Yep. Along with Avery admitting that he owned the restraints believed to be used in the murder. As well as the phone records of Avery calling her repeatedly.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
'Making a Murderer' subject Steven Avery denied new trial
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
Yep. Along with Avery admitting that he owned the restraints believed to be used in the murder. As well as the phone records of Avery calling her repeatedly.
I find these two pieces of information to be a red herring. Owning restraints is not problematic, if there is no DNA evidence then it is merely speculation on the part of the prosecution that they were used in the commission of the crime. They make for a good story on closing statement but that is about it. Assuming they were introduced at trial. Also, the frequent phone calls are not necessarily indicative that Avery killed her, the victim and the defendant had a business relationship.
backflip10019
Member
Steven Avery totally did it. There's so much evidence that points to him being involved. Glad he was denied a trial.
Which apparently the victim had tried to terminate because of Avery's behavior.
Wrong. the attorney has a strong case, but the judges in Wisconsin are corrupt enough that they won't do anything that goes against their marching orders from the top.
calling someone repeatedly is not grounds for murder.
I've called vendors repeatedly when they tell me they're going to be at my place at X time and they're not there.
If Halbach was restrained with those restraints wheres the blood? DA said her throat was slashed, wheres the blood in the bed room and on the restraints?
I feel like it becomes pretty significant evidence when the person who's been called repeatedly and tried to terminate their business relationship turns up dead on the property of the person she tried to terminate said business relationship with.
Also, apparently during some of those calls Avery even tried to hide his identity.
Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any doubt. From wikipedia:
"This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty."
There can be a theory that explains how the defendant was not the one that committed the crime. A juror may think this theory is possible, but not reasonable, and still find the defendant guilty.
And that's why she was there taking photos that day? That doesn't make sense.
Resident_UA
Member
I think he might have done it, but was there any evidence besides circumstantial that was not tampered with? Even if he did do it, there's no way it was done in a way that prosecution portrayed it.
I think it's kind of crazy how much backlash against Avery is there simply because he seems like a terrible person. I mean laws are there for a reason. If we let the justice system do whatever the fuck they want there will be more casualties than Avery alone could be responsible for.
That's not how justice is supposed to work.
On what basis?
That line of thinking is not how our criminal justice system is designed to work, nor is it remotely justified in a moral or ethical sense.
How infantile.
Sad!
Questionable evidence is left for the jury to decide. In that sense, he did have a full and fair trial even if we wouldn't have voted the same way as the jury.
However, if there is additional exonerating evidence that has emerged since the trial that is significant enough, then a new trial would indeed be appropriate.
He's not in jail for being a psychopath, he's in jail for murder.
Let's not lose sight of that. Whether or not he's a psychopath does not determine whether or not he deserves a new trial.
Let's not also forget the presence of pelvic bones elsewhere on the property. It doesn't make sense for him to dump all the bones in the fire near the trailer, then carry those two others to another location.
The prosecution's theory never made sense. Does that mean he didn't do it? Not necessarily. Does it mean that they didn't prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe so, yes. But I wasn't a juror, so this is just one man's opinion.
InaudibleWhispa
Member
You're still minimising the requirement of his guilt of this crime on the basis that he's done other things in the past worthy of punishment. There is absolutely reasonable doubt here. "I don't care, he killed a cat" does not make his predicament and that shit-show of a trial good when countless people who have done nothing will have to sit in the same court room.
plagiarize
Banned
They're doing everything in Brandon's case to keep him in prison despite his original trial being found a mistrial. They're going to do everything they can to keep Steven in prison.
Just as they did everything they could to put him into prison both times, facts, and normal procedure damned.
I don't think Steven was innocent in this most recent case... but the guy did not get due process, and after 100% being held in prison for years for a crime he didn't commit, it is shocking and shameful that anyone would defend his lack of a fair investigation.
The police department he successfully sued should never have been on that crime scene. They publically admitted they brought in external cops to handle the investigation as a result. After those cops didn't find anything, in multiple searches, over multiple days, a Manitowoc cop finds the keys.
Even if they weren't planted... think about that. That cop should never have been there. Why was he there? Because Manitowoc wanted Steven behind bars, and the outside officers hadn't found anything is why.
Why didn't they ever look at the boyfriend as a suspect? Because just like they did when they wrongfully got Steven sent to prison the first time, they already knew who they were going after for the crime.
If a guilty man walks free to put that wrong right, so be it. He'd already lost years of his life for something he didn't do, so I can live it.
