Support NeoGAF

[EthanC]

Could sweat be planted by simply using one of his unclean shirts? (not sure)

I don't buy the fact that he cleaned the garage using bleach, judging by the photo of the place.

Leg Irons & Handcuffs are.. weird, but not damning.

He used bleach, and also lit the floor on fire using an accelerant according to info the documentarians chose to not share.

 

[aerts1js]

He used bleach, and also lit the floor on fire using an accelerant according to info the documentarians chose to not share.

Link/Source? If the source/document is legit and not tainted, that's pretty bad. The garage didn't exactly look like it had gone through any recent cleaning. I remain skeptical.

 

[SlickShoes]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but the current Manitowoc Sheriff did an interview with THR that ran last night. Here are some excerpts about info that was left out of the documentary:









http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...jstrause&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_headlines

Obviously we knew the doc was skewed in favor of Steven and Brendan, but this information makes me think even more that they actually did murder her.

None of this points to a murderer.

All Avery DNA on the key, it's never in the doc said to be blood just DNA, why is no one elses DNA on it, why was it only found after 7 searches of the room?

So he cleaned the floor removing all traces of blood, but he left her burnt goods in a barrel next to his house? never checked her car that he dumped in his own yard for blood either?

The story is all over the place even with the things that doc left out.

Was there DNA evidence on the leg irons and handcuffs? you know the ones Brendan said she was murdered/beaten/cut/stabbed while wearing?

Probably dumped them in bleach and set them on fire too.

 

[BronsonLee]

Who decided letting the sheriff comment on the documentary was a good idea? That just brings trouble

 

[backflip10019]

None of this points to a murderer.

All Avery DNA on the key, it's never in the doc said to be blood just DNA, why is no one elses DNA on it, why was it only found after 7 searches of the room?

So he cleaned the floor removing all traces of blood, but he left her burnt goods in a barrel next to his house? never checked her car that he dumped in his own yard for blood either?

The story is all over the place even with the things that doc left out.

Was there DNA evidence on the leg irons and handcuffs? you know the ones Brendan said she was murdered/beaten/cut/stabbed while wearing?

Probably dumped them in bleach and set them on fire too.

Well the more tangential evidence they reveal that could imply murder does make me think that he murdered her. How did the cops plant Steven's sweat on the key? What would both Steven AND Brendan need leg shackles for?

I 100% agree that the police planted certain evidence to ensure a conviction (the key, the bullet was possibly moved from a different location, maybe the car), but there is just so much that links them directly to the crime and seems far too circumstantial for him to be innocent.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

Is there any documents proving it was sweat? Leg irons were purchased? and bleach was on Brendan's pants?

Is this all coming from the Sheriff department again?

I mean I would need to see if this stuff came up before or after the little press confrence.

 

[aerts1js]

Is there any documents proving it was sweat? Leg irons were purchased? and bleach was on Brendan's pants?

Is this all coming from the Sheriff department again?

I mean I would need to see if this stuff came up before or after the little press confrence.

Yeah, I need a source for all of this. I'm not going to take the sheriffs word on anything.

1. The sweat doesn't make sense because how could it be possible that only his DNA was found on the key? There is no way to plant sweat using something like an old shirt? edit: I just read that sweat can be planted using old clothing (within 8 days of use). The key should be completely discarded.

2. Cleaning of garage and then floor set on fire. Where is the source on this? Seems ridiculous given the appearance of the place.

3. Leg Irons. Receipts when these were purchased? Was her DNA found on any of this? Owning these does not mean you killed someone.

 

[EthanC]

Well the more tangential evidence they reveal that could imply murder does make me think that he murdered her. How did the cops plant Steven's sweat on the key? What would both Steven AND Brendan need leg shackles for?

I 100% agree that the police planted certain evidence to ensure a conviction (the key, the bullet was possibly moved from a different location, maybe the car), but there is just so much that links them directly to the crime and seems far too circumstantial for him to be innocent.

