I had mentioned that it seems the person behind the account has done whatever needs to be done and has sent it to the lawyers already. I didn't see anything indicating a reveal or leak, but who knows?Anyway, you guys putting any weight on the Anonymous documents that are ment to leak in a day or so?
Yeah Kratz is a real piece of work. Mr high and mighty condescending prick gets caught sexting with sexual abuse victims. Nice guy.
You're reaching. You might as well say, "maybe she spontaneously combusted. You can't tell me for a fact that she didn't." It's not the job of investigators to come up with every absurd possibility. None of the evidence even remotely suggests it was anyone except Avery.
I just saw the first episode, it's interesting, but I don't know if I will continue to watch that for a dozen 1h long episodes
It just keeps getting better and better. After the first episode all I could think was "How can this possibly be 10 1-hour episodes?", but trust me, it's never a dull moment.
Important things:
confirms the father of a sheriff deputy on the juror thing. apparently, they can only remove six people and they thought it was more important to remove six others
ultimately, SA's choice not to testify
didn't move the trial to another county because after that sham of a press conference following BD's 'confession' everyone would've been as biased against him anywhere, manitowoc people would at least be more aware of SA's history with them
doesn't think anything really significant was left out or omitted, says the documentary presents evidence 'hinting' at guilt that wasn't even admitted in court
potential phone records between lenk and colborn would be admissible in court if anonymous were to leak them
basically says presenting different theories for BD and SA is bullshit, though it does happen
SA needs strong new evidence for a new trial (new witness, scientific testing, etc)
defense never got to do their own testing of the evidence
re: people crushing on him 'my wife finds this very, very hard to believe'
is asked about suspects, says it wouldn't be fair to name them, a lot of people had the same opportunities as steven and the same motive (or lack, thereof)
talks about *67, says SA was very protective of his privacy as an explanation
thinks the documentary should be used to bring more attention to systematic failings of the system
doesn't know if SA is innocent, but is nowhere near certain that he's guilty. selfishly hopes SA is guilty.
says the SA viewers see in the documentary is the real SA, there's no facade
the documentary HAS generated new leads
says BD has a very strong defense team right now
And that's the gist of it, I think. Pretty informative, IMO.
And fuck this judge. Why should we believe he's not corrupt too? Denies everything the defense brings up. Won't let the jurors know about the voicemail passwords. Goddamit
It doesn't change the questions I'd need answered to say definitively guilty.
The blood in the car and the DNA on the hood, I can't explain; that's highly suspicious and puts Steven in the radar. The burnt remains are also highly suspicious, and also implicate Steven as well obviously. The bullet in the garage and key are HIGHLY questionable. The lack of DNA in the trailer and garage are key for me. If I was on that jury, that would have to be answered for me.
Switching gears up a bit here, I've been browsing that Twitter account that has supposed connections to Anonymous. I said before it seems like a hoax and nothing was done, well, I don't know if anything was done exactly but the account seems to indicate something was sent and they're waiting. There's also a woman on there that claims she saw Steven at a gas station the time of the crime - again this is all highly suspect since it's the Internet and anyone can say anything. The account just told her to get in touch with Buting. Additionally, the burnt remains...? Well, that account linked to a site in google maps and suggested the body could've been burnt there and the remains moved onto Steven's yard too.
Regardless of what happens, I would be incredibly stoked to see a season 2 where a complete turnabout happens and that Anonymous actually did do something.
Internet detectives have solved cold cases before. It's rare but it happens. Problem with this case is any rational person can tell there was a huge miscarriage of justice here, so what they need is hard scientific evidence to get something done. Hard for internet detectives to come by.Not holding my breath on the Anonymous crap. How can a bunch of internet geeks suddenly uncover missing evidence 10 years after the fact?
I just finished episode 9.. I'm enraged. What's the likely hood of him getting a pardon?
He actually heard all of the evidence and not just the one-sided info the "documentarians" provided.
He may as well have been, considering that the DA broadcasted Brendan's original confession to the world in that March 2nd press conference. I'm sure that had an impact on the jurors who believed them both to be guilty.
