Making a murderer - The Avery case (Spoilers)

deuse said:
If the truck driver was lying the bent cop would have sued him.
Click to expand...

*would have

And you don't know that, like I already pointed out no one else knows either way. More importantly there is no record of him reporting it, we only find out about it after the show has aired on Netflix.

Two people came forwards to claiming to have been the person who sexually assaulted Dr Ford instead of Kavanaugh when he was being considered for the Supreme Court, IIRC either 6 or 7 people made claims that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted or raped them, one made up some story about gang rapes, another was located the other side of the country etc..etc..

A big story/event inevitably attracts the crazy types.
 
The IPB said:
They took steps by stopping her going but then let loads of their officers search the property.

I feel Avery is guilty but there is so much weirdness with this case it's unreal.
Click to expand...

There were two(Link and Colburn), along with a Calumet County deputy, involved in the search of his trailer. Who else are you referring to?

Regardless the investigation itself was handed over to Calumet County on the day the vehicle was discovered, because of the potential for conflict of interest, this is the same reason the Manitowoc County Coronor wasn't to be involved.
 
Screeeech said:
Can you please provide further reference to this, I don’t know exactly what you’re referring too so it’s difficult to comment without more information.
Click to expand...


I thought you was you was the king of this?

I told you what to do but you won't so stop asking. The part about the head coroner is from a court video.
 
deuse said:
His testimony is before the courts as we speak ;)
Click to expand...

so hopefully you're not so muddled now:

deuse said:
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
Click to expand...

You now realise that these text messages only occurred after season 1 of the Netflix "documentary" was aired and so unless they had a time machine couldn't have been heard in the original trial.

Now contrary to your previous statement you've made a vague claim re: "His testimony is before the courts as we speak"

IT is perhaps more helpful to the thread if you're clearer about what exactly you're referring to, you already got the timeline confused previously and have spent several posts trying to argue over a rather straight forward point that no one else knows for sure whether this apparent witness told the cop or not as there is no record of it and he made no official report but just claims he informed him verbally after bumping into him.
 
deuse said:
I thought you was you was the king of this?

I told you what to do but you won't so stop asking. The part about the head coroner is from a court video.
Click to expand...

Where did I say I was the king of anything?

Having read the link posted by @Columbo and other info, I agree with the Judge's summary - I don't see anything particularly suspicious about it, certainly not without any other supporting evidence - the likes of which isn't to be found anywhere, unless you can provide it?

I'm no lawyer, but if you go through every single complex murder case ever brought, with a fine tooth comb - there will always be legal disagreements and points of law relating to procedural matters, evidence or issues which arose which may or may not be relevant, but the fact it happened here just brings all the mentalists out of the woodwork thinking they've found some hidden treasure trove evidence, pointing to a cover up. In fact - as far as I can tell, relating to the issue of there being a conflict of interest, the police were simply enforcing their own rules.

Anyway, let's go back to basic crime stuff - I have a simple question that I asked a few pages back which is pretty serious, but nobody has tried to explain it away, be interesting to know your thoughts. Crucially - it was among the heaps of information that Netflix conveniently left out, however the Jury definitely did see it.

In Steven Avery's interview with detectives, he specifically stated that he hadn't burnt anything that night in his pit - specifically he hadn't burnt anything for a week or more, before Teresa Halbach came to visit;
(page 16, paragraph 3)
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...df28318735c70f/1491943339563/STEVEN+NOV+9.pdf

In a phone call between Steven Avery and Barb Janda, he explains how Brendan did come over that night, and how they had *the* bonfire that night, and Brendan was home before 9.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KYLXZcI7_0 (0:20 seconds into the video, is the specific part)

If Steven Avery is innocent, why is he changing his version on some of the key aspects? He either had a fire that night or he didn't - considering the victims remains were found in the aftermath of said fire - I'd say this is pretty damning.
 
Screeeech said:
Snip.
If Steven Avery is innocent, why is he changing his version on some of the key aspects? He either had a fire that night or he didn't - considering the victims remains were found in the aftermath of said fire - I'd say this is pretty damning.
Click to expand...

This isn't really an answer to your question, but various statements from different witnesses relating to the bonfire (or anything else on the night of the 31st October 2005) are contradictory.

That doesn't excuse Steven for lying in his interview; I think you're right, it is pretty damning. I'm just struggling to piece together a consistent and accurate timeline. It's really difficult.

Even the timeline on stevenaverycase.com has holes in it or ignores statements that conflict with other statements.
 