We know what the leg shackles were for. Sex. Avery claims he bought them to have sex with his fiancee when she got out of prison.

2. Cleaning of garage and then floor set on fire. Where is the source on this? Seems ridiculous given the appearance of the place.

Brendan's recounting of how they dealt with the crime scene in the garage. Or maybe he got that from one of the many books he read. It's in his sworn statement. You can read the entire thing online. Lots of info in it that the people making the documentary chose to not share. Because of "reasons".

 

[SlickShoes]

Well the more tangential evidence they reveal that could imply murder does make me think that he murdered her. How did the cops plant Steven's sweat on the key? What would both Steven AND Brendan need leg shackles for?

I 100% agree that the police planted certain evidence to ensure a conviction (the key, the bullet was possibly moved from a different location, maybe the car), but there is just so much that links them directly to the crime and seems far too circumstantial for him to be innocent.

I just don't understand why you would go to the trouble of cleaning the blood from your garage/house to a forensic level then leave the burnout body and belongings right next to your house and the car a few hundred yards away covered in blood.

I have no idea about the leg shackles and hand cuffs, but if they were used in a murder wouldn't they have some trace evidence on them?

Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych seem the most suspicious to me from all of this stuff.

 

[backflip10019]

And here's a New York Times article from this morning interviewing Ken Kratz:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/a...-murderer.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

 

[EthanC]

I just don't understand why you would go to the trouble of cleaning the blood from your garage/house to a forensic level then leave the burnout body and belongings right next to your house and the car a few hundred yards away covered in blood.

I have no idea about the leg shackles and hand cuffs, but if they were used in a murder wouldn't they have some trace evidence on them?

Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych seem the most suspicious to me from all of this stuff.

The people with absolutely no evidence pointing their way are more suspicious than the one guy with tons of evidence pointing his way and the guy that admits he played a big role in the rape and murder? Really?

 

[aerts1js]

We know what the leg shackles were for. Sex. Avery claims he bought them to have sex with his fiancee when she got out of prison.



Brendan's recounting of how they dealt with the crime scene in the garage. Or maybe he got that from one of the many books he read. It's in his sworn statement. You can read the entire thing online. Lots of info in it that the people making the documentary chose to not share. Because of "reasons".

Dude, you put way too much stock in Brendan's statements. That's like the only thing you base your claims/assumptions upon.

You continue to only use his information to back up all of your theories yet you claim he doesn't have the intelligence to even read a book. It's hilarious.

 

[backflip10019]

I just don't understand why you would go to the trouble of cleaning the blood from your garage/house to a forensic level then leave the burnout body and belongings right next to your house and the car a few hundred yards away covered in blood.

I have no idea about the leg shackles and hand cuffs, but if they were used in a murder wouldn't they have some trace evidence on them?

Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych seem the most suspicious to me from all of this stuff.

It doesn't make sense, but I don't think that's an issue because it doesn't have to make sense.

We're not exactly dealing with a criminal mastermind here. He might have thought it enough to clean the basement and figured the car wouldn't be found in the hundreds he had on his property and the fire would've fully disintegrated her body.

I'm as confused as anyone about this case, but I think that the evidence that was left out of the documentary points more to the idea that he did in fact murder her.

 

[EthanC]

Dude, you put way too much stock in Brendan's statements. That's like the only thing you base your claims/assumptions upon.

Of course I put stock in his statements. He states things that only a person at the scene of the crime would know. Unless of course he was just lucky in his guesses about what all of her clothing looked like. Or where Teresa's key would be. Or where Steven touched her car. Or why there was blood in the back of it. Or how Steven got the cut on his hand that day that led to there being blood in her car. Or how blood and bleach magically got on his own jeans. Or how he got all the info that he shared with others prior to the police questioning him. For someone who is supposedly too dumb to know what he's saying, he sure concocted quite the believable tale. A tale that fit a lot of the evidence as well.

 

[santi_yo]

I loved the entire thing, great twists. I feel really bad for the kid.


In my dirty mind, the killer was

Spoiler

Teresas's brother.

