Support NeoGAF

[suzu]

I only watched the first episode, and at first I was starting to feel a little bit of his plight

after thinking more about it, I was inclined to agree with my sister - this guy burned a cat alive, or threw it over a fire or w/e.. I don't particularly care to see much more about what injustices he faced based on that and a couple of other personality traits that he (had) exhibited in the first ep

I'm sure it's all f'ed up, of course, but.. cruelty to animals doesn't really make me feel sorry for anyone to any degree after that =3 perhaps if they had omitted that part

I don't think he's a really good person at all, but you should probably check out the rest of the series before tossing everything out.

And you haven't even got up to his nephew's part yet.

 

[bebop242]

Smh at the thought "he deserves everything he gets because he hurt/killed an animal." Framed for sexual assualt and served 18 years? Thats fine he hurt an amimal. Get convicted for murder with a court case that seeps with corruption and raises a rainbow of reasonable doubt? That's fine he hurt an animal.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

The misanthropic "he deserved it because of the cat" posts are terrible. I have to believe these people just aren't giving much thought to the gravity of injustice done here.

 

[MThanded]

I only watched the first episode, and at first I was starting to feel a little bit of his plight

after thinking more about it, I was inclined to agree with my sister - this guy burned a cat alive, or threw it over a fire or w/e.. I don't particularly care to see much more about what injustices he faced based on that and a couple of other personality traits that he (had) exhibited in the first ep

I'm sure it's all f'ed up, of course, but.. cruelty to animals doesn't really make me feel sorry for anyone to any degree after that =3 perhaps if they had omitted that part

This is exactly the type of nonsense people use to justify police killings.

"He had some trouble in his past, he probably deserved what was coming."

Independent of prior behavior people deserve the right to a fair judicial process. He also wasn't boasting about this.

 

[Ayt]

The misanthropic "he deserved it because of the cat" posts are terrible. I have to believe these people just aren't giving much thought to the gravity of injustice done here.

They see the world as being made up of "good" and "bad" people. If something like this happens to someone deemed a bad person, eh, whatever, he got what he deserved. Injustice only applies to the good.

It is the same mindset that leads to the "he's no angel" posts we are all too familiar with in other cases.

 

[LaserBuddha]

They see the world as being made up of "good" and "bad" people. If something like this happens to someone deemed a bad person, eh, whatever, he got what he deserved. Injustice only applies to the good.

It is the same mindset that leads to the "he's no angel" posts we are all too familiar with in other cases.

Sometimes if someone is the victim of an insane law, like getting death for possessing marijuana somewhere in Southeast Asia or whatever, they will come in droves saying stuff like "I can't feel any sympathy because he should have known the possible consequences" or something like that. Like, running afoul of an unjust law makes you a bad person or something.

Or something like "I have no sympathy for the dead kid's parents, they should have been watching the kid."

I think it's easier to not think about something at all if you can just write off the tragedy in your mind with shakes logic about what kind of person the victim was.

 

[DarkJediKnight]

My wife has a theory that she think Lenk is the killer, that he had some kind of a relationship or was covering up more of Katz' sexual allegations. What if Teresa was somehow involved with Katz or Lenk and wanted it public. Lenk is the perfect guy to do the job and frame Avery. This way, one loose end ties another. No civil suit, and no tattletale.

Don't know how I feel about it, but Lenk's involvement is more than simple police work. If there's one thing I'm 100% confident of is that he planted evidence to get Avery. What exactly and in what manner, I can't say.

 

[Bowler]

Not only that, but we are talking about a four-five hour window for the bulk of the thing. Killing. Cleaning. Burning. Calming down. I just don't see it either. Not between the bus driver's report and Jodi's calls.

I mean he would have to be the biggest best sleuth/ criminal ever

 

[MarauderShields]

And it should be pointed out that Avery admitted he was very young, hanging out with the wrong crowd, and felt sadness after killing the cat.

He fessed up to the crime of killing the cat, admitted to his guilt, and took his punishment.

It's not like the guy was bragging about killing the cat.

I don't know if I would consider 20 to be very young. I figured he was younger after watching the documentary.