Just as they did everything they could to put him into prison both times, facts, and normal procedure damned.
I don't think Steven was innocent in this most recent case... but the guy did not get due process, and after 100% being held in prison for years for a crime he didn't commit, it is shocking and shameful that anyone would defend his lack of a fair investigation.
The police department he successfully sued should never have been on that crime scene. They publically admitted they brought in external cops to handle the investigation as a result. After those cops didn't find anything, in multiple searches, over multiple days, a Manitowoc cop finds the keys.
Even if they weren't planted... think about that. That cop should never have been there. Why was he there? Because Manitowoc wanted Steven behind bars, and the outside officers hadn't found anything is why.
Why didn't they ever look at the boyfriend as a suspect? Because just like they did when they wrongfully got Steven sent to prison the first time, they already knew who they were going after for the crime.
If a guilty man walks free to put that wrong right, so be it. He'd already lost years of his life for something he didn't do, so I can live it.
Twilight Princess
Member
He didnt just kill a cat, he burned one alive. Im glad hes in prison and is denied trial. Sometimes the end justifies the means. People who are fucked up in the head should be separated from the general population.
Fuck due process, right?
Avery is supposed to only be legally guilty if there is no reasonable doubt.
I can't imagine how anybody couldn't have any level of reasonable doubt. Sure Avery may have done it, but the police blew it so badly that if there was a smoking gun, they probably botched it.
And if it's a toss up - I'd rather a guilty man walk free, then an innocent man be locked up.
I can't imagine how anybody couldn't have any level of reasonable doubt. Sure Avery may have done it, but the police blew it so badly that if there was a smoking gun, they probably botched it.
And if it's a toss up - I'd rather a guilty man walk free, then an innocent man be locked up.
entremet
Member
Ends justifying the means is stuff you hear from genocidal dictators. It's not a great moral principle for society.
I know we like to bag on conservatives for their near worship of The Constitution, but least not forgot it's noble aims, which we have fallen short as a nation admittedly. Due Process is a key part of it.
So because he killed a cat he should be put in prison for murdering a human and denied a retrial because the first one was all kinds of fucked up? Yeh, that makes total sense.
Mr. Mister
Member
Have any evidence of this?
Skellig Gra
Member
I cant take any of their forensic evidence seriously after seeing how horrible the lab was. Other stuff while is slightly suspicious isnt proof of any actual crime.
plagiarize
Banned
Right.
If the police don't properly do their job and follow due process, then the person guilty or not should walk free. Otherwise what's to ensure the police follow that due process?
Manitowoc didn't follow that process and put Steven behind bars for years. He was going to be award millions in damages as a result. And... they did it again. Forcing him to take the deal so he could get cash right away to pay lawyers.
That shit shouldn't stand, whoever Avery is, unless you are okay with living in a police state.
This is why we can't have nice justice systems
plagiarize
Banned
Look at what they're doing to Brendan Dassey. The conviction was clearly based on a coerced confession. The trial was ruled a mistrial, and they are doing everything humanly possible to keep him behind bars.
Because fuck law and order.
"He didn't just run a stop sign, he sold drugs. I'm glad he was shot dead by police while unarmed. Sometimes the ends justifies the means...."
Gee, I wonder why our criminal justice system is so fucked in this country.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
I didn't say that a state of psychosis had any bearing on a new trial. I simply responded to someone who called him a psychopath and said that from video of him, he doesn't come off as one, and that regardless, the cat incident doesn't have anything to do with the current trial.
entremet
Member
Do you need overt evidence? Look at how they're handling Brandon Dasey? There is clear funny business and the documentary was an embarrassment to the Wisconsin criminal justice system.
It has the same legal system every other state has.
Skellig Gra
Member
The people in power arent applying it properly.
steve9842016
Neo Member
Such a bummer to hear.
Anyone that points to "outside evidence" not in the documentary needs to realize that Ken Kratz is usually behind all of that stuff. That dude is a sick fuck who should be in jail.
The fact they didn't look at Teresa's ex, who kept tabs on her and deleted voicemails before police could get to them, should've been suspect number 1. He also had weird major cuts/abrasions/bruises on his hands in several scenes where he was interviewed during the initial search property. Avery just happened to be the scapegoat for this whole county and took the fall once again.
The narrative that Avery is some kind of Dexter-like mastermind at covering up a crime scene, while at the same time having a very low IQ, is insane to me. The evidence against him was very flimsy and easily plantable.