 

[SlickShoes]

The people with absolutely no evidence pointing their way are more suspicious than the one guy with tons of evidence pointing his way and the guy that admits he played a big role in the rape and murder? Really?

There is stuff that points towards those two, as well as others but it was never pursued.

I don't know how you can take seriously anything Brendan has said at all, his guilt or innocence is up in the air.

 

[SlickShoes]

It doesn't make sense, but I don't think that's an issue because it doesn't have to make sense.

We're not exactly dealing with a criminal mastermind here. He might have thought it enough to clean the basement and figured the car wouldn't be found in the hundreds he had on his property and the fire would've fully disintegrated her body.

I'm as confused as anyone about this case, but I think that the evidence that was left out of the documentary points more to the idea that he did in fact murder her.

I agree it does, but I still can't then get my head around how each of them were convicted of the same crime but different versions of it.

 

[SlickShoes]

Of course I put stock in his statements. He states things that only a person at the scene of the crime would know. Unless of course he was just lucky in his guesses about what all of her clothing looked like. Or where Teresa's key would be. Or where Steven touched her car. Or why there was blood in the back of it. Or how Steven got the cut on his hand that day that led to there being blood in her car. Or how blood and bleach magically got on his own jeans. Or how he got all the info that he shared with others prior to the police questioning him. For someone who is supposedly too dumb to know what he's saying, he sure concocted quite the believable tale. A tale that fit a lot of the evidence as well.

Was there blood evidence on his clothing?

 

[EthanC]

There is stuff that points towards those two, as well as others but it was never pursued.

I don't know how you can take seriously anything Brendan has said at all, his guilt or innocence is up in the air.

Except for me his guilt/innocence isn't up in the air. I'm all for him being given another trial though. He was mistreated terribly by his first attorney. I don't believe for a second that he simply made up all the stuff he said though.

 

[MisterR]

I think it's most likely that Avery killed her. I also think it's clear that the police planted a lot of the evidence to make sure he was convicted and that there was enough reasonable doubt that he should have been found not guilty.

 

[Jerm411]

So low and behold Ken Kratz is a lowlife POS that was sexting a rape victim all while prosecuting the offender....holy shit, yeah this is part of the crew that helped put Avery away.

All outstanding citizens...

 

[NimbusD]

Except for me his guilt/innocence isn't up in the air. I'm all for him being given another trial though. He was mistreated terribly by his first attorney. I don't believe for a second that he simply made up all the stuff he said though.

he said so many different things though? So which one exactly is him telling the truth? And where's the evidence to point to which scenario? We've seen evidence of the investigators saying what happened before Dassey even said the things and pressuring him to change his story until it matched what they wanted.

You can believe what you want all you want, it doesn't mean it's proof or it's true. There has to be something else to corroborate beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond doubt. Like, how do you not see there's a huge gaping hole of doubt there?

 

[Dalek]

'Making a Murderer' filmmakers: Original juror believes Steven Avery was framed
Video:

Speaking on TODAY Tuesday, filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos said a juror from Avery's 2005 murder case in Wisconsin has reached out to them amid the frenzy over their hit series to say they believed Avery was framed by law enforcement.

"(The juror) told us that they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty,'' Ricciardi said. "They believe Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion it should take place far away from Wisconsin."

There was behind-the-scenes vote-trading going on during the trial,the juror told the filmmakers, and the verdicts on each count were "a compromise."


"That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said.

"So that was a significant revelation."

The juror also said he or she voted to convict, but claimed that decision came under duress.

"They told us really that they were afraid that if they held out for a mistrial that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that and that they were fearful for their own safety,'' Demos said.

The filmmakers said they have not been able to verify the claims because they have not spoken with any other jurors. If there was a new trial, though, the mystery juror would be willing to serve as a "source," they said.

And this is a different juror than the gentleman that was interviewed on the documentary.

 

[RustyNails]

So low and behold Ken Kratz is a lowlife POS that was sexting a rape victim all while prosecuting the offender....holy shit, yeah this is part of the crew that helped put Avery away.

All outstanding citizens...

 

[Jerm411]

'Making a Murderer' filmmakers: Original juror believes Steven Avery was framed
Video:

These people..stand your ground. It's a guy's life we're talking about here...

 

[MonorailCat]

I mean it's somewhat understandable.
You see how corrupt the police is in that place. And if you have to live there and are identified as voted "not guilty" .. you probably won't be happy in Minotowoc for quite a while.

 

[EthanC]

he said so many different things though? So which one exactly is him telling the truth? And where's the evidence to point to which scenario? We've seen evidence of the investigators saying what happened before Dassey even said the things and pressuring him to change his story until it matched what they wanted.

You can believe what you want all you want, it doesn't mean it's proof or it's true. There has to be something else to corroborate beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond doubt. Like, how do you not see there's a huge gaping hole of doubt there?

Because much like The Innocence Project and all the appellate courts, I choose to look at everything. After watching the shitty, obviously biased, documentary, I read all the transcripts online. There's far more against Avery and Brendan than there is questionable. Avery sought this woman out. Harassed her on more than one occasion, and requested that she be the person that photograph his van on that day. He just so happened to buy shackles and handcuffs days prior, which he claims were for his fiancee, yet she was in jail. And Brendan magically knew that Avery used those same items to tie Teresa to the bed. Believe what you want. That's cool. I'll believe what I want. Avery is where he should be.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

These people..stand your ground. It's a guy's life we're talking about here...

Eh, you can't blame them. if you believe the police framed him, then that means you believe they vindictively put Avery away for most of his life for no reason, twice. I'd be scared to go against them too.

 

[Zach]

Just saw some coverage on NPR: http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/46190...ilmmakers-documented-the-making-of-a-murderer

 

[backflip10019]

Because much like The Innocence Project and all the appellate courts, I choose to look at everything. After watching the shitty, obviously biased, documentary, I read all the transcripts online. There's far more against Avery and Brendan than there is questionable. Avery sought this woman out. Harassed her on more than one occasion, and requested that she be the person that photograph his van on that day. He just so happened to buy shackles and handcuffs days prior, which he claims were for his fiancee, yet she was in jail. And Brendan magically knew that Avery used those same items to tie Teresa to the bed. Believe what you want. That's cool. I'll believe what I want. Avery is where he should be.

Totally agree with this post.

 

[Jerm411]

Eh, you can't blame them. if you believe the police framed him, then that means you believe they vindictively put Avery away for most of his life for no reason, twice. I'd be scared to go against them too.

I get what you're saying...that trial had no business anywhere near Manitowoc Co.

 

[Resident_UA]

Because much like The Innocence Project and all the appellate courts, I choose to look at everything. After watching the shitty, obviously biased, documentary, I read all the transcripts online. There's far more against Avery and Brendan than there is questionable. Avery sought this woman out. Harassed her on more than one occasion, and requested that she be the person that photograph his van on that day. He just so happened to buy shackles and handcuffs days prior, which he claims were for his fiancee, yet she was in jail. And Brendan magically knew that Avery used those same items to tie Teresa to the bed. Believe what you want. That's cool. I'll believe what I want. Avery is where he should be.

Sure, but if you are so confident in Avery guilt based on the evidence you should also be very confident that there was at least some tempering with evidence. Which is also a crime. It seems to me that you are picking sides for a sake of the argument instead of looking at the bigger picture.

 

[EthanC]

Sure, but if you are so confident in Avery guilt based on the evidence you should also be very confident that there was at least some tempering with evidence. Which is also a crime.

Which evidence do we know for sure has been tampered with? Sounds like the defense a lawyer would use when they know they're completely fucked based on all the other facts available against their client(s).

 

[Resident_UA]

Which evidence do we know for sure has been tampered with? Sounds like the defense a lawyer would use when they know they're completely fucked based on all the other facts available against their client(s).

