Jump to content

Deleterious

Making a Murderer

Recommended Posts

A couple of quotes from the last link...

Linton-Smith: Absolutely, from top to bottom. Despite the conviction, this case should be Exhibit A as to how NOT to conduct a criminal investigation. It is exclusively because of the behavior of law enforcement that the "Making a Murderer" was made. I have covered courts in Florida, Tennessee, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. I have never covered a trial that raised some many disturbing questions about the behavior of law enforcement.OnMilwaukee: Was it a normal trial to cover, compared to past trials?

Linton-Smith: No. Procedurally, this case was like many others. The cast of characters was what made this so unique.

OnMilwaukee: In retrospect did the media do its job?

Linton-Smith: I don't know if it was possible for the daily television, radio and print media to fully cover the Avery story. Avery was about much more than murder, guilt or innocence. The case exposed the fundamental fact that criminal defendants are NOT presumed innocent. Even more troubling, the Avery case clearly demonstrates that the burden of proof is NOT on the state. It may not be possible, with the exception of a documentary, to fully explore the inexplicable conduct of law enforcement. It is absolutely unprecedented.

OnMilwaukee.com Movies & TV: Former Milwaukee reporter Linton-Smith reflects on covering Avery trial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Irrelevant.

2) Irrelevant.

3) Sweat? That actually seems pretty damning. But no fingerprints?

4) Seems pretty questionable. Who cleans their garage floor with bleach? I don't see Avery doing that for no reason...

5) Irrelevant.

6) They did discuss that in the doc and he admitted to that. Irrelevant.

7) Irrelevant.

8) Irrelevant.

9) That's creepy. He obviously had a thing for her, but doesn't mean he killed her.

10) Again, creepy, but irrelevant.

11) Irrelevant. Simple explanation.

12) He said he threw tires in the fire. So what? Irrelevant.

13) Same for no. 3... sweat is suspicious, but why no prints?

14) Pretty damning.

3 and 13 really make me think he did it, and 14 even more so. Do they give me reasonable doubt? Not sure, but more than I had before hearing these 3 facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On today's "The Detroit Cast" podcast, Mike and Jay talk to the Avery family over the phone. Jeesh. Definitely some characters. They came off very different than in the documentary.

If you're interested, it's episode 498. At about an hour into the show. They talk to them twice. An initial phone call that was cut short and then a little while later they talk longer.

I just found it....interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Irrelevant.

2) Irrelevant.

3) Sweat? That actually seems pretty damning. But no fingerprints?

4) Seems pretty questionable. Who cleans their garage floor with bleach? I don't see Avery doing that for no reason...

5) Irrelevant.

6) They did discuss that in the doc and he admitted to that. Irrelevant.

7) Irrelevant.

8) Irrelevant.

9) That's creepy. He obviously had a thing for her, but doesn't mean he killed her.

10) Again, creepy, but irrelevant.

11) Irrelevant. Simple explanation.

12) He said he threw tires in the fire. So what? Irrelevant.

13) Same for no. 3... sweat is suspicious, but why no prints?

14) Pretty damning.

3 and 13 really make me think he did it, and 14 even more so. Do they give me reasonable doubt? Not sure, but more than I had before hearing these 3 facts.

Exactly... Kratz initially claimed the documentary left out 90% of the evidence presented by the prosecution, and then he comes up with this list? This list basically confirms that Steven Avery is weird and probably isn't the best guy ever... almost none of it is actually relevant to whether or not he killed Teresa Halbach.

I will say that he had to pay a hefty price but even though they didn't win, Strang and Buting did a great job and it's been a pleasure to see someone as eloquent as Dean Strang bring attention to the issue of prosecutorial misconduct within our system. I found this documentary eye opening in that regard, it really gave me pause in thinking how many innocent people may be imprisoned, perhaps because they got stuck with a Len Kachinsky as their public defender. In the long run, I hope this is the takeaway.

Overall, I will admit that the documentary may have had a bit of a pro-defense bias, but I still can't walk away from it thinking that there was some really shady stuff going on there. I don't know if Avery did it or not, but he didn't get a fair trial IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brendan deserves a trial more than Steve. I really do think both of them probably had something to do with her murder but Brendan's defense was so bad as to be criminal.

The trick with Steve's retrial is that I believe the bullet and key should be thrown out of evidence. They were both found in a very fishy way by people that were not supposed to even be there.

However, I think I would let them use all the other evidence. The sweat on the hood and the bones in the fire pit in particular.

If he then gets found guilty, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished watching it. I'm going completely off the documentary so I don't know what wasn't shown. But with that said, I don't see how they could convict either of them, especially Dassey. And I especially don't get how they couldn't grant Dassey a new trial when his lawyers wouldn't let them show the last 2 hours of his confession where he says "They got in my head" and where he asks them "I have to be back to school by 6th hour"(which shows that he was basically saying whatever just so he could leave). They also didn't bring up how he never once mentioned anything first, it was the detectives that kept saying "The head, the head", he didn't know what they were talking about, at first he said cut her hair because that's what he thought they were wanting then he finally says shooting her. He was clearly just saying what he thought they wanted to hear because he thought they would let him go then.

As far as Avery goes. I don't understand why his lawyers didn't talk more about the fact that their was blood in the back of her car when there was no need for him to put her there. Or the fact that the one officer blatantly lied on the stand when he described the vehicle to the dispatcher and the plate number despite him saying he didn't. Or the fact that Avery had access to a crusher yet didn't use it. Or the fact that he was on the phone with his girlfriend for 15 minutes while the supposed act was going on. Why would he answer or talk that long if he was raping and mutilating a body? Or the simple fact that there was absolutely no motive.

I'm not saying that he didn't do it, he may have. But there is way too much evidence leaning the other way for me as a juror to convict him. There was way too much reasonable doubt there.

Also f he went through all that effort to clean his place up like the prosecution suggests, it would show that he was extra careful. And if he was extra careful why would he not crush her car when he has access to a crusher, or not clean up his dna in the car? And why would he keep her key in his bedroom? It makes zero sense.

If he is that careful and meticulous where he could clean up his trailer after a gruesome murder to show no signs of anything, or clean up his garage to show no signs of her DNA, than he surely would be meticulous enough to dispose of her vehicle, or at the very least make sure that it is wiped clean.

Edited by RandyMarsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finished it last night. I found the prosecutor smug and arrogant from the get go and that was confirmed by his text exchange with one of his clients.

There were a few things that I found genuinely interesting (spoiler alerts):

1. If Steven were truly innocent, why did he not take a lie detector test. That would have gone a long way.

2. The two cops who looked the most guilty in keeping Steven in prison the first time should have known better than to be anywhere near that investigation. It betrayed their strong desire "to get him". The wording of the lab instructions made that perfectly clear and a mistrial should have been declared from the beginning due to these two being involved.

3. The vial. That stinking vial. The broken seal and the clear hypodermic needle penetration. When they first said that there was no evidence of the preservative, I thought "he's nailed" but the fact that they didn't test the other three samples seemed ludicrous. Then the other expert testified that "there was no way on earth that the test results of the preservative not being present was valid" (paraphrasing) was summarily dismissed.

4. The key. Duh. Again, if I was on that jury, the blood vial, the lack of follow up on other leads and key thing would have not let me vote guilty in good conscience.

5. The nephew's lawyer. I hope he got disbarred. What a weasel. It is as if he just wanted to be done with the whole thing so he threw the kid to the wolves.

6. The cop calling in the plate number on the RAV4. As if they found it somewhere and wanted to run the plate. What was that?

7. No presence of the girl's DNA on the key.

Even if he was guilty, from what I saw on this documentary and the articles which had other facts that Kratz said the documentary left out, I'm not sure it was enough for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just finished watching it. I'm going completely off the documentary so I don't know what wasn't shown. But with that said, I don't see how they could convict either of them, especially Dassey. And I especially don't get how they couldn't grant Dassey a new trial when his lawyers wouldn't let them show the last 2 hours of his confession where he says "They got in my head" and where he asks them "I have to be back to school by 6th hour"(which shows that he was basically saying whatever just so he could leave). They also didn't bring up how he never once mentioned anything first, it was the detectives that kept saying "The head, the head", he didn't know what they were talking about, at first he said cut her hair because that's what he thought they were wanting then he finally says shooting her. He was clearly just saying what he thought they wanted to hear because he thought they would let him go then.

As far as Avery goes. I don't understand why his lawyers didn't talk more about the fact that their was blood in the back of her car when there was no need for him to put her there. Or the fact that the one officer blatantly lied on the stand when he described the vehicle to the dispatcher and the plate number despite him saying he didn't. Or the fact that Avery had access to a crusher yet didn't use it. Or the fact that he was on the phone with his girlfriend for 15 minutes while the supposed act was going on. Why would he answer or talk that long if he was raping and mutilating a body? Or the simple fact that there was absolutely no motive.

I'm not saying that he didn't do it, he may have. But there is way too much evidence leaning the other way for me as a juror to convict him. There was way too much reasonable doubt there.

Also f he went through all that effort to clean his place up like the prosecution suggests, it would show that he was extra careful. And if he was extra careful why would he not crush her car when he has access to a crusher, or not clean up his dna in the car? And why would he keep her key in his bedroom? It makes zero sense.