Anyone that points to "outside evidence" not in the documentary needs to realize that Ken Kratz is usually behind all of that stuff. That dude is a sick fuck who should be in jail.
The fact they didn't look at Teresa's ex, who kept tabs on her and deleted voicemails before police could get to them, should've been suspect number 1. He also had weird major cuts/abrasions/bruises on his hands in several scenes where he was interviewed during the initial search property. Avery just happened to be the scapegoat for this whole county and took the fall once again.
The narrative that Avery is some kind of Dexter-like mastermind at covering up a crime scene, while at the same time having a very low IQ, is insane to me. The evidence against him was very flimsy and easily plantable.
Bones that were seemingly moved, and a bullet that apparently never entered in contact with bone, just wood...
You should try looking for the exact source of that claim of the prosecution. It's illuminating.
Those photographs were for his sister, and he used her name at one point. The appointment was still at the Avery Yard, on Avery Road.
Again, the prosecution's spin on the evidence really was something else.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Now this might be true, but what if he's guilty of that, but innocent of the murder?
So great, you locked up the cat-burning psycho... but the real murderer is gonna remain free and at large.
Not exactly a winning scenario.
Now if he's also guilty of the murder, then that's a different thing, but the principle of locking up a guy for crime A while he's on trial for crime B is really myopic.
Different states have different legal systems. Refusing to set foot in Wisconsin because of a documentary of one awful case is silly though. I'd imagine every state has some skeletons in their closets.
Agent_Carnage
Member
I did watch Loose Change and I think there was some shady shit going on. I refuse to believe the "Official" story.
I think he should be granted a new trial. Although it will probably end the same way.
Correct me if I am wrong, it has been a while since I read the transcript, but both of these pieces of evidence were deemed admissible at trial. You are offering a plausible explanation and highlighting the absurdity of the bullet being admissible but the defense already lost this argument.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
Well, since you feeling all righteous and all, you think on this: Now if Avery ain't killed that photographer lady, somebody else did. But you giving him a free walk right now, ain't you?
Mammoth Jones
Member
Seriously. The fuck is wrong with people.
PhantomThief
Banned
Well.. sorry to say but from the outside, the US right now looks like a police state.
Well, we're talking about a trial where the prosecutor said stuff like "reasonable doubt is for the innocent", or "even if the key was planted [...]"...
Which is why a new trial would be, well, nice.
I kind of feel like this. I really think he did it but wouldn't be opposed to a new trial becasue of the way things were handled. That kid is innocent though.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
If the murderer burned the body in one barrel it would likely stop burning well as it piles up, like a stuffed camp fire, so eventually they would very likely move parts out and resume the fire.
The boyfriend could have deleted messages as he went through them, pressing the delete number which everyone knows as he went through inconsequential messages, instead of waiting for the messages to end or pressing the skip number which people don't usually know by heart.
The single key being found instead of the whole set; it's possible she had only a single key or that the murderer kept only one needed to drive the car and got rid of the others along with the rest of her belongings.
For the boyfriend to kill her, he would have had to carefully plan it all based on her timed visit to Avery, and get away with it.
The boyfriend could have deleted messages as he went through them, pressing the delete number which everyone knows as he went through inconsequential messages, instead of waiting for the messages to end or pressing the skip number which people don't usually know by heart.
The single key being found instead of the whole set; it's possible she had only a single key or that the murderer kept only one needed to drive the car and got rid of the others along with the rest of her belongings.
For the boyfriend to kill her, he would have had to carefully plan it all based on her timed visit to Avery, and get away with it.
Then again, the "getting away with it" part wasn't really the problem, considering he was never even considered a suspect to begin with, oddly enough.
Correct but to get to a new trial his attorneys will have to prove prosecutorial/judicial misconduct or present newly discovered material evidence. None of this has happened yet. Prosecutorial/judicial misconduct is rarely granted and incredibly difficult to prove. Newly discovered evidence is hard to come by, especially when you have to show due diligence and that the evidence will result in a different outcome. Hence my comment earlier today about his attorney having an uphill battle.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
How could he know the cops wouldn't go for him?
He had to take all the necessary steps to hide the crime, or got extremely lucky, or coordinated with the cops. All unlikely.
Why are you talking as if the benefit of the doubt is with the prosecution? They're the ones that have to prove guilt, the defendant doesn't have to prove innocence. "It's possible/probably/could have/very likely" don't fly when we're talking about locking someone up for their entire life.
Or he knew that the cops had it out for Avery to begin with considering they locked him up for something he didn't do in the past.