Making a murderer - The Avery case (Spoilers)

[deuse]

You're getting muddled again - the texts happened, though they happened after the court case/after season 1 had aired. We don't know that the encounter with the cop happened.

Now this is a interesting point.

If the cop never filed a report about it. It will NEVER be investigated. So he is hiding something.
As said, they have already got a sworn affidavit from him. My time line is correct.

I'm going to watch it all again to see what I missed.

 

[PermaChanged]

Who has independently verified, tested and agreed that Halbach's chapstick has been used on the bullet? Because until it is verified it can't be considered as evidence - I could run a TV show and make anything I like up to make a name for myself.

Pass, I do not know the answer to this. However, if this were to be presented as evidence in court, should a retrial take place, I'm sure correct testing and verification of this would be carried out beforehand to ensure she doesn't end up with egg on her face.

All of this can only be considered theory until such a point, surely?

 

[deuse]

I don't really understand what you're saying, or where you're getting your information from?

I'll just go ahead and repeat what I already asked; What's your best explanation as to how Halbachs DNA got onto the bullet?

She had a phone call from a customer to do a camera shot when she was driving that day. She wrote this down in her diary.
The poor lady never went back home. So how did the BF get the diary?

 

[deuse]

And Bobby Dassey originally stated he saw Halbach leave the Avery site, but changed his tune after speaking to that Fassbender guy. Could he have been blackmailed with the computer findings?

I think so.

 

[Fubsy]

If you don't think she was shot - how do you explain the evidence presented in court, by the forensic anthropologist showing the skull fragments which had damage consistent with that of a gunshot to the head?

That's a forensic anthropologist showing the skull fragments which had damage consistent with that of a gunshot to the head of A PERSON. Is there any forensic evidence that those bones (fragments) are that of Teresa?

Also, Ken, I admire how much you're defending every aspect of your original prosecution.

 

[Screeeech]

Pass, I do not know the answer to this. However, if this were to be presented as evidence in court, should a retrial take place, I'm sure correct testing and verification of this would be carried out beforehand to ensure she doesn't end up with egg on her face.

All of this can only be considered theory until such a point, surely?

If it's actually true, that Halbach's chapstick has been used on the bullet - which has been used to transfer her DNA, then that would be damning evidence and it should certainly be examined and considered.

My personal gut theory, is that Zellner knew there was an extremely slim chance of there being a re-trial, and so she risked making some crazy theories - because none of it will ever be properly tested, meanwhile she gets an entire TV season on Netflix and becomes the heroine of Making a murderer, with very little risk of any her of theories being scrutinised by actual scientists who know their stuff.

She had a phone call from a customer to do a camera shot when she was driving that day. She wrote this down in her diary.
The poor lady never went back home. So how did the BF get the diary?

Is this just from Netflix? or is this from the case files?

That's a forensic anthropologist showing the skull fragments which had damage consistent with that of a gunshot to the head of A PERSON. Is there any forensic evidence that those bones (fragments) are that of Teresa?

They found the majority of her Skeleton in the burn pit, some of it had been moved to a barrel, along with non-human bones, they'd separated her ash, charred bone fragments, including some sections of her Jaw which still had flesh on them, I'm 99.9% certain that the forensic evidence presented was that of Halbach, but I'm sat in the airport right now and so I can't really be bothered to go trawling through the case file again, they also found her teeth - which were identified by a dentist, in court.

Bear in mind - if there was any dispute that the skull found wasn't Teresa's, it would have been a very serious point in cross-examination, because the remains found wouldn't have been that of the alleged victim - which causes more problems than it's worth even thinking about.

 

[IvanDobskey]

The whole case stinks to be fair.

Even if Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey did kill Hallbach (which I have my doubts over) the cops have certainly tried their hardest to convict them without even considering anyone else who could have done it. I'm convinced they fiddled with evidence and held stuff back.

That Kratz bloke makes my skin crawl

 

[Screeeech]

I’d also like to throw something else out there;

In my opinion, people who think there’s any sort of scientific legitimacy to the claims Zellner is making needs to think again.

That phoney brain scan nonsense is utterly preposterous, but it paints an interesting picture of her thought process.

If she’s willing to stoop so low, to the point of using nonsense, unproven, “scientific” baloney to prove her point, then that sets off alarm bells immediately.

If she’s willing to be so brazen by resorting to such obvious nonsense - shouldn’t people highly sceptical - why are people so eager to jump on board with her ideas, when the techniques she’s employing are ridiculous, unfounded, untested and worst of all - biased to advance her idea only - that’s not scientific.

Then people are so willing to try and take my arguments on, the vast majority of which come from the case and evidence - yet they’re not questioning anything Zellner is saying.

She’s so full of **** even her eyes are brown.

 

[IvanDobskey]

I'll agree some of the stuff zellner was coming out with was ridiculous. The brain scan stuff was just eye rolling bad. But I do think she also came out with a lot of very valid points.

 

[ColdAsIce]

My understanding of the brain test is she glosses it up to see what reaction she gets from Steven Avery. She wants him to believe this machine can tell if your lying to see how he reacts during the test. I don't think she has ever planned to use it in the case itself.

Also Screeeech there is a very good reason people don't trust the Police in this case. He already served 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Huge malicious errors in the handling of the previous rape case. So it's hard to trust these idiots will do things properly and not hold grudges...

 

[Screeeech]

It should be screaming out to you;

“If this person is willing to go on TV and make one very dodgy claim, why should I believe anything she says?? What else is she saying that’s also dodgy?”

Furthermore - if she’s got such good damning evidence - why is she resorting to such dodgy claims? An individual in solid pursuit of the truth wouldn’t need to do such things.

I can’t fathom why people are so easily taken in by her.

 

[gjrc]

It should be screaming out to you;

“If this person is willing to go on TV and make one very dodgy claim, why should I believe anything she says?? What else is she saying that’s also dodgy?”

Furthermore - if she’s got such good damning evidence - why is she resorting to such dodgy claims? An individual in solid pursuit of the truth wouldn’t need to do such things.

I can’t fathom why people are so easily taken in by her.

hang on, she used the brain scan thing more to convince herself that steven was innocent. she even says she has convinced him that its admissible in court even though she knew it wasn't. she wanted to test how open he was to examination.

when he said bring it on it only told her that he firmly believed he was innocent.

the brain scan was never submitted as any part of her appeal for re trail. it was mostly brady violations. which were numerous. even if you forget all the science there are still brady violations - so they must retry.

also @Screeeech you keep referring to the case file. have you read it / have access to it? is it online?

 

[Irish_Tom]

I'm not sure we could ever say it was 100%, however the bones were entwined and mixed up with the steel belting from the tires, implying that the body was burned along with the tires, however under cross-examination, the forensic scientist does not believe the bones had been moved from another site, to Avery's burn pit. Mostly because the bones themselves would have exhibited signs of being moved - as she explains in her testimony;

(Page 33, Dr Eisenberg )
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...67/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-14-2007Mar01.pdf

This also aligns with Brendan's confession, where he explains how they used tires to help burn the body - again, information from the confession that lines up with how the remains were found.

What's interesting from her testimony, is that they don't just find big bones in the burn pit and barrel - they find tiny pieces of delicate remains, ash and charred flesh - which would imply that if she was burned at a different location - whoever transported her bones, must have done so with an insane element of detail - because it included all of the tiny complex bones and bits of skeleton, including things like teeth.

I'm not sure that testimony is as conclusive as you're suggesting.

Ignoring the bone fragments from the quarry (which couldn't be 100% confirmed as being human), I don't see it as beyond the realms of possibility that the body was burned in a barrel and them emptied into the pit.

On the one hand, she says that if that had been the case, there would have been tell-tale damage to the fragments that were recovered from the pit. Then, on the other hand, she says there was no damage from the shovelling and sifting of the evidence — which seems contradictory.

She also says herself that she can't rule out another possible burn site.

The one thing that throws doubt on the above is the "very delicate and fragmentary dental structures" that were found in the pit but not in the barrel. She suggests that if the body had been burned in the barrel and transported to the pit, she would have expected to find these delicate structures in the barrel and the pit, but they didn't find any in the barrel.

The only explanation I can come up with is that there were still identifiable body parts left over from the burn pit, which were then transferred to the burn barrel to be 'finished off', but without knowing what parts of the body the burn-barrel bones came from, this is purely conjecture. E.g. if all of the bones in the barrel were from a leg and an arm, and there was no trace of bones from any other part of the body, this would make sense. But if there were bone fragments from all over the place, this is a less likely scenario.

P.s. I didn't see anything about the steel belting from the tires (was that in an earlier transcript?)

 

[dowie]

Now this is a interesting point.

If the cop never filed a report about it. It will NEVER be investigated. So he is hiding something.
As said, they have already got a sworn affidavit from him. My time line is correct.

I'm going to watch it all again to see what I missed.

You’re not being clear here and you do seem to have got this muddled and you didn't really clarify - this is what you stated:

So now they know the person who saw her car and reported to a cop at a gas station.
And when the person saw the trial and saw\heard that the main cop was lying about where the car was spotted.

He sent 2 texts(which he saved) to Scot Tadych(he knew him) asking him to get Brandon's lawyer to get in touch. He did not.
None of this was mentioned in court. And the cop told lies when S Avery got sent down the first time. Hmmmm

No one knows that the encounter with the cop happened. You refer to the two texts sent and asking Brendon's lawyer to get in touch and none of this being mentioned in court but the texts took place after the trial thus why I said I think you're getting muddled.

The first season was a very popular show and caused lots of people to contact the family with cards, gifts etc.. and no doubt lots of amateur detective types adamant that they'd spotted something in a TV show that no one else had noticed etc... it is plausible that the step Dad just thought this local guy who had texted him was just another nutter, it is possible he didn't pay much attention to it as he had rather a lot of texts/calls relating to the case etc.. but regardless the fact is these texts got sent after the show was aired.

 

[Screeeech]

hang on, she used the brain scan thing more to convince herself that steven was innocent. she even says she has convinced him that its admissible in court even though she knew it wasn't. she wanted to test how open he was to examination.

when he said bring it on it only told her that he firmly believed he was innocent.

the brain scan was never submitted as any part of her appeal for re trail. it was mostly brady violations. which were numerous. even if you forget all the science there are still brady violations - so they must retry.

also @Screeeech you keep referring to the case file. have you read it / have access to it? is it online?

I don't think it really matters - she's using phoney science to make a point to advance her narrative, (of course it's going to show he's innocent, because it's total unproven nonsense) the fact she's using phoney pseudoscience to make any point, undermines her credibility. A legitimate person looking for the truth, wouldn't stoop to such silliness.

The case files can be found online from many places, for both the Dassey trial and Avery trial separately.

http://stevenaverycase.com/#sthash.TJHBmAaP.dpbs

I'm not sure that testimony is as conclusive as you're suggesting.

Ignoring the bone fragments from the quarry (which couldn't be 100% confirmed as being human), I don't see it as beyond the realms of possibility that the body was burned in a barrel and them emptied into the pit.

On the one hand, she says that if that had been the case, there would have been tell-tale damage to the fragments that were recovered from the pit. Then, on the other hand, she says there was no damage from the shovelling and sifting of the evidence — which seems contradictory.

She also says herself that she can't rule out another possible burn site.

The one thing that throws doubt on the above is the "very delicate and fragmentary dental structures" that were found in the pit but not in the barrel. She suggests that if the body had been burned in the barrel and transported to the pit, she would have expected to find these delicate structures in the barrel and the pit, but they didn't find any in the barrel.

The only explanation I can come up with is that there were still identifiable body parts left over from the burn pit, which were then transferred to the burn barrel to be 'finished off', but without knowing what parts of the body the burn-barrel bones came from, this is purely conjecture. E.g. if all of the bones in the barrel were from a leg and an arm, and there was no trace of bones from any other part of the body, this would make sense. But if there were bone fragments from all over the place, this is a less likely scenario.

P.s. I didn't see anything about the steel belting from the tires (was that in an earlier transcript?)

I think to be fair, when I said it was forensically impossible - I was being blasé, she does say under cross-examination, that she doesn't believe the remains were moved from another location - but you're right, it's certainly not as cut and dry as I was making out. But I still maintain it's extremely unlikely someone other than Avery burnt the body outside his trailer without him knowing.