But did he fess up? This article says otherwise

A few months later, Avery and another man were charged with cruelty to animals after dousing Avery’s cat with gasoline and oil and tossing it into a bonfire at the Avery junkyard. Though he claimed he had nothing to do with the cat’s death, Avery was found guilty and imprisoned for nine months.

http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/

 

[Chopper]

I've just finished watching this, and this is a looooong thread, so excuse my ignorance, but please tell me: Is this a horribly biased piece of filmmaking, or is the situation as fucked up as it appears? Because I am fucking livid.

 

[Mr. Mister]

The defense DID provide evidence he may have done something wrong, which is why it was admissible in court. If it was evidence of literally nothing it wouldn't have been presented.

What evidence did they present? I'd love to hear about it as in my mind that's a bombshell. All I recall is that specific conversation which isn't evidence of any foul play though this threads body language experts might disagree.

 

[IceCold]

.

 

[Chopper]

There's a slight bias towards the Averys (many of them have been charged with sexual crimes for example but that wasn't mentioned). The prosecution also refused to work with the filmmakers so there's a bias towards the defence. Some Evidence was left out from both sides (although the stuff left out from the prosecution has been debunked). All in all I'd say it's pretty accurate though.

God dammit.

 

[Oddduck]

I don't know if I would consider 20 to be very young. I figured he was younger after watching the documentary.

But did he fess up? This article says otherwise

http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/

I'm just going by what I remembered from the documentary. In the first episode, they kind of framed it like he was this guy who always fessed up to all of his crimes.

But thanks for the link, that's interesting. I didn't realize he was 20.

 

[KingBroly]

The Prosecution's story, as is, involving the garage and the bedroom, really isn't plausible when there's just no DNA or blood evidence there. That alone shows how much doubt there is by their story. If you can't get the story of the crime right, then there's not enough evidence to convict.

 

[Nappuccino]

The Prosecution's story, as is, involving the garage and the bedroom, really isn't plausible when there's just no DNA or blood evidence there. That alone shows how much doubt there is by their story. If you can't get the story of the crime right, then there's not enough evidence to convict.

The dumb thing is, even if Steven did it, the prosecutor's (or more specifically, the police) butchered their own chance of a legit guilty verdict by obsessively crafting their own story, one with no real evidence beyond bones and a car.

 

[Chopper]

Did I miss it, or during the trial did they neglect to mention the fact that Halbach's DNA wasn't on the key? Cos that seems pretty massive.

 

[someday]

The Prosecution's story, as is, involving the garage and the bedroom, really isn't plausible when there's just no DNA or blood evidence there. That alone shows how much doubt there is by their story. If you can't get the story of the crime right, then there's not enough evidence to convict.

Wouldn't the defense have been able to say in the trial that without any evidence of blood in the bedroom or garage, that there was no way the crime happened in either room? This seems like a huge issue and I don't understand how the jury didn't see this. I still have 3 episodes to watch so maybe I just missed this. I'm actually having a really hard time watching the remaining episodes because it just pisses me off so much.

 

[Chopper]

What's next for Avery? Is there not some sort of kickstarter collection for a lawyer for him? Can we fund the testing of the blood in some way? I am at a complete loss for words regarding the whole thing, to be honest. It's fucking crazy.

And I'm gutted for Brendan. He never got to see Wrestlemania. The humanity!

 

[yyzjohn]

What's next for Avery? Is there not some sort of kickstarter collection for a lawyer for him? Can we fund the testing of the blood in some way? I am at a complete loss for words regarding the whole thing, to be honest. It's fucking crazy.

And I'm gutted for Brendan. He never got to see Wrestlemania. The humanity!

He recently got a new lawyer, specializes in wrongful conviction cases.

 

[Chopper]

He recently got a new lawyer, specializes in wrongful conviction cases.

Okay. That's cool. So, what's happening?

 

[plagiarize]

Okay. That's cool. So, what's happening?

The new lawyer claims she has new evidence that will exonerate Steven. She hasn't exonerated everyone she's taken on, but she has a good track record, presumably because she doesn't take on cases she doesn't think she can win.

There's some suggestion that the search warrant wasn't legal in the first place (apparently it doesn't list all of the locations they searched), according to a complaint Avery filed himself.

I guess, we keep watching to find out what the new lawyer has exactly... and go from there.

