Making a murderer - The Avery case (Spoilers)

[Felon]

It's funny how in one breath you can tar a whole documentary series, yet the only "evidence" you've got to go on is exactly the same available to the documentary makers. No wait, it's less because they've actually been out there, spoken to the people involved, filmed them, got to know them etc. Indeed, they know so much about the case and spent so many long hours researching it that they came out with a two-season documentary about it! I like the way people are so quick to judge the filmmakers, conveniently forgetting that they've probably spent years, in big research teams, with oversight from Netflix's lawyers etc. making the damn series.

But of course.. you read some stuff online so you must know better

I absolutely do tar an entire documentary series with being biased, and using creative editing techniques to mislead an audience.

Aside from being highly biased, they use creative editing techniques to deliberately mislead, specifically in the court testimony related to the Anti-christ of police officers, Andrew Colburn. Specifically, his testimony relating to the call he made to despatch, checking up on the license plate of Teresa's Rav4 - right after she was reported missing.

The defence claimed, that Andrew Colburn was in the process of planting her Rav4 on the Avery property, as he was stood looking at it when he made that call, however - the Netflix documentary selectively cuts out Andrew Colburns's answer, and pastes it behind a question he never actually answered - because the prosecution (Satan himself; Ken Kratz) raised an objection.

Original court testimony;

Q. Well, and you can understand how someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at on the back end of a 1999 Toyota; from listening to that tape, you can understand why someone might think that, can't you?

ATTORNEY KRATZ: It's a conclusion, Judge. He's conveying the problems to the jury.

THE COURT: I agree, the objection is sustained.

Q. This call sounded like hundreds of other license plate or registration checks you have done through dispatch before?

A. Yes.

Q. But there's no way you should have been looking at Teresa Halbach's license plate on November three, on the back end of a 1999 Toyota

ATTORNEY KRATZ: Asked and answered your honor; he already he said he didn't and was not looking at the license plate.

THE COURT: Sustained

Q. There's no way you should have been, is there?

A. I shouldn't have been and I was not looking at the license plate.

Netflix creative editing;

Q. Well, and you can understand how someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at on the back end of a 1999 Toyota; from listening to that tape, you can understand why someone might think that, can't you?

A. Yes.

Q. But there's no way you should have been looking at Teresa Halbach's license plate on November three, on the back end of a 1999 Toyota

A. I shouldn't have been and I was not looking at the license plate.

[Theme music plays and the episode ends, leaving the whole thing hanging in the air]

Still so keen to automatically believe everything you see on a Television screen? Honestly, I don't blame you - it fooled just about everybody.

 

[Steedie]

I watched season 1, I watched *some* of season 2 - but it was so rubbish and full of nonsense that I didn't finish it.

I got my opinion afterwards, from reading the case files and watching/reading the original testimony.

Lol massive contradiction

 

[Felon]

Lol massive contradiction

No it isn't.

The original unedited testimony is available in other places apart from Netflix, some of the unedited interviews and court testimony can be found online.

 

[Steedie]

No it isn't.

The original unedited testimony is available in other places apart from Netflix, some of the unedited interviews and court testimony can be found online.

I'll have to have a look and search for it. Wouldn't mind seeing that

From what I've seen by watching both Netflix documentaries, I think it's clear he's just been a target for a corrupt police force and he hasn't done it.

 

[Felon]

I'll have to have a look and search for it. Wouldn't mind seeing that

From what I've seen by watching both Netflix documentaries, I think it's clear he's just been a target for a corrupt police force and he hasn't done it.

The best place to start would be a podcast called "Rebutting a murderer" by Dan O'Donnell, he's a former lawyer turned journalist, he covered the original trial - was there through all the testimony, he does a very good job of dismantling the entire documentary, because it is an enormous pile of absolute one-sided nonsense.

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/139-rebutting-a-murderer-27424970/episode/s1-ep-1-a-life-of-30040309/

It's one-sided, because Netflix present only one side of the narrative, a perfect example would be the vial of blood.

When the defence found the Vacutube with Steven Avery's blood inside, it had a little hole in the top - the defence then tried to say this was evidence of tampering, because someone had stuck a needle in it - and used it to spray blood all over the crime scene.

However, the explanation for the truth is never shown - because the little hole in the top is exactly how the blood gets inside a Vacutube - that's how it works, the nurse who did it testified that she put the hole in, because that's the procedure. But Netflix never wanted anyone to hear the perfectly innocent and normal explanation for the hole in the vial and so it's left open. In reality - the defence were made to swallow it, admit they were wrong and looked like a bunch of complete idiots, but that part was never shown to the Netflix audience.

