Making a murderer - The Avery case (Spoilers)

[Felon]

I wonder why the DA never mentioned that the Cell phone towers put her at a different place at the time of her death?

The Cell phone tower records do not put her at a different place at the time of her death at all, because the time of death is not known, there are only rough estimates.

Furthermore, Zellner didn't actually include the so-called cell tower evidence in her motion to free Avery at all. I wonder why would she do that, maybe because it doesn't really add up to anything significant at all?

The blood splatter marks on the car was going downwards and not right to left as the DA said.
Pictures can't lie

I'm sorry, but this really doesn't mean anything, I'm assuming you're saying all of the blood was planted by someone else? Good luck proving it!

Screeeech; I'm quite baffled how you feel the blood splatter is enough to convict him on. I mean your obviously entitled to your opinion but i just cant agree with regards to that specific topic.

Well I think you're correct - the blood splatter alone might not be enough to convict him on, a Jury might not see enough to go all the way with that. However - we're not just talking about blood splatter are we, we're talking about a vast catalog of forensic evidence, ballistic evidence, eyewitness testimony, phone records, and a full confession obtained three times, from someone who claimed he was there, claimed he raped the victim and explained the cause of death (gunshot to the head) by Avery, along with disposal of the body, along with a whole load of other stuff that turned out to equal useful evidence.

I'm sorry, but I maintain in light of the evidence, that Avery and Dassey are right where they need to be. So far nobody has provided any conclusive proof that really advances any alternate or competing theory, I'd be the first person to consider it if it could be demonstrated.

 

[MikeTheNative]

The two things that stand out as massive red flags in the case which were brought up at trial however the show didn't say there were investigations into this is. We were told from the start that as it was conflict of interest the county police was not to have any part in the investigation. Yet their police officers found a lot of evidence by carrying out searches themselves. The Key inside his trailer, the bullet and car (although initially called by a member of the public). However the dodgiest thing of them all though was the vial of Avery's blood which was held in police evidence locker which has been tampered with and a needle has been used to draw blood from.

 

[Felon]

However the dodgiest thing of them all though was the vial of Avery's blood which was held in police evidence locker which has been tampered with and a needle has been used to draw blood from.

That was proven false, and his defence had to swallow it.

It's normal procedure for a vacutube to have a piercing mark in the top, because that's how the blood gets in there - it's sucked out of the syringe by the vacuum inside the vacutube, leaving a characteristic 'pin hole' in the top of the seal, nothing untoward about it whatsoever. Furthermore - the correct amount of blood was still in the vial - there's no evidence that any blood had been taken from it.

What's even more entertaining, is how they also claimed that the seal around the box that contained the vial of the original 1985 Avery sample, had apparently been tampered with. However it turned out that Avery's own defence team had broken the seal by accident when they decided to send it off for additional tests...

This is the problem with Netflix, the information is framed in such a misleading way they don't make any real effort to present the facts, only the narrative they want to advance.

 

[PermaChanged]

This is the problem with Netflix, the information is framed in such a misleading way they don't make any real effort to present the facts, only the narrative they want to advance.

Isn't this exactly what both the prosecution and defence are doing too?

 

[Felon]

Isn't this exactly what both the prosecution and defence are doing too?

Well, the Jury (who convicted Avery) had the luxury of seeing all of the arguments from both sides in the sterile setting of a courtroom.

The Netflix audience, had the luxury of only really seeing one side of the argument, framed in a specific way - with many major details missing, the vast majority of whom, won't make any effort to look at the actual case files or any of the actual evidence.

When I first watched season 1, I thought 'lol he's innocent, framed' Since then, I've read most of the court transcripts, read all three of Dassey's statements, read the expert testimony, read and watched the witness testimony, watched the interrogations of both Brendan and Avery, listened to some of the phone calls and recordings, looked at the forensic evidence.

There's so much distance between what's presented by Netflix, vs what the actual case files present, it's biased and misleading.

Along with that, season 2 is a complete and utter joke, even with my rudimentary laymens knowledge, I can show how many of the so-called scientific experiments they perform, amount to total nonsense and get them nowhere.

 

[Musty Pie]

I don't understand why the state were aloud to investigate this apparent crime given the conflict of interest?

I wonder why the state do not want his new lawyer testing the headlamp?....

I wonder why Scott Tadytch refused to take calls from the witness reference spotting the Rav4?

I wonder why there was shim/damage to Stevens trailer?

I wonder why Stevens many statements asked officers/defence lawyers to check his sink where there was blood missing from his trailer? Quite an elaborate story for a man with an IQ of 80 to whip up (state planting evidence etc.)