Just to mention a few:

1. No Teresa DNA on key
2. Bullet in a garage but no blood
3. No fingerprints in the car
4. Tempered blood vial
5. Cops who said they will NOT be investigating the crime discovering all the evidence
etc


EDIT: And freaking licence plate call. That was just insane...

 

[MonorailCat]

Which evidence do we know for sure has been tampered with? Sounds like the defense a lawyer would use when they know they're completely fucked based on all the other facts available against their client(s).

How about the bullet in the garage.
It is claimed he washed the whole garage with bleach and burned the ground.
In such a professional way, that absolutely none of Theresas DNA was found. But the one magic bullet which was found MONTHS later still had DNA on it, which survived the bleach AND the burning. What a trooper that bullet is. Surviving and hiding until it's convenient for the prosecution.

 

[thenexus6]

I feel like this was all something Like Oldboy. Steven did something to someone years ago, and they've just spent their entire existence since getting back at him.

 

[MisterR]

Which evidence do we know for sure has been tampered with? Sounds like the defense a lawyer would use when they know they're completely fucked based on all the other facts available against their client(s).

While I agree he is likely guilty. I think there is almost no doubt that evidence was planted. That key was planted for sure. I'd guess the blood was likely planted in the car too.

 

[q_q]

Which evidence do we know for sure has been tampered with? Sounds like the defense a lawyer would use when they know they're completely fucked based on all the other facts available against their client(s).

Have you watched the show?!

 

[Psychotic_Mantis]

Anyone see this article from a member of the jury?

http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-believes-he-deserves-a-new-trial

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Trailer and garage were planted 100% 'cause there's no physical evidence to back them up except them existing. Murder took place off property because there's no physical evidence to say she was murdered there.

The prosecution rigged the game and ruined their own investigation with tunnel vision.

 

[Haruko]

Mr. Kratz also said a bullet with Ms. Halbach’s DNA on it found in Mr. Avery’s garage was matched to a rifle that hung over Mr. Avery’s bed. The gun was confiscated when officers searched his trailer on Nov. 5, 2005, and the bullet was found in the garage in March 2006, Mr. Kratz said.

“If they planted it, how did they get a bullet that was shot from Avery’s gun before Nov. 5?” he said.

If the bullet wasn't found until March 2006, how would they know the bullet predates Nov. 5 2005...?

Am I missing something here?

Couldn't they have shot a bullet out of the gun after confiscating it in Nov 2005, and later planted said bullet in March 2006?

 

[aerts1js]

Which evidence do we know for sure has been tampered with? Sounds like the defense a lawyer would use when they know they're completely fucked based on all the other facts available against their client(s).

What evidence can you conclude 100% couldn't have been tampered with by the police? (Car, keys, bones, etc.) They all show signs of possibly being planted/tampered with.

Why was Mantiowac involved in the search/investigation when they were explicitly told not to?

Why has Avery's story been consistent throughout the entire proceedings but the police's story has been anything but?

They very well may have committed the murder but the police's job is to PROVE that they did it.

Proving someone committed a murder does not mean planting evidence, using a "statement" by an individual under duress with low IQ being guided what to say by the police...that's insane. You do realize this isn't the first (or last) instance where a false confession has been made?

If you are choosing to only believe those statements and ignoring the very real possibility that all of the smoking gun evidence show signs of being tampered with than I hope you are never on a jury because wow.

 

[Afro Thunder]

I just watched the first episode. That got me into thinking about a book released some months ago about the justice unfairness.

A child is gunned down by a police officer; an investigator ignores critical clues in a case; an innocent man confesses to a crime he did not commit; a jury acquits a killer. The evidence is all around us: Our system of justice is fundamentally broken.

Even if the system operated exactly as it was designed to, we would still end up with wrongful convictions, trampled rights, and unequal treatment. This is because the roots of injustice lie not inside the dark hearts of racist police officers or dishonest prosecutors, but within the minds of each and every one of us.