That's just one example, out of hundreds in the entire series.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Course you did.

I believe @Screeeech when he says this.

I was off work for a week and read a lot of the documents myself — you can see my
progression throughout this thread.

I’m still not convinced Brendan was as complicit as his later confessions suggest, but I have little doubt that Steven is guilty.

 

[timmeh]

But what about all the things they find in the 2nd series that wasn't in any of the documents in the original trial? I can't remember it all off the top of my head but things like the nephew's (I think) computer that was full of all kinds of torture porn and concerning searches. The police didn't even look at that at the time. And the other sites of interest that weren't even looked at. The nephew left at around the same time as Halbach too apparently.

I agree that a lot of the methods they used in the 2nd series were complete ********, especially the 'test' when loading the body into the car, but they did find some new things that the prosecution didn't find which you would completely miss if you only read the case files and watched the first season.

 

[Felon]

I believe @Screeeech when he says this.

I was off work for a week and read a lot of the documents myself — you can see my
progression throughout this thread.

I’m still not convinced Brendan was as complicit as his later confessions suggest, but I have little doubt that Steven is guilty.

What amazed me was the creative editing. I wrote it a few posts back, I'm not sure if anyone noticed it (post #334 up the page) - but I find it utterly ridiculous, and for me - it throws any possible glimmer of hope that the film makers wanted to portray an honest and fair portrayal of the events, into the bin.

I actually discovered this, through reading the book from the Anti christ himself - Ken Kratz. He actually does a very good job, (because he's a lawyer) of showing how Netflix altered the footage, to make it suit their narrative. If you go back through the court transcripts, then compare them to what was shown on Netflix - they've intentionally moved things around, to make it look like Andrew Colburn was saying yes to a specific question, when in reality - that never happened. It's incredible.

As much as everybody hates Ken Kratz and wants to see him suffer the most terrible deaths - if you go and compare what was actually said, vs what actually came out on Netflix - as much as everyone hates him he's right, it's been altered and changed to suit their narrative.

Honestly, it disturbs me - how quickly and easily people will jump on a bandwagon and side with a particular narrative, without stopping to ask basic questions, or question what they're being told. Along the way - nobody seems even remotely able to ask "Is there a chance I'm being played like a fool here?"

I agree that a lot of the methods they used in the 2nd series were complete ********, especially the 'test' when loading the body into the car, but they did find some new things that the prosecution didn't find which you would completely miss if you only read the case files and watched the first season.

Not really.

The vast majority (99%) of the suppose things they found in season 2, were there mostly for TV and for people who wouldn't ask any questions about it, a lot of it was obtained through pseudo / cargo cult science, by people Zellner had most likely paid to nod their heads and say "Yes Ms Zellner"

If you look at Zellner's court motions to free Avery, none of the supposed 'ground breaking new evidence' from season 2 was present anywhere.

Essentially, Avery's appeal has been granted due to a procedural technicality, where some specific bones which were found elsewhere - were not tested for DNA.

 

[BennyC]

The second series does present some compelling theories but as with all things of this nature you are seeing & hearing all but a snippet of the bigger picture, not necessarily with the entire context, portrayed by only one party.

You can, and I have, form/ed an opinion based on what has been 'presented' to me so to speak but unless you've sat through the entire trial or familirised yourself with every single bit of evidence and case file, it's integrity is no stronger than the documentary itself.

If you can't appreciate that then it's a good job you don't work in the legal profession or a position of similar power

 

[deuse]

Ok, so you want to talk about lies, Steven Avery certainly does like to tell lies, lets examine how his versions change - all of this is available in the case file;

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/exhibits/

1.>

Steven Avery, originally told investigators that Teresa Halbach never even turned up at this property, an Autotrader employee even provided a statement that Steven Avery called Autotrader to complain she didn't turn up. However - Allen Avery accidentally told investigators that she did show up, Steven Avery changes his story to match.

This goes to show you haven't done your home work.

"
Kratz:

Sergeant Colborn, that first day, that is, the first day of the missing persons investigation, the 3rd of November, after Mr. Wiegert asked for your help, did you have any conversation with Steven Avery at that time?

Colborn:

Yes, I did. I asked him if Teresa Halbach had come out to their property to photograph a vehicle that they were selling.

Kratz:

Mr. Avery have a response for you?

Colborn:

He said that she was taking some pictures of a van that his sister was selling. And I asked Mr. Avery if she had said where she was going and he said, "I never talked to her. She was only here five or ten minutes, then she left."

Kratz:

That he never talked to her?"


I have put what was in a REAL transcript.

We all know that Kratz is a lying toe rag.
He claimed on TV (2/14/17) that he was still saying things on behalf of the state courts of Wisconsin. Which is 100% a lie.
Kratz no longer worked for the state. He resigned in disgrace in 2010 because he was sexually harassing crime victims.

 

[Felon]

I have put what was in a REAL transcript.

No it isn't, it's something you copied and pasted from Reddit here;

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...steven_avery_first_tell_the_cops_that_teresa/

Unfortunately, the source of the transcript is fake and was deleted years ago. (it's fake, because it doesn't match the actual official transcripts which can be found here; http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-avery-trial-transcripts/#sthash.IWAygzWs.dpbs

In any case it doesn't matter - my point still stands;

Steven Avery originally told Andrew Colborn that he never spoke to her, he only saw her, when initially questioned.

Steven Avery later told the detectives that he did speak to her a number of times, and she was at his door.

He keeps changing his version, because he's lying - and he has to keep changing his lies as they get unpicked, this is how liars get found out all the time.

We all know that Kratz is a lying toe rag.
He claimed on TV (2/14/17) that he was still saying things on behalf of the state courts of Wisconsin. Which is 100% a lie.
Kratz no longer worked for the state. He resigned in disgrace in 2010 because he was sexually harassing crime victims.

You talk as though Steven Avery emits nothing other than pure honesty, despite the mountains of lies he tells to cover up his crime, (lies which are all a matter of the record)

Yet at the same time, you're one of the millions of people, who have been conned, hook-line and sinker by Netflix - and they don't even have the gumption to realise they've been owned.

Let me turn your attention to some nice letters that Steven Avery sent to his ex wife, again - letters Netflix didn't think was relevant, because it pained their angel in a negative light;

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MTSO-Report-on-Threats-1988.pdf

 

[timmeh]

Not really.

The vast majority (99%) of the suppose things they found in season 2, were there mostly for TV and for people who wouldn't ask any questions about it, a lot of it was obtained through pseudo / cargo cult science, by people Zellner had most likely paid to nod their heads and say "Yes Ms Zellner"

If you look at Zellner's court motions to free Avery, none of the supposed 'ground breaking new evidence' from season 2 was present anywhere.

Essentially, Avery's appeal has been granted due to a procedural technicality, where some specific bones which were found elsewhere - were not tested for DNA.

Fair enough. I can't really remember enough about it to put together a response for or against what you've said.

Yet at the same time, you're one of the millions of people, who have been conned, hook-line and sinker by Netflix - and they don't even have the gumption to realise they've been owned.

Let me turn your attention to some nice letters that Steven Avery sent to his ex wife, again - letters Netflix didn't think was relevant, because it pained their angel in a negative light;

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MTSO-Report-on-Threats-1988.pdf

Are you sure that wasn't in the Netflix series? I feel like I remember seeing letters threatening her in the 2nd season.

 

[deuse]

snip

"
Complaint No. 05-01s7-955 Page 8"


"I did receive a phone call back from Sgt. COLBORN indicating he, in fact, had spoken with
STEVEN AVERY. Sgt. COLBORN informed me STEVEN had told him TERESA had shown
up on Monday afternoon and took some pictures of his van that was for sale. He also informed
me STEVEN was not sure on what day it was and did not know what time TERESA had shown
up at his residence"
"Inv. Mark Wiegerl
Calumet Co. Sheriff s Dept.
MW,rbds "
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf

Your first statement is still wrong.

 

[Felon]

Your first statement is still wrong.

No it isn't.

Steven Avery told one detective, that he saw her and never spoke to her - he just saw her taking pictures.

He told a different detective he did speak to her, at his trailer.

The reason he changed his story, was that Allen Avery actually told detectives she was there with him.

Steven Avery had to change his story, because he's telling lies.

It really isn't that far fetched you know... (honestly)

 

[Fubsy]

As I've said before, there is zero point in arguing for Avery's case in this thread, it's guarded by Ken Kratz himself.

 

[Felon]

As I've said before, there is zero point in arguing for Avery's case in this thread, it's guarded by Ken Kratz himself.

It's not that there's zero point in arguing, it's just that the competing theories for what happened - such as Steven Avery being innocent, simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

It's really simply and easy.

You either accept the evidence and the conclusions you drawn from it which point to him being guilty, or you embark on a massive conspiracy theory that has zero evidence to support it.

No evidence of a conspiracy; No witnesses, no forensic evidence, no circumstantial evidence, nothing whatsoever - that implicates anybody or anything conspiratorial at all, at any point.

Put yourself in the shoes of any reasonable person, and tell me which is the most reasonable explanation?

 

[jellybeard999]

My take away from the series is that the arguments for innocent/guilty are unclear, but the police processes do not appear to be fully transparent/proper and cast doubt on the conviction, almost like the police "wanted" it to be Steven and Brendan got caught up in it all.

I'm sure the series is 1 sided, reflecting the views of the film makers, but I understand the prosecution declined to be involved, which will always limit the balanced argument.

@Screeeech you seem to know the background pretty well - is there any truth in how shoddy the police processes seem to be? and the fact that they zeroed in on Steven and seemed blind to anyone else.

The most compelling part of series 2 for me was the exclusion of the Coroner, which seemed odd and the investigation into the bones. Agreed with the above, most of it is conjecture with dummies and gel casts etc - CSI type stuff.

 

[Felon]

@Screeeech you seem to know the background pretty well - is there any truth in how shoddy the police processes seem to be? and the fact that they zeroed in on Steven and seemed blind to anyone else.

Yes definitely, there were a number of procedural errors which were uncovered, most notably was Sherry Colhane messing up the control sample on the DNA test of the bullet, (despite the actual test being untainted, as they had enough DNA for two tests <control and actual> )

For me, some of the legal processes were also pretty poor - more specifically those relating to Brendan Dassey. His original public defender (Len Kachinsky) allowed the Avery Family to close ranks, frighten Brendan out of taking a very generous plea deal to nail Avery. Most likely because the Avery family would lose out on their lawsuit money if Steven went down, so they essentially sacrificed Brendan.

Even Ken Kratz writes openly in his book - that Brendan shouldn't be in jail, he was exploited by Steven Avery and his family and the plea deal wasn't handled properly. (So whilst everybody is burning pictures of Kratz - most people don't know, that he actually would like to see Brendan released, because left to his own devices - Brendan would never have gotten involved in such a crime..)

On the question on whether or not it seemed suspicious that the police zeroed in on Avery, I don't think it is;

From the moment Teresa Halbach was reported missing, it was known from both her employer and either her friends or family (I think) that she had gone to the Avery junk yard - that is the last place she was known to have gone. To me, it seems perfectly logical and good police work - to immediately go there and perform a thorough search, not because the police are already convinced Steven Avery has killed her - but to quickly rule it out as an obvious explanation, it's essentially a quick win and in situations like that, you have to act quickly on the most obvious information you have.

Imagine the outcry, if they knew in advance that she had been there - but decided to put off searching that location until later? imagine if they'd left it a week before going there - giving Steven Avery a chance to perhaps crush the car, or hide other evidence. It's also important to remember that they were initially investigating a missing person report, not a murder - there was nothing to suggest that she'd been murdered until they found her car on his lot.

 

[Trig]

I've not watched all of this tbh, what happened with the whole thing about her BF having access to a diary or something that she kept with her in her car, him finding it at her house with a note written in it that could have only been written after she left Averys? Think that was about the last episode I watched..

 

[ACJL]

I've not watched all of this tbh, what happened with the whole thing about her BF having access to a diary or something that she kept with her in her car, him finding it at her house with a note written in it that could have only been written after she left Averys? Think that was about the last episode I watched..

You mean the day planner? Zellner claims that Teresa must've had it with her on the day she disappeared. She presents two witnesses to "confirm" her story. The first witness is Denise Coakley, who claims she was talking with Teresa on the phone about making an appointment. She claims that TH was in her car and said she was jotting something down. Another witness, Steve Speckman, said something similar, but he claims TH was in Sheboygan and the time of their phone conversation was 12:44. If she was in Sheboygan at 12:44 she didn't have time to go to her home before meeting her first appointment that day. So Zellner concludes that it was in her car until she met her killer and that Ryan Hillegas obtained the day planner and for some reason gave it to the cops.

Basically, the whole claim relies on Steve Speckman's testimony. If he is wrong, the whole theory goes away. And he is provably wrong. TH's landline records are also available online and they show she used her fax and her home phone after Coakley's call. She also pinged to the same cell tower the whole day until she went to her first appointment. If she was using her landline while her mobile phone was pinging to this cell tower, it suggests this cell tower was near her home. A cell tower in Sheboygan doesn't reach her home.