The evidence from the steel belted tires, and her remained entwined within them was from the arson investigator which helped process the scene,

(page 60)
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...71/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-18-2007Mar07.pdf

However, he gives a few explanations as to how that could happen - but no opinion on exactly how the body was burned.

 

[dowie]

All the police needed to do was get some of his blood from somewhere, and we all know he claimed there was blood readily available in his trailer sink from his cut finger! Which also ties in with the break-in/shiv damage on his trailer door.

If Avery cooked this story up and damaged his trailer to further concrete this plot, and also made statements reference the blood being cleaned up in his sink that helps his timeline, hes a genius..... who forgot to get rid of his blood, and the car...

That doesn't make him a genius at all, it's a really dumb story that isn't plausible at all... it relies on someone just stumbling upon the blood by accident when supposedly breaking into his trailer before it has dried up and then somehow just happening to have some pipettes on them in order to collect it and then sneaking back to the planted car and spreading it about etc... The reason the original defence team didn't run with it is because it just isn't plausible, though now the blood in police evidence has been ruled out the only thing the new lawyer has to run with is the BS excuse he came up with on the spot which is essentially claiming "oh there was blood in my sink someone must have broken into my trailer to steal the blood in my sink that only I knew about"

 

[dowie]

My understanding of the brain test is she glosses it up to see what reaction she gets from Steven Avery. She wants him to believe this machine can tell if your lying to see how he reacts during the test. I don't think she has ever planned to use it in the case itself.

But she was dishonest about that in the documentary - I mean that might well be the case but it would have been better for her to be clearer about it, instead she'd rather it was another piece of evidence a decent % of Joe public can see unchallenged and therefore carry on with this idea that Avery is completely innocent. The thing is as I said before that sort of thing has more use pre-trial - in that case it might have some utility for the lawyer themselves to find out if their client who is ignorant of "lie detectors" is willing to be tested by one. Avery on the other hand is already in prison facing a life sentence, he's hardly going to say no. Not to mention that he's spent years reading about the law etc.. and being surrounded by other criminals - chances are he knows "lie detectors" are BS anyway and why a lawyer might use one.

Screech made a point about the bullet having been washed too, they didn't mention that in the program either, she focuses on there being no bone fragments when it is quite feasible for there not to be and a comparison with a bullet that has just been fired at a bit of bone is inherently flawed to begin with.

The whole thing seems to be this lawyer running often dubious experiments and comping up with some alternative narratives based on hand waving claims like "she must have had her planner with her and she didn't have time to go back to her house" etc...

 

[Screeeech]

My take on Zellner, is that she's a very clever individual with a lot more money than me, my view is that she will have conducted a very careful risk vs reward analysis, on whether or not she should get involved with season 2 of the show.

My personal gut feeling, is that she knows deep down that it's extremely unlikely that Steven Avery will get a retrial, or be exonerated based on any of her 'findings'. So in terms of her exposure to risk - it's quite low, because it's unlikely any of her findings will be properly tested by anybody, or held to any degree of measurable accuracy or truth, other than average joe watching Netflix, who was already onboard from season 1.

This has enabled her to pretty much come up with as many vague theories and pseudoscientific experiments as she likes, because there's nobody verifying the authenticity or accuracy of any of it, the 'reward' of all of this, is that she's making a huge name for herself in the media, online and in criminal law circles - hell only knows how much she'll have benefited financially from it.

These are just my personal thoughts.

 

[Fubsy]

How much did you get from season 1 Ken?

 

[dowie]

This has enabled her to pretty much come up with as many vague theories and pseudoscientific experiments as she likes, because there's nobody verifying the authenticity or accuracy of any of it, the 'reward' of all of this, is that she's making a huge name for herself in the media, online and in criminal law circles - hell only knows how much she'll have benefited financially from it.

I think that is pretty much it, she ignored the Avery family previously(she no doubt gets plenty of requests from various criminals), it was only when the program aired that she suddenly took an interest. Now her twitter feed and law firm web site is all about the Avery cases, she's invested a six figure sum from her own funds in running lots of these experiments etc.. but it might as well be looked at as a marketing budget as she's made herself famous in the process.