Irish_Tom said:
This isn't really an answer to your question, but various statements from different witnesses relating to the bonfire (or anything else on the night of the 31st October 2005) are contradictory.

That doesn't excuse Steven for lying in his interview; I think you're right, it is pretty damning. I'm just struggling to piece together a consistent and accurate timeline. It's really difficult.

Even the timeline on stevenaverycase.com has holes in it or ignores statements that conflict with other statements.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's one of the problems of where a crime is committed, out in the middle of nowhere, surrounding a very dodgy family, in a remote location, without any technology to verify the timeline (CCTV, ANPR camera, etc). So most of the timeline has to be re-constructed from eyewitness accounts, phone calls, people's memory etc.

I'm just playing around here, but one thing I did find interesting that someone pointed out to me, is if you watch his original news interview with a reporter (before it was known that Teresa Halbach was dead) he refers to Teresa Halbach in the past tense, and mutters some gibberish when asked what happened to her, (around 3:35)


Interestingly, Maxine Carr did a similar thing in the wake of the Soham murders with Ian Huntley - when interviewed by Sky News;

(apologies for the terrible video)


Of course, this doesn't prove anything - but I do find it interesting, how when interviewed on camera after a crime, there have been instances where they make what could be the tiniest slip - also interesting is how quite often they're overly talkative to cameras and news reporters.
 
Screeeech said:
Where did I say I was the king of anything?

Having read the link posted by @Columbo and other info, I agree with the Judge's summary - I don't see anything particularly suspicious about it, certainly not without any other supporting evidence - the likes of which isn't to be found anywhere, unless you can provide it?.
Click to expand...


I could tell you where she tells the truth about that day. But you have refused to watch the program.

But her testimony is going in to evidence against the state.

As said, you are like a religions person.
 
deuse said:
I could tell you where she tells the truth about that day. But you have refused to watch the program.

But her testimony is going in to evidence against the state.

As said, you are like a religions person.
Click to expand...

I think you're reading too much into this. I understand she was barred from the site, for what appears to be a conflict of interest - which is clear in the Judge's ruling. You're going to have to explain why you think this is relevant, why you think it's a point worth making, because I don't really think it means anything - other than perhaps pointing to a procedural issue. If you think it means anything then please explain.

Also, still like to hear your thoughts regarding the question I asked you earlier, I repeat;

In Steven Avery's interview with detectives, he specifically stated that he hadn't burnt anything that night in his pit - specifically he hadn't burnt anything for a week or more, before Teresa Halbach came to visit;
(page 16, paragraph 3)
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...df28318735c70f/1491943339563/STEVEN+NOV+9.pdf

In a phone call between Steven Avery and Barb Janda, he explains how Brendan did come over that night, and how they had *the* bonfire that night, and Brendan was home before 9.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KYLXZcI7_0 (0:20 seconds into the video, is the specific part)

If Steven Avery is innocent, why is he changing his version on some of the key aspects? He either had a fire that night or he didn't - considering the victims remains were found in the aftermath of said fire - I'd say this is pretty damning.
 
Answered my own question I was about to ask, here is what Zellner and her team are filing - or at least 221 pages of it.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...6.07+-+Motion+for+Post-Conviction+Relief2.pdf

Interestingly, the washing of the bullet would not have removed evidence of bone fragments, therefore the bullet the prosecution argued killed Teresa was never shot through bone - pages 136 onwards. Also discredits the waxy substance which previously was hypothesised as chapstick.
 
Last edited:
PermaChanged said:
Answered my own question I was about to ask, here is what Zellner and her team are filing - or at least 221 pages of it.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...6.07+-+Motion+for+Post-Conviction+Relief2.pdf

Interestingly, the washing of the bullet would not have removed evidence of bone fragments, therefore the bullet the prosecution argued killed Teresa was never shot through bone - pages 136 onwards.
Click to expand...

Two things, you realise that this was actually filed and rejected, for a whole load of reasons - but in particular, because no new evidence was actually presented.

Correct me if I'm wrong here - but from Dassey's confession - Halbach was shot a number of times, certainly in the head but also in a number of other places (stomach, heart) possibly as many as ten times. From what I can remember - the state never claimed that the bullet fragment which was tested had been explicitly fired through a human skull - only that it has Teresa's DNA, it might simply have been the bullet which went through her body rather than her head, and the head-shot bullet was perhaps never recovered, or cleaned up by Avery after the fact? It seems like a straw-man argument, to go after bone-fragments on the bullet, when the state never claimed that specific bullet had been through her skull - why would it claim such a thing if it couldn't prove it? The only claim it makes is that her DNA was on it, implying it was shot through her one way or another.