It's actually worse for Avery that Brendan's confession wasn't in his trial. As you said, the jury would have heard about the news conference and known that he "made a confession" but without hearing the defense attack that confession and how he was coerced into it. It's really sad that lawyers get to try their cases in the press. How that media conference was allowed to happen and all those details given out is just crazy.
Yeah there was absolutely no reason for that press conference to happen except to intentionally taint the jury pool.
Actually let me ammend my previous statement. While I still believe the press conference with the confession shouldn't have been allowed to happen, not having Brendan as a witness might have also swayed the jury the other way.
Example: you're a juror on the trial and you've heard the press conference and how the nephew confessed that he and his uncle did it. So you would expect this nephew to be a star witness at the trial, prosecution has first hand knowledge of the crime. But then he's not called and you could think "why wasn't he called? maybe his confession is bogus, maybe he's not reliable and they actually didn't do it.."
Along those lines, so I guess it can work both ways.
Yeah there was absolutely no reason for that press conference to happen except to intentionally taint the jury pool.
I mean we know that going into deliberations most of the jury was actually in favor of a Not Guilty verdict. I wish we knew why that was and how that changed.
So much slime from the prosecution. Unbelievable. If they had a slam dunk case they wouldnt need to engineer this media circus.That's exactly why they did it and it worked...they knew those charges weren't going to stick, it was just to get ahead of the defense and put the perception out there.
So much slime from the prosecution. Unbelievable. If they had a slam dunk case they wouldnt need to engineer this media circus.
A friend of mine on FB just called this "quite possibly the most aggressive display of injustice and mistreatment" they'd ever heard of.
I've not yet seen the series, but given some of the egregious abuses of justice in our country's history, is this really that lopsided of a case?
A friend of mine on FB just called this "quite possibly the most aggressive display of injustice and mistreatment" they'd ever heard of.
I've not yet seen the series, but given some of the egregious abuses of justice in our country's history, is this really that lopsided of a case?
A friend of mine on FB just called this "quite possibly the most aggressive display of injustice and mistreatment" they'd ever heard of.
I've not yet seen the series, but given some of the egregious abuses of justice in our country's history, is this really that lopsided of a case?
A friend of mine on FB just called this "quite possibly the most aggressive display of injustice and mistreatment" they'd ever heard of.
I've not yet seen the series, but given some of the egregious abuses of justice in our country's history, is this really that lopsided of a case?
I tried to be as neutral as possible but simply cannot for the life of me make sense of the events described in prosecution's timeline. All they do is emotionally blackmail. Look at this big bad wolf Steven and how he raped and murdered this innocent little red riding hood, opps, I mean woman. and how dare you question the decency of these morally upstanding righteous public servants. Do you want to believe that your Sheriff is corrupt??? Do you want to accept that you are at the mercy of a corrupt system? No, and here's the way to feel secure. You must accept the evidence we present. Cops good, Avers bad!It's funny how much whining there is about the documentary being one sided now when uh... Look at the public presentation of the case for years. I watched all those news reports and Dateline specials and shit at the time and there sure was a lot of evidence and testimony in Steven's favor that was a part of the trial that never got much traction in the press until this doc. If anything, even if it is intentionally biased (regarding which I believe the filmmakers that they tried to get access to both sides and couldn't), it's just righting the scales from the way this has had nearly 10 years to play out in the media.
[]mvw2 678 points 21 hours ago
I watched the documentary, and I agree there was specific bias towards the defendants side. I don't know if the police department was asked to be part of the documentary in order to make it less biased.
I don't recall this whole ordeal or have anything invested. However as I watched the documentary, biased as it may be, I was amazed at ALL of the key details and how badly they are used as legitimate proof when it's all rather laughable. All of it is swiss cheese shot at by a machine gun. The information is flawed and does not work together. I laughed at some points and scoffed at others at how they use certain pieces of evidence as reasonable proof when no intelligent man would come to that conclusion. It was so flawed, but everyone seemed to ignore the flaws.
Now this isn't a matter of if he did or did not do these acts. Frankly, let's assume he did do it, he did kill her. Let's start with that.
First, he's linked to her. He brought her there through the reasonable action of getting his car photographed. So she's there. Now what? What's the intent? What's the motive to make the next step? That was NEVER defined.
Second, let's say he kills her. The only thing known was she was shot. No other information is known, not when, not where, not by who, and no other actions are known (torture, rape, cutting, etc.). There is no information, none, only Brandon's discussion, only his words and solely his words, to which he changed a LOT as to time, what, everything.
Now the offense focused on her getting tortured and killed in the house, in the garage, and burned in the fire pit. Ok, how, with what? Where's the blood? Did you see how messy that house was, how messy that garage was? Where'd the blood go? Where'd the hair go? Where'd the skin, finger prints, and all other dna go? It's nowhere. It doesn't exist.
Let's move onto moving the body. There is her blood in the trunk of her car. Ok. Why? It went from house, to garage, to fire pit. Why is there any blood in the car at all? Why would the car ever be involved?
Ok, the body is burned and now it's time to get rid of the evidence. The body stays on the property. Why? Why would anyone keep the body close? Why is the car there? Why was it not crushed, hidden, torn apart. It's what they do. They tear apart and crush cars. They can make that stuff disappear or make it unrecognizable easily. It's never done. The car isn't even tossed anywhere. Why wasn't it driven a state over and dumped in a river? Why was the car conspicuously placed at his location. When the site was searched, why did the search party go straight to the car, exactly straight to the car. Does that seem odd? It's a 40 acre property with probably thousands of cars.
Why were the bones the way they were? Was the body chopped up? Where are other pieces of the body? There's a lot more to a body than just bones. What about teeth? What about her clothes, jewelry, and personal belongings?
Let's talk about the key. What information was on the key? His dna, only his dna it seems, not hers, not her mechanics, not her husbands, not friends, no one else's just his. How does that work?
Let's talk about the bullet? Why was it where it was? Where was the blood, the impact site? Why would it be buried in some obscure place? If she was shot and this bullet just landed there, where's the blood? Where's the firing location and bullet path? Where did the bullet come from and where did it go? There is no dna of hers there on anything. The garage is messy, extremely messy. There'd be blood everywhere on everything. It'd all have to be cleaned, meticulously. Did that happen? Nope. The garage was a mess, dirty, and with dna everywhere, uncleaned. Yet, there's no blood, no skin, no hair, nothing of Terresa's. Why was it missing.
Let's go to the bedroom. Let's say it did happen, she was shackled to the bed, stripped naked, and abused. She was beat, stabbed, raped. Ok. Where's any evidence? Again, blood, hair, skin, semen, anything? Was the room cleaned? No. It was a dirty mess.
In fact, nowhere on the property was any evidence of Terrisa. The only places anything was was the key, found much later, the car with superficial blood in various locations (why?), and a single bullet that came so much later. All the evidence was found by only one man, the same man over and over.
Does any of this seem...odd?
@SklarBrothers 13h13 hours ago
Ken Kratz's voice is so high, it just tried to sext battered women at Burning Man. #kenkratzsvoiceissohigh #makingamurderer
Making a Murderer, a 10-part documentary released Dec. 18 on Netflix, follows the case of Steven Avery, a Manitowoc County, Wis., man convicted of killing a freelance photographer two years after being exonerated for a crime he didn't commit.
The filmmakers soon bring up the idea that local law enforcement had it out for Avery.
Manitowoc County Sheriff Robert Hermann said law enforcement would have no reason to frame an innocent man and wouldn't call it a documentary.
"A documentary puts things in chronological order and tells the story as it is. ... I’ve heard things are skewed," said Hermann, who hasn't seen the series but has been discussing it with the department. "They’ve taken things out of context and taken them out of the order in which they occurred, which can lead people to a different opinion or conclusion."
Avery was cleared of a 1985 rape conviction — after serving 18 years in prison — following the discovery of new evidence that linked the crime to another man. A couple years later, Avery and his teenage nephew, Brendan Dassey, were accused of killing 25-year-old Teresa Halbach.