Its a frustrating and complex case to try and make sense of. Science usually prevails though!

What I do know is that given what I know I hold to my original statement: I cant believe he is guilty without any reasonable doubt. There is WAY too much doubt cast from the evidence provided by the state in my opinion.

 

[MikeTheNative]

That was proven false, and his defence had to swallow it.

It's normal procedure for a vacutube to have a piercing mark in the top, because that's how the blood gets in there - it's sucked out of the syringe by the vacuum inside the vacutube, leaving a characteristic 'pin hole' in the top of the seal, nothing untoward about it whatsoever. Furthermore - the correct amount of blood was still in the vial - there's no evidence that any blood had been taken from it.

What's even more entertaining, is how they also claimed that the seal around the box that contained the vial of the original 1985 Avery sample, had apparently been tampered with. However it turned out that Avery's own defence team had broken the seal by accident when they decided to send it off for additional tests...

This is the problem with Netflix, the information is framed in such a misleading way they don't make any real effort to present the facts, only the narrative they want to advance.

Thanks for the info, I agree about the misleading editing if this is the case.

 

[Felon]

I don't understand why the state were aloud to investigate this apparent crime given the conflict of interest?

There's a definitely a conflict of interest between Avery and the state, so it is troubling that the state investigated a crime against him - I'll agree to that.

However, if you're going to postulate that there's a conflict of interest, that implies that the state framed Avery - then you're forced into the difficult position of believing that the state planted all of the evidence in order to frame him.

For reasons which have already been explained - the framing theory has requires massive amounts of blind faith - there's no evidence supporting it, in fact some of the evidence proves the framing theory wrong, for example - Dassey's statements that explain how she died and in some cases even fill in gaps that the detectives didn't even know about, that line up with forensic evidence, only Dassey and Avery could know about - (gunshot wound to the head)

 

[deuse]

snip.

You remind me of those religions people who think there is a pixe god and won't have it no other way.

 

[ColdAsIce]

Thoughts on no coroner or expert in the field being called to the bone remains being found on the Avery property? Instead they are bagged up and delivered to the state coroner office a few days after.

 

[Musty Pie]

There's a definitely a conflict of interest between Avery and the state, so it is troubling that the state investigated a crime against him - I'll agree to that.

However, if you're going to postulate that there's a conflict of interest, that implies that the state framed Avery - then you're forced into the difficult position of believing that the state planted all of the evidence in order to frame him.

For reasons which have already been explained - the framing theory has requires massive amounts of blind faith - there's no evidence supporting it, in fact some of the evidence proves the framing theory wrong, for example - Dassey's statements that explain how she died and in some cases even fill in gaps that the detectives didn't even know about, that line up with forensic evidence, only Dassey and Avery could know about - (gunshot wound to the head)

Well you certainly are strong in your opinions. No harm in that.

But to accept Dasseys confession without little consideration to the fact its very arguably coerced and base your arguments mainly on this is a good indication to take what you say with a pinch of salt.

I think you are forgetting that its the states job to try and convict someone of a murder whilst proving it happened without any reasonable doubt - which in this example is just not the case.

I just cant see him guilty without any reasonable doubt. Plain and simple.

 

[fez]

They probably did it ( Dassey or Avery or both) but there is no way in hell either of them should have been locked up with the way the police handled the case against either of them. Dassey is borderline retarded and they spoon fed him a confession and coerced him into it. As for Avery, the fact that a police force who had been told to keep away from the case got so heavily involved and had so much motive to see him behind bars makes anything else kind of irrelevant. You can't trust much that the state says in this case after the way they handled the case.

 

[Felon]

You remind me of those religions people who think there is a pixe god and won't have it no other way.

*laughs*

Thoughts on no coroner or expert in the field being called to the bone remains being found on the Avery property? Instead they are bagged up and delivered to the state coroner office a few days after.

A crime lab was called to the burn pit, after the remains were discovered by special agent Tom Sturdivant, specifically John Ertl (forensic scientist) and his Photographer Guang Zhang, they erected a sifting apparatus above the burn pit and used it to filter the remains.

(Dassey trial, page 194)
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...af0bfc5a97ad/1452485308001/dassey_4_18_07.pdf

Well you certainly are strong in your opinions. No harm in that.

But to accept Dasseys confession without little consideration to the fact its very arguably coerced and base your arguments mainly on this is a good indication to take what you say with a pinch of salt.

I think you are forgetting that its the states job to try and convict someone of a murder whilst proving it happened without any reasonable doubt - which in this example is just not the case.

I just cant see him guilty without any reasonable doubt. Plain and simple.

That's fine, we can agree to disagree - no harm in that

 

[Musty Pie]

That's fine, we can agree to disagree - no harm in that

Agreed. Interesting to hear someones points on why they feel he is guilty though. Its why this is such an interesting case.

 

[Felon]

They probably did it ( Dassey or Avery or both) but there is no way in hell either of them should have been locked up with the way the police handled the case against either of them. Dassey is borderline retarded and they spoon fed him a confession and coerced him into it.

On the subject of coercion, usually it involves threats or force in order to get someone to talk.

As far as I can tell, in the interviews I've seen and the statements I've read - the police don't really use any direct threats or real force in obtaining the confession from Dassey. They encourage him to talk by feeding him bits of information, (which is what most detectives do) and the things they know, or might have some details on, but on the whole - Brendan goes above and beyond what they ask and offers much more information than they expect to get;

• Brendan confesses that he raped Halbach - there's no evidence of this because she was burnt, so why confess it?
• Brendan fills in crucial gaps which only he and the killer could have known - The way she was murdered, along with the blood in the Rav 4
• Brendan also provides a lot of supporting testimony, about how Avery planned to kill Halbach in the days before her disappearance
• Brendan confesses that they clean up the crime scene using bleach (his clothes were stained with bleach) and how they burnt all the bedding in Avery's trailer (perhaps explaining why no blood was found there)

Throughout the interrogations they're actually quite nice to him, they give him opportunities to eat, drink - see his mother, etc.

Of course, the officers have to push him hard at times, to get the information - but what do people expect? A young woman has been found brutally murdered, they know they're talking to someone who know's something - what do people expect the cops to do? Just take someones word for it when they initially say "I don't know anything" when they're already implicated. They were on the scene around the time of the disappearance, and intimately know the people who live at the scene?

As for Avery, the fact that a police force who had been told to keep away from the case got so heavily involved and had so much motive to see him behind bars makes anything else kind of irrelevant. You can't trust much that the state says in this case after the way they handled the case.

I agree there was a motive, but looking at it rationally - in order to get out of paying the $36m damages to Avery, why would the authorities pick literally the most complex and difficult way of doing so? Anyone who actually thinks about this, and lines up the amount of things which need to be framed and planted ends up being consumed by the complexity of actually pulling it off.

That doesn't even come close to explaining exactly who killed Halbach, the police? someone working for the police? if so, why did they pick her - they could have picked any other lowlife, why pick an attractive young woman (who just so happened to be on the scene at the time she disappeared..............)

It would have been far simpler to just pay someone to go and bump Avery off, or arrange for some other shady incident that gets rid of him, rather than try and frame him.

 

[Musty Pie]

That doesn't even come close to explaining exactly who killed Halbach, the police? someone working for the police? if so, why did they pick her - they could have picked any other lowlife, why pick an attractive young woman (who just so happened to be on the scene at the time she disappeared..............)

It would have been far simpler to just pay someone to go and bump Avery off, or arrange for some other shady incident that gets rid of him, rather than try and frame him.

Ever thought of the possibility of the state using a situation to their advantage?

I don't think it was a "we find X person and kill them and then do Y to frame him" scenario.

More so a situation presented itself in which they could use to their advantage and avoid a rather hefty financial payout and accepting wrongful conviction against the states reputation.

But again, who really knows? Too many things don't add up on both sides.

 

[Trig]

I always thought that "Reasonable doubt" was a thing in the US?

Given that Katherine whatsherface has disproved huge chunks of the "evidence" collected in this case I don't see how reasonable doubt has got both Avery and Dassey a lot closer to release..

 

[Felon]

Ever thought of the possibility of the state using a situation to their advantage?

I don't think it was a "we find X person and kill them and then do Y to frame him" scenario.

More so a situation presented itself in which they could use to their advantage and avoid a rather hefty financial payout and accepting wrongful conviction against the states reputation.

But again, who really knows? Too many things don't add up on both sides.

The problem with that theory, is that in order for it to make sense - every single last thing that Brendan Dassey says must be wrong. That's very difficult to agree with, because regardless of whether you think his confession was coerced or he was led, the information he gives is very useful and aligns with the evidence pointing at Avery being the killer.