In relation to the bullet itself, no new evidence has actually been presented at all, only opinions based on third party testing - which have not been verified, properly scrutinised - or abide to any specific methodology that can be trusted. As far as I can tell - Zellner has paid a whole bunch of people to say "Yes Mrs Zellner"

Furthermore, the 'testing' they performed, didn't really appear to properly follow the scientific method, Zellner makes predictions, then plays around with the testing until they get the desired outcome which is very bad. A good example of this is where they're testing the bullets fired into the cow bones.

Their methodology for testing the bullet is flawed for the following reasons;
  • The cow bones used are not human skull
  • The distance she was shot from was unknown
  • A comparison test with a real skull can't be done to compare (basically voiding the entire test)
  • What happened to the kill-shot bullet is unknown (did it break up, exit, go into something else) after the fact
  • The test was not carried out enough times - only two for each test.
  • The washing of the bullet - the motion doesn't explain exactly whether or not the test bullet was washed with the same reagents that the lab used in the same way. It just makes a claim.
If you're going to attempt to prove wrong a specific theory by experimentation (as Zellner attempts), then your testing has to mirror the original conditions from which the original theory was derived as closely as possible. If the conditions differ, or specific elements are unknown then the testing can't possibly overrule the original theory, because it's being done on incomplete information.

This is why Zellner's testing amounts to cargo-cult science, they walk and talk like scientists, have all the fancy instruments and say all the words - but when you look at the detail, they're not being honest and sincere. Again with the so-called blood drop evidence, they just play around with drops of blood until they get what they think they're looking for, then so gallantly proclaim they've found evidence of planting.
 
Gotta agree with Screeeech there.

I'm only 3 episodes in, but the blood drop testing with the body was pretty amateurish if you ask me.

Zellner isn't really filling me with confidence.
 
Screeeech said:
I think you're reading too much into this. I understand she was barred from the site, for what appears to be a conflict of interest - which is clear in the Judge's ruling. You're going to have to explain why you think this is relevant, why you think it's a point worth making, because I don't really think it means anything - other than perhaps pointing to a procedural issue. If you think it means anything then please explain.
Click to expand...

I think the point around the coroner being barred from the site is the blatant double standards displayed; when other people from the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department were not only allowed to participate in the investigation, but these officers found key pieces of evidence, such as Lt. Lenk finding the key.

The argument goes that if the coroner had been called the moment bones were found (as she should have been in a normal investigation) then proper procedure would have been followed, avoiding the issues surrounding the bone evidence and the potential for accusations of foul play.

Screeeech said:
I'm just playing around here, but one thing I did find interesting that someone pointed out to me, is if you watch his original news interview with a reporter (before it was known that Teresa Halbach was dead) he refers to Teresa Halbach in the past tense, and mutters some gibberish when asked what happened to her, (around 3:35)

Of course, this doesn't prove anything - but I do find it interesting, how when interviewed on camera after a crime, there have been instances where they make what could be the tiniest slip - also interesting is how quite often they're overly talkative to cameras and news reporters.
Click to expand...

I watched that three times and couldn't hear the use of the past tense your describing… at the beginning he says "Teresa used to come out here all the time to take pictures of my vehicles…" is that what you mean? It's definitely not as blatant as the Maxine Carr interview.
 
Irish_Tom said:
The argument goes that if the coroner had been called the moment bones were found (as she should have been in a normal investigation) then proper procedure would have been followed, avoiding the issues surrounding the bone evidence and the potential for accusations of foul play..
Click to expand...

I think I'd concede that, but ultimately - I agree with the Judge, allowing it in as evidence would only confuse a Jury, because it blatantly boils down to procedure that ultimately has no real bearing on the crime itself, merely an internal issue with officers and officials. In my opinion it doesn't really swing the needle either way in terms of who killed Teresa Halbach, which is what the trial is about. But I can see how it feeds conspiracy theorists.

Irish_Tom said:
I watched that three times and couldn't hear the use of the past tense your describing… at the beginning he says "Teresa used to come out here all the time to take pictures of my vehicles…" is that what you mean? It's definitely not as blatant as the Maxine Carr interview.
Click to expand...

It's where he says "they lost somebody too" Implying that she's gone. Maybe it's just me, but it's the way he says it - it's not as blatant as Maxine Carr, but I guess it's open to interpretation.
 
Screeeech said:
If you selectively quote and pick bits from the statements - it's easy to make it look like there are inconsistencies.