 

[Bowler]

Okay. That's cool. So, what's happening?

Nothing as of yet... just lawyer talk, literally took the case last week

 

[j_rocca42]

Okay. That's cool. So, what's happening?

I read somewhere that anonymous is going to take up Stevens cause.

 

[Grinchy]

Did I miss it, or during the trial did they neglect to mention the fact that Halbach's DNA wasn't on the key? Cos that seems pretty massive.

I don't think it ever came up again from what was shown. I was surprised by that too.

If my car key turned up somewhere with none of my DNA on it, that seems like it would be weird.

 

[KrisB]

Did I miss it, or during the trial did they neglect to mention the fact that Halbach's DNA wasn't on the key? Cos that seems pretty massive.

They didn't which I agree is extremely odd.

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

no the documentary comes off like a propaganda piece, and seeing a petition reach the whitehouse with the sheer amount of attention is sad. Yes I believe the case was handled poorly... so was ojs, so was aaron hernandez's, and so were likely the vast majority of cases. The system is broken and that's sad... however it doesn't change the fact that it's far more likely than not that Steven Avery killed this women.

For shame. All on the cusp of being awarded a large sum of money from state officials who had to pony it up themselves, unfortunate for Steve these very same state officials found a dead burnt body buried in Steve's very own front yard, with the woman's car parked in his own very car lot, and the key of the car in Steve's very own home.

Oh you Steven Avery...case shut and closed.

 

[Ayumi]

Did I miss it, or during the trial did they neglect to mention the fact that Halbach's DNA wasn't on the key? Cos that seems pretty massive.

They didn't which I agree is extremely odd.

Unfortunately there were a lot of things (that would have been in favor of Steven) they purposely ignored.

 

[2MF]

Wow, what a story.

So many things here that show the police / judicial system failed. Things like the Manitowoc police being involved in the investigation despite the obvious conflicts of interest and the promises of not being involved. The tube with Avery's blood, and the box containing it being tampered with (why on earth would that happen?). The disgusting way that the police keeps giving hints to Brendan Dassey on what they want him to say, and the fact that a clearly retarded 16 year old boy got treated as if he was capable of testifying accurately. Even if I completely ignore this case and Avery/Brendan, this series shows in a powerful way that the system can be very messed up.

Regarding Brendan's confession, I really don't see how him + Avery were able to clean up so well the bloody crime scene that the confession paints. It's so hard to believe that these two not at all bright guys could clean up all that blood, marks on the bed from shackles being pulled, Brendan's DNA etc.

 

[plagiarize]

I don't think it ever came up again from what was shown. I was surprised by that too.

If my car key turned up somewhere with none of my DNA on it, that seems like it would be weird.

Not that it stops me thinking the key was planted, but if I took your key and tried to clean all the DNA off of it, it seems quite possible that it would just end up with only my DNA on it.

Now why Steven would wash all the DNA off the key and hide it behind the bookshelf, when Theresa's car was still on his property and easily matched to it... there's a question.

 

[Syder]

Regarding Brendan's confession, I really don't see how him + Avery were able to clean up so well the bloody crime scene that the confession paints. It's so hard to believe that these two not at all bright guys could clean up all that blood, marks on the bed from shackles being pulled, Brendan's DNA etc.

About those 'shackles'...

The actual cuffs without fur

They were bought from a sex shop by Steven Avery who was with Barb at the time. Now, from personal experience, I've never come across a pair of novelty handcuffs that worked in any way close to actual cuffs/shackles, i.e. if you really want to break free, you could. In fact, attaching them to something like a bedpost would give you better leverage to break the chain.

If we're concluding that Steven Avery (and Brendan Dassey) had the capacity to forensically clean a murder scene then you would assume SA would have the sense not to restrain an intended rape/murder victim with novelty handcuffs.

 

[MWS Natural]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no hard evidence found that involved Brendan at all, except his "confession", right? I'd like to hear that jury debating giving a life sentence to this kid with zero evidence found and only a confession to go on, it seems like the concept of reasonable doubt was no longer a thing for them.

Small town Wisconsin...not the brightest bunch of people.

 

[Weckum]

Finished it yesterday, and based on the documentary I'd say there was definitely more than enough 'reasonable doubt' to find both guys not guilty.