You then have normal basic Columbo style crime stuff;

• The killer knew the victim
• The victim had good reason to be with the killer on the day of the murder
• The victim was last seen alive with the killer
• The killer openly admits seeing her at his property right before she disappeared
• The killer has a potential motive (sex, and / or torture of a young woman)

The other problem is the body in the burn pit, it's forensically practically impossible that the body was burnt elsewhere and the remains moved to Avery's burn pit, so if somebody planted the body in Avery's burn pit and cremated it - they would have to have done so, at a time when the Avery's were at the property, feet from Avery's front door, without anybody noticing, which is pretty implausible.

That's before we get to the problems that DNA and blood causes, in this situation - the third party would have to have had access to Avery's blood and planted it on Halbach's Rav 4 - well enough to fool the forensic team and blood-spatter analysts, because the blood wasn't just splattered around inside the Rav 4 with a spray - it was in-line with how someone with a cut (Avery's hand) would deposit it, and with how a bloodied body (Halbach) would leave it.

 

[PermaChanged]

Ever thought of the possibility of the state using a situation to their advantage?

I don't think it was a "we find X person and kill them and then do Y to frame him" scenario.

More so a situation presented itself in which they could use to their advantage and avoid a rather hefty financial payout and accepting wrongful conviction against the states reputation.

But again, who really knows? Too many things don't add up on both sides.

This is my take on it. In no way do I believe the state were complicit in the death of Teresa Halbach, but they're taking full advantage of her last verified sighting and I believe framing Steven Avery.

I'm not leaping to prove Steven's innocence, I'm just more inclined to doubt his guilt, given all of the prosecutions evidence used against him has question marks against it.

I believe there is a different perpetrator to this murder, Steven was just the easiest person to pin it on, and they had a good motive to do so too.

 

[fez]

On the subject of coercion, usually it involves threats or force in order to get someone to talk.

As far as I can tell, in the interviews I've seen and the statements I've read - the police don't really use any direct threats or real force in obtaining the confession from Dassey. They encourage him to talk by feeding him bits of information, (which is what most detectives do) and the things they know, or might have some details on, but on the whole - Brendan goes above and beyond what they ask and offers much more information than they expect to get;

From what I have seen, the Police basically direct him to say exactly what they want based on their knowledge of the murder. When he doesn't say what they want they just become more and more blunt and obvious about what they want him to say. Feeding a mentally impaired kid a load of information about a murder they say he has committed when he is all alone with aggressive police officers is bad. Its been proven time and again that people will say and admit to things they haven't done if they are scared enough. Either he is a genius at misleading the police or he was a very scared boy who the police manipulated to get what they wanted. He even says plenty of stuff that simply isn't true and doesn't make sense in order to give the police what he thinks they want.

The way they made him write his confession should be a red flag for you as well. I don't know if he is guilty but I sure as hell know that the way the police dealt with him was ridiculous.

Throughout the interrogations they're actually quite nice to him, they give him opportunities to eat, drink - see his mother, etc.

Of course, the officers have to push him hard at times, to get the information - but what do people expect? A young woman has been found brutally murdered, they know they're talking to someone who know's something - what do people expect the cops to do? Just take someones word for it when they initially say "I don't know anything" when they're already implicated. They were on the scene around the time of the disappearance, and intimately know the people who live at the scene?

They are welcome to try and get information out of him but they fed him all the information that they got from him. Thats not getting information, thats just patting yourself on the back for persuading the suspect to parrot back what you have told them.

I agree there was a motive, but looking at it rationally - in order to get out of paying the $36m damages to Avery, why would the authorities pick literally the most complex and difficult way of doing so? Anyone who actually thinks about this, and lines up the amount of things which need to be framed and planted ends up being consumed by the complexity of actually pulling it off.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the police planned the murder and set him up. What is suspect is the way the police handled everything post murder.

That doesn't even come close to explaining exactly who killed Halbach, the police? someone working for the police? if so, why did they pick her - they could have picked any other lowlife, why pick an attractive young woman (who just so happened to be on the scene at the time she disappeared..............)

It would have been far simpler to just pay someone to go and bump Avery off, or arrange for some other shady incident that gets rid of him, rather than try and frame him.

This isn't an argument for Averys guilt though is it. The police can't say "we're pretty sure he did it; if he didn't then who was it" and then the defence is expected to provide an alternative.

The whole thing stinks of bad police work, a complete lack of willingness to consider any other suspects and a huge conflict of interest for the involved police force.

If this happened in most civilised countries the case would have been thrown out or at least most of the evidence would have be inadmissible due to police failings. There is a reason why the police have to do things the way they do and its to make sure they get the right man and justice is done. The law would be a mess if the police could do what they want to "get their man"