The problem is - that's not how a statement comes out is it, it takes a lot of time and some pressure to get the information out of him, if you read or watch them from end to end it's much more likely that he's telling the truth;

And that's before it's pointed out, that a large amount of information that comes out of Brendan's statements matches up with the crime scene. Especially concerning information that nobody knew at the time;
  • Brendan confesses that Steven shot her in the head; Cause of death was a gunshot to the head (nobody knew this at the time)
  • Brendan explains how Steven had a cut on his hand; Blood from Steven on the Rav 4
  • Brendan explains why Halbach's blood is in the back of the Rav 4: Steven planned to drive her down there in the back and throw her in the quarry, changing his mind at the last minute - removing her and burning her instead (nobody knew this, and detectives were puzzled as to why she was burnt outside the trailer, yet her blood was in the back of her own Rav 4)
  • Brendan explains how he raped her; Why provide such lurid detail on things he didn't do?
  • Brendan explains how Steven planned it; Days before Brendan says how Steven planned to murder "the girl from Autotrader"
Click to expand...


I just wanted to come back to this because I've now had a chance to read all of Brendan's interview transcripts. I'm going to address each point in turn:

1. Brendan confesses that Steven shot her in the head; Cause of death was a gunshot to the head (nobody knew this at the time)

In the interview at Manitowoc County Sheriffs Department on 1st March 2006, Weigert tries to coax it out of him by asking "what happened to her head" and Brendan says he cut off some of her hair (which he later states he made up).

That's clearly not the answer Weigert wanted so he then asks "Who shot her in the head?"

This is the first time Brendan says anything about shooting her in the head.

However, law enforcement would have known about it from around November–December 2005, when Dr. Eisenberg examined the bones and determined there was evidence of a gunshot wound to the skull fragments.



2. Brendan explains how Steven had a cut on his hand; Blood from Steven on the Rav 4

At various points in the transcripts, Brendan attributes the cut on Steven's finger to:
  • Working on his own car
  • Cutting it on some glass
  • Catching it on something under the bonnet of Teresa Halbach's car
  • Cutting himself on the knife while stabbing Teresa Halbach
  • Teresa Halbach scratched Steven with her fingernails
There's no denying Steven had a cut, but Brendan's account of it is far from reliable.



3. Brendan explains why Halbach's blood is in the back of the Rav 4: Steven planned to drive her down there in the back and throw her in the quarry, changing his mind at the last minute - removing her and burning her instead (nobody knew this, and detectives were puzzled as to why she was burnt outside the trailer, yet her blood was in the back of her own Rav 4)

Brendan does say this (after Fassbender tells him they know some stuff happened in the car and the garage) but if you think about it, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

According to Brendan, the fire is already burning when he gets home from school. If you already have a fire going why wouldn't you use that to burn the body?

Furthermore; in earlier statements, Brendan says that Steven tied up Teresa Halbach, put her in the back of the RAV4 and stabbed her. In later statements, Brendan says that he and Steven stabbed Teresa Halbach in the garage before putting her into the RAV4. They then take her out of the vehicle and Steven shoots her in the head (once, twice, three times, five times or 10 times depending on the statement). If this were true, you'd expect a lot more blood transfer in the back of the RAV4. Brendan says there was a lot of blood that they had to clean up on the garage floor, so why isn't there more in the back of the RAV4 if this is an accurate portrayal of events?

A knife wound to the chest and stomach should have left a lot more blood than what was found in the back of that car.



4. Brendan explains how he raped her; Why provide such lurid detail on things he didn't do?

This is a good point and one that's hard to explain. In the very first interview with Brendan (Det. Baldwin in Marinette County), Brendan brings up the idea that Teresa was raped.

Maybe he's a bit sick in the head? He said he slit her throat and then backtracked on that, so he's not averse to making up sick details. Maybe growing up in that environment exposed him to some strange ideas around sex and sexuality. Bobby clearly has some messed up images on the family computer. Maybe it was because Steven was wrongfully convicted of rape the first time. Maybe he really did rape and murder Teresa Halbach…