In Unfair, Benforado shines a light on this troubling new field of research, showing, for example, that people with certain facial features receive longer sentences and that judges are far more likely to grant parole first thing in the morning.

http://www.adambenforado.com/unfair.html

 

[RustyNails]

Of course I put stock in his statements. He states things that only a person at the scene of the crime would know. Unless of course he was just lucky in his guesses about what all of her clothing looked like. Or where Teresa's key would be. Or where Steven touched her car. Or why there was blood in the back of it. Or how Steven got the cut on his hand that day that led to there being blood in her car. Or how blood and bleach magically got on his own jeans. Or how he got all the info that he shared with others prior to the police questioning him. For someone who is supposedly too dumb to know what he's saying, he sure concocted quite the believable tale. A tale that fit a lot of the evidence as well.

He bought the cuffs and shackles 3 weeks prior to her death, not few days ago. Secondly, the court affidavit records that the investigators found that both Steve and his sister Barb Janda went to the kinky store together to buy that stuf...so, umm...it raises more questions than answers them. Third, again no evidence of Teresa was found on them. If you are going with Mr. Wolf theory, then sure he buffed them to a shine. But then he becomes the opposite of Mr. Wolf when he didn't even dispose the license plate on the rav4.

 

[Erigu]

Of course I put stock in his statements.

"Of course", huh? Never mind the numerous contradictions? Really?

He states things that only a person at the scene of the crime would know. Unless of course he was just lucky in his guesses about what all of her clothing looked like.

Wiegert: Was it a T-shirt or button up shirt or what kind of shirt?
Brendan: A button up one.
Wiegert: What color?
Brendan: Like a black one.
Wiegert: OK, before you just said there was a white T-shirt. She had that on too?
Brendan: (nods "yes") mm huh.
Wiegert: Underneath that shirt?
Brendan: Yeah. (nods "yes")
Wiegert: OK, and in the other interview you said it was blue. Do you remember what color it was? If you don't remember, say you don't remember.
Brendan: I don't remember.

 

[BronsonLee]

I feel like Wigert and Fassbender kind of couldn't see the forest from the trees a bit. They basically interviewed Steven the same way. May have just been their technique, and it really, really fucked up here.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Because much like The Innocence Project and all the appellate courts, I choose to look at everything. After watching the shitty, obviously biased, documentary, I read all the transcripts online. There's far more against Avery and Brendan than there is questionable. Avery sought this woman out. Harassed her on more than one occasion, and requested that she be the person that photograph his van on that day. He just so happened to buy shackles and handcuffs days prior, which he claims were for his fiancee, yet she was in jail. And Brendan magically knew that Avery used those same items to tie Teresa to the bed. Believe what you want. That's cool. I'll believe what I want. Avery is where he should be.

I'm confused (and maybe I just missed it), but was there ever any actual evidence proving she was tied to the bed, or really, any of the stuff in Brendan's statement that you're taking as gospel?

I was under the impression that there was no physical evidence, just his story, when it came to just about everything surrounding her theoretical torture/abuse prior to being killed.

 

[aerts1js]

I'm confused (and maybe I just missed it), but was there ever any actual evidence proving she was tied to the bed, or really, any of the stuff in Brendan's statement that you're taking as gospel?

I was under the impression that there was no physical evidence, just his story, when it came to just about everything surrounding her theoretical torture/abuse prior to being killed.

No there wasn't. EthanC claims he looks at everything but at this point it's very obvious that he's only looking at that one statement/interrogation and ignoring everything else.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

Ok, so I am seeing that the documentary left out of a lot of contradicting evidence. I am curious if there is any evidence they left out regarding Brendon Dassey? What I am wondering is if there is any evidence pointing to him other than his own confession? That kid seems borderline mentally disabled, and it seems sick to me that he was able to be questioned like that without a guardian or counsel present.

 

[MonorailCat]

No there wasn't. EthanC claims he looks at everything but at this point it's very obvious that he's only looking at that one statement/interrogation and ignoring everything else.

By "looked at everything" he probably means one reddit post that fits his view.