Halbach was photographing vehicles for Auto Trader magazine on Halloween in 2005. Her third and final stop was supposed to be Avery's Auto Salvage near Mishicot. This was the day she was last seen.
A few days later, Halbach's parents reported her missing. Two days after their report, search volunteers found what they believed to be Halbach's Toyota RAV4 at the Averys' salvage yard. On Nov. 10, a day after Avery was arrested, then-Calumet County Sheriff Jerry Pagel announced Halbach had been killed on the property and her body burned.
The documentary alleges law enforcement and the court system mishandled the case and also questions whether evidence may have been planted to frame Avery.
"Show me the evidence he was framed. There is not going to be any. It didn’t happen," said Hermann, who joined the department in 1985. "I don’t know why anybody in law enforcement would want to get him, that makes no sense."
"They relate it to the previous lawsuit. That has nothing to do with law enforcement. The lawsuit was against the county and ... while we don’t like to have lawsuits against your county or your city or whatever, really to the individual law enforcement officer, that doesn’t mean a lot because it just doesn’t affect them," Hermann added.
Avery had been attempting to sue the county for $36 million over the wrongful conviction at the time of his arrest.
Hermann said Manitowoc County turned the case over to Calumet County Sheriff's Department — which led the investigation efforts and determined what charges to present — almost immediately.
"Because of the previous case, we thought it would be best. That was right from the get-go we had the other agency involved and taking the lead on it," he said. "Anytime there is a serious incident, if you have a suspect, it’s best to get that arrest made, but you can only do that when you have enough probable cause. And anytime you have a serious case like this, you’re working with the courts, the DA’s office, other law enforcement."
Avery was sentenced in 2007 to life in prison without parole on first-degree intentional homicide as a party to a crime, and possession of a firearm as a felon.
Dassey was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, mutilating a corpse and second-degree sexual assault, all as a party to a crime, according to court records. He is eligible for parole with extended supervision on Nov. 1, 2048, but has taken his case into the federal court system in hopes of being released.
Sheriff: 'Making a Murderer' is not a documentary
I love how the frame job couldn't have possibly have happened to Avery in the murder trial...when the very same people did a frame job to him on the rape trial! Perfectly logical.
"A documentary puts things in chronological order and tells the story as it is. ... Ive heard things are skewed," said Hermann, who hasn't seen the series but has been discussing it with the department.
Nice, Sheriff.
The same kind of lazy, unfounded analysis that got us in this mess in the first place.
They did arrange things out of order to make it more understandable for the viewer. They would introduce specific witness testimony after presenting what the defense thought happened with a particular piece of evidence for example. It still doesn't change anything about the evidence, they just re-arrange the presentation to the viewer so it's more enjoyable to watch.
The kid on trial didn't know the difference between yards and feet or what the word "inconsistent" meant.
It's absurd.
Yeah, but just the fact that "I didn't even bother to watch it.. I heard from someone else.. formed my opinion from that" sums up how they do things around there.
This was rough. He had to make decisions about his defense, whether or not to testify against his uncle, and whether or not to take a plea on top of his coerced confession. The investigators and/or his lawyers tell him his story is inconsistent and he doesn't understand what that means. There's no way this kid could understand what was happening. Do they not have social workers in Wisconsin?
Him being expected to take an active role in his defense is like asking an average 11 year old or bright 8 year old to defend themselves against two Grownup Police Officers accusing them of rape and murder.
They never investigated Karen Halback'sor barely mentioned him. Any info there?creepy roommate
That article states that Stephen "molested" Brendan... Is there any evidence for that?
Can you describe us what happened to Teresa instead? I want to know what you think happened. I am open to the possibility that Avery killed her but I just do not see a convincing argument to prove that. Describe us the timeline from Oct 31st onwards.You think heBecause of "reasons"?killed her, planted her car, planted her bones, whispered info that only the killer would know into Brendan's ear, and then planted Avery's blood somehow in her car? Or do you believe he merely killed her elsewhere and let the cops do all the planting of evidence?