The only thing I have trouble with is the timeline of events. Here's what I've managed to gather from various transcripts:
  • Bobby leaves to go hunting at 14:45, returns around 17:00 and goes back to bed, then gets up again at about 21:00.
  • Blaine arrives at home with Brendan at 15:45, leaves for trick-or-treating between 17:30–18:00 and returns between 21:30 and 22:00. He says Barb, Bobby and Brendan were all home when get got back.
  • Barb comes home from work between 16:30–17:00, leaves just before 18:00 to visit Scott Tadych's mother, returns by 19:45 (according to Scott Tadych's testimony) and then goes over to Scott's place to watch Prison Break at 20:00. She's back home just after 21:00 and phones Steven to say that Brendan has to be home by 22:00.
  • Steven gets two calls from Jodi, one at 17:35 and one at 21:00 — both of these calls are around 15 minutes in length.
  • Brendan gets a call from Blaine's boss at 18:00 (confirmed in the boss' testimony). Brendan says he got a call from Steven at around 19:00 asking him to come over, then he calls again to see where he is because Brendan is taking too long to get ready. In two of the statements he says he goes over to Steven's trailer at about 20:00–20:15.
Assuming Teresa didn't leave the Avery property, then she was there from about 14:30 and according to Brendan, was killed between 18:00 and 20:30 (depending on the statement). In all of Brendan's statements about the rape, he insists that Teresa Halbach isn't gagged in any way. She's either screaming, pleading or crying. There's a lot of people that come and go from the area between 14:30 and 18:00, yet none of them heard screams or any commotion. In theory, there's a gap between just after 18:00 and just before 21:00 when it was just Steven and Brendan around, except for Scott Tadych and Barb coming back briefly around 19:45, and Bobby Dassey, who was in bed next door for that entire time. He says in his testimony that he's a heavy sleeper, but could he really have slept through the screams of a woman being raped and then the gunshot(s) that killed her?

Now there's an awful lot of conflicting information and different times for things in Brendan's statements. It's quite possible that amongst all of the lies there are some grains of truth.

However, between around 20:00 and 21:00 (according to Brendan), we're expected to believe that he went over to Steven's trailer, raped Teressa Halbach, then they uncuffed her, tied her up, take her to the garage, stab her, shoot her, put her in the back of the RAV4, take her back out again, dump her body in the fire pit, clean up the mess in the garage, burn the clothes used to clean up the mess, then take the RAV4 down to the pit, cover it up, take the plates off, do 'something' under the bonnet and walk back to the fire. It doesn't add up.

So let's say Brendan got his times wrong. Let's say he went over to Steven's trailer soon after getting off the phone with Blaine's boss at 18:00. Let's assume that Steven managed to hide the RAV4 and keep Teresa quiet from 14:30 onwards, and let's assume that Bobby is the world's heaviest sleeper and hears nothing:

They would have had to rape her, uncuff her, tie her up, take her to the garage, stab her, shoot her, put her in the back of the RAV4, take her back out again, dump her body in the fire pit, clean up the mess in the garage and burn the clothes used to clean up the mess by about 19:45, because Scott Tadych testifies that when he dropped Barb off at home (19:30–19:45) the flames from the fire were bigger than normal — "almost as tall as the garage" so they must have been tending the fire at this point. Then, when Barb leaves to go over to Scott's place to watch TV, they get rid of the RAV4 and do all of the stuff in the pit, including walking back to the fire where they are then seen by Barb when she gets home at around 21:00.

That's the closest I can get to make it all add up. [phew]



5. Brendan explains how Steven planned it; Days before Brendan says how Steven planned to murder "the girl from Autotrader"

He does this in one of the last interviews (13th May 2006). He says that he thinks Steven planned it because he wanted to go back to prison and that he was ****** off with Jodi for being in prison. Weigert suggests it's because he's "not getting any" while Jodi is in prison. Brendan doesn't really go into any details about the 'plan', just that Steven said she was pretty and he was going to kill her. It's not the most convincing story.



I also wanted to go back to something else you said a while ago:

6. Dassey gives a detailed account of how they in-fact tried to hide [the RAV4] after they killed her and provides accurate detail that matches up with how it was found, along with what happened to the plates and details like Avery looking under the hood (his DNA on the hood latch, how they disguised it using branches and junk) Brendan gives specific details which align too closely to the scene, to be made up.

The interview where Dassey describes them hiding the RAV4 and covering it with branches and a car hood was taken four months after the car was found. Now, I haven't gone through every piece of news footage between when the car was found and when Brendan was interviewed, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he saw something on TV. Even if there were no images of the car broadcast on TV, it was found by volunteer members of the public. Knowing what the rumour mill is like, I wouldn't be surprised if news had got back to the Averys about what the car looked like when it was found.

Regarding the plates, it's Weigert who first brings them up and asks who removed them, Brendan just says "Steven did" and Fassbender is the one who suggests that SA opened the hood, not Brendan.

==

I'm still not outright suggesting Brendan and Steven are innocent, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies with the confession and the timeline.

Like I said earlier, there may be grains of truth, but I'm less-and-less convinced that it happened the way the prosecution presented it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom