentional. At the very least, those responsible need to be punished for that and removed from service. They can't be trusted with a badge.
Yes, Kratz is the source for most of it. Frankly, a proven liar.
It's hard to know hard facts about any of that proof without having access to it ourselves. Anything directly sourced from Kratz is automatically very biased. The man killed his own believability. Interesting to see what a second season would say about that stuff.
InaudibleWhispa
Member
Using this logic it was "good" that Avery was convicted of rape in 1985, letting Gregory Allen get away with it.
There's three people it could have been, the ex boyfriend, Steven or Stevens brother in law/uncle (I can't remember which) who was dodgy as fuck. I dunno how anyone can say for certain that it was one or the other. The ex boyfriend should have been questioned because he was incredibly dodgy.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
That was it. It was rape that he was convicted of but later turned out he never did that, damn. The victim is still alive isn't she?