Man, I felt so bad for Brendan throughout this thing

 

[mattiewheels]

When I saw Paradise Lost, I figured Misskelley's forced confession would have become a lightning rod for reform when it came to coercion being an acceptable and admissible tactic. And now that the same method of leading a simple kid towards a statement in a very underhanded way is analyzed in the court and still kept as sound evidence, I have no faith in the system anymore. A higher court that's got objectivity beyond needing a conviction would rule that what took place was coercion, but Brendan isn't being given a single chance to take this higher. Just rots my brain thinking about it.

 

[Trouble]

About those 'shackles'...

They were bought from a sex shop by Steven Avery who was with Barb at the time. Now, from personal experience, I've never come across a pair of novelty handcuffs that worked in any way close to actual cuffs/shackles, i.e. if you really want to break free, you could. In fact, attaching them to something like a bedpost would give you better leverage to break the chain.

If we're concluding that Steven Avery (and Brendan Dassey) had the capacity to forensically clean a murder scene then you would assume SA would have the sense not to restrain an intended rape/murder victim with novelty handcuffs.

Every non-police pair of handcuffs I've ever seen have a little safety latch that lets you remove them without a key. I think it's the law in some places for handcuffs sold to civilians.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

A man with an IQ of 70 could not possibly erased all blood and DNA from the crime scene. I just don't believe that. Also, the hole in the test tube with the blood.

But again, is there any crucial information, that the series left out, that makes Avery a serious suspect ? 60 pages are a bit too much to go through.

 

[kyo27]

A man with an IQ of 70 could not possibly erased all blood and DNA from the crime scene. I just don't believe that. Also, the hole in the test tube with the blood.

But again, is there any crucial information, that the series left out, that makes Avery a serious suspect ? 60 pages are a bit too much to go through.

He called Theresa 3 times the day she disappeared, the first two times with the caller ID blocked. His ex fiancee thinks that he absolutely did it now. She said hes Jekyll and Hyde. He was apparently so abusive towards her that she swallowed rat poison to get away from him.

 

[UFO]

He called Theresa 3 times the day she disappeared, the first two times with the caller ID blocked. His ex fiancee thinks that he absolutely did it now. She said hes Jekyll and Hyde. He was apparently so abusive towards her that she swallowed rat poison to get away from him.

He was in jail most of their relationship. How hard could it have been to "get away"?

 

[kyo27]

He was in jail most of their relationship. How hard could it have been to "get away"?

He was out of prison for like 2 years. I'm assuming they met after he got out in 03.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

Small town Wisconsin...not the brightest bunch of people.

I lived there for two years out of college. It's an interesting crowd.

 

[Strax]

He called Theresa 3 times the day she disappeared, the first two times with the caller ID blocked. His ex fiancee thinks that he absolutely did it now. She said hes Jekyll and Hyde. He was apparently so abusive towards her that she swallowed rat poison to get away from him.

If he really did abuse her, she would be the last person I'd believe about the Theresa case unless she hands over some evidence.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

He called Theresa 3 times the day she disappeared, the first two times with the caller ID blocked. His ex fiancee thinks that he absolutely did it now. She said hes Jekyll and Hyde. He was apparently so abusive towards her that she swallowed rat poison to get away from him.

This is all just a clusterfuck. I hope he's guilty, just like his former lawyer said.

I have no reason to believe this, but the brother always striked me as an odd one. Also, what about those deleted phone messages on theresas phone ?

Edit: Also Brendan. There is not a single piece of evidence. NOT ONE. Only his testimony which was a clusterfuck too, the policemen literally talked him into saying that. IF Bredan was sentenced not guilty, that would mean Avery is also innocent, am I right in this assumption ? That is why I think, he was sent straight into jail. Fuck the jury man, this is a stupid kid. And his fucking cousin Kayla cried because she lied.

 

[IHaveIce]

I only watched the first episode, and at first I was starting to feel a little bit of his plight

after thinking more about it, I was inclined to agree with my sister - this guy burned a cat alive, or threw it over a fire or w/e.. I don't particularly care to see much more about what injustices he faced based on that and a couple of other personality traits that he (had) exhibited in the first ep

I'm sure it's all f'ed up, of course, but.. cruelty to animals doesn't really make me feel sorry for anyone to any degree after that =3 perhaps if they had omitted that part

Man I hope you never do Jury service.

 

[Mr. Mister]

If he really did abuse her, she would be the last person I'd believe about the Theresa case unless she hands over some evidence.

What about the letters threatening to kill his former wife? Or the time he went to jail for running a women off the road and trying to force her into his car?

 

[Kenzodielocke]

What about the letters threatening to kill his former wife? Or the time he went to jail for running a women off the road and trying to force her into his car?

Well, that is certainly right, but he said, that she told everybody he was masturbating in front of a car and that is what riled him up to do that. We still don't really know which part of the statements are telling the truth.

 

[RiggyRob]

Did I miss it, or during the trial did they neglect to mention the fact that Halbach's DNA wasn't on the key? Cos that seems pretty massive.

IIRC the key that was found wasn't the original car key - the prosecution spun it so that it was a valet key that Teresa had never touched, and I guess the defence didn't have a good enough explanation otherwise.

 

[Mr. Mister]

Well, that is certainly right, but he said, that she told everybody he was masturbating in front of a car and that is what riled him up to do that. We still don't really know which part of the statements are telling the truth.

Nothing she could have said makes what he did justifiable.

 

[Frodo]

He is abusive, yes. I'm not even gonna question this. Let's just say he is indeed abusive towards women.

Is that what pushed him to shot someone 11 times, mutilate her body, burn her body down and move the bones to another 2 different places?

If he killed her, why would he ever burn her in the quarry and then move the body to his back yard? Or burn her in his back yard and then move a few bones to the quarry?

My biggest problem with it is not if he is guilty or not, is that the prosecution theory is not substantiated by the physical evidence. Do we want to lock people away for life when there is a sure amount of reasonable doubt? Prosecution’s job was to prove Avery guilty of it beyond reasonable doubt, they didn't.

 

[Nappuccino]

IIRC the key that was found wasn't the original car key - the prosecution spun it so that it was a valet key that Teresa had never touched, and I guess the defence didn't have a good enough explanation otherwise.

Wait, seriously? If she never touched it, how did Steven get the key, period?

 

[pooptest]

What about the letters threatening to kill his former wife? Or the time he went to jail for running a women off the road and trying to force her into his car?

The letters were already explained last page or a couple pages back.

Everyone just needs to go on Reddit and read all the evidence and see which has been refuted. This back and forth of misinformation or lack of information is rather tedious.

However, to answer your question, he was threatening her because she sent letters to him saying she couldn't handle raising the kids alone and was going to kill them so she wouldn't have to deal with them anymore. I'm sure you would've done the same. I mean, what else do you say? "Please don't, it would make me sad." You also have to remember he's not the brightest bulb in the box, with an IQ clicking in at 70. I don't think he even thought asking a family member for help to deal with her. He probably just seen the letter and got enraged and sent an equally dark letter in return.

And the womAn in question was his cousin who was spreading rumors about him all over town masturbating on her car, sex with his wife on his front lawn, etc. She was saying things about him to friends, at bars, etc.
All stuff that he denied, so it comes down to he said/she said. That's what they think put a target on his back, initially, with the sheriff's office. Since her husband was an officer and found an easy way to fit him to the attempted rape crime.

And that's another thing... The first time he went away for wasn't even rape. It was attempted rape. There was no penetration. She fought him off before he could. I still don't see how he got X amount of years for that (I can't remember the actual duration of the sentence). While murderers and actual rapists have served less time... It's ridiculous. They didn't just throw the book at him, they threw the library.

Nothing she could have said makes what he did justifiable.

Again, super low IQ.

Wait, seriously? If she never touched it, how did Steven get the key, period?

None of the key stuff makes sense, I'm not sure why the prosecution even admitted it into evidence. Her DNA obviously had to be on it at some point since it was her vehicle and she most likely put it there. And if he "had gloves to wipe down all the DNA in her car", then why did his DNA end up on the key? Oh, I must make sure I don't touch anything in her car and even wear gloves. Oh, a key, let me take my gloves off and rub my DNA all over it and leave it under a slipper.