If he is that careful and meticulous where he could clean up his trailer after a gruesome murder to show no signs of anything, or clean up his garage to show no signs of her DNA, than he surely would be meticulous enough to dispose of her vehicle, or at the very least make sure that it is wiped clean.

This. All of this.

Steven supposedly tied her to the bed, cuts her hair and throat, and then cleans it up so well they can,t find any DNA evidence. But he leaves her keys laying on the floor.

He may have done it, but that police department couldn't convince me beyond a reasonable doubt what time it is.

Yeah, it's puzzling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cops absolutely planted evidence. However, I don't believe they killed her, as I don't think they would have even known she was going to be there.

UNLESS... she said in the past that she was afraid to go there. What if she called the police to come "escort" her while she was taking the photos? They now have the perfect means to set him up.

I really don't think they would have killed her though. Someone else had to have been involved. Maybe she really killed herself, the cops found the body, and planted it? Maybe the ex bf had something to do with it.

You can't ignore the fact that Steven obvious had an infatuation with the girl. He kept trying to call her, which makes me think maybe he really did do it.

Either way, too many unknowns and a huge lack of physical unplanted evidence to implicate Avery so I just don't see how they convict him.

I really think one day the truth will come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The cops absolutely planted evidence. However, I don't believe they killed her, as I don't think they would have even known she was going to be there.

UNLESS... she said in the past that she was afraid to go there. What if she called the police to come "escort" her while she was taking the photos? They now have the perfect means to set him up.

He used his sister's name for the ad (because it was her car that he was selling) but I am sure she was familiar with the address.

Either way, too many unknowns and a huge lack of physical unplanted evidence to implicate Avery so I just don't see how they convict him.

This. If I was on that jury, I couldn't convict him just because of all the planted evidence and the conflict of interest. Almost every time crucial evidence was found, the two cops involved in the lawsuit were there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the first vote by the jury was 9-3 not guilty. The juror who had to leave early said the three guilty votes were very stubborn. I'm wondering if there wasn't some sort of outside influence. A small rural community like that, just about everyone is related in some way to someone involved in the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC, the first vote by the jury was 9-3 not guilty. The juror who had to leave early said the three guilty votes were very stubborn. I'm wondering if there wasn't some sort of outside influence. A small rural community like that, just about everyone is related in some way to someone involved in the case.

It was 7-3 with two undecided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC, the first vote by the jury was 9-3 not guilty. The juror who had to leave early said the three guilty votes were very stubborn. I'm wondering if there wasn't some sort of outside influence. A small rural community like that, just about everyone is related in some way to someone involved in the case.

I believe one of the jurors was a volunteer with the Sheriff's department and another one had a relative in the department, but this is paraphrasing from my memory of stuff I've read.

I also read one juror felt intimidated or something along those lines, I wouldn't be surprised if that was in the back of their mind with the prosecution's statements about "well if you don't think Steve did it then you're saying the police did it." It was a small town where it seems like everybody knew everybody, I'm sure the jurors thought they might have problems with the Sheriffs if they didn't convict since they obviously hold grudges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also sounded like there was some vote swapping, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the jurors that were a bit unsophisticated about the whole process felt like voting guilty on one count but not the other was some sort of compromise.

I forget now what the charges were but I recall it made no sense they would vote guilty on the murder count but not the second count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It also sounded like there was some vote swapping, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the jurors that were a bit unsophisticated about the whole process felt like voting guilty on one count but not the other was some sort of compromise.

I forget now what the charges were but I recall it made no sense they would vote guilty on the murder count but not the second count.

I think it was not guilty on mutilation or something like that, and Brendan was convicted of that but not Steve which is crazy. I'm with you, apparently they saw it as some sort of compromise to not convict on that count but it makes no sense on how that's a compromise if you didn't think you could convict on count 1 when that was the heaviest of them all sentencing wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second was bodily mutilation, or something like that. The third was possession of a firearm by a felon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to be leaning toward Avery quite possibly did kill the girl, and the local Sheriff's office planted evidence to ensure they got the conviction they wanted.

The comments in here about her possibly killing herself is something I hadn't considered, and it's an interesting possible twist to the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finished last night. I have always understood that the point of a trial isn't to decide who did it. It's to decide whether the state proved the defendant did it. Seems to me the judge and prosecutor and county decides the trial is to bring justice any way they can. Avery appeared close enough so go with it. Prosecutors would not want me on a jury anyway. I would have a high standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting it here for what it is worth...

This might be the first time we’ve ever highlighted an event featuring a pair of lawyers, but follow us on this one. The hit Netflix series “Making A Murderer” has taken the country by storm.

The 10 part series follows the case of Steven Avery, who spent 18 years in prison after being convicted of a sexual assault he didn’t commit in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. But if you think that’s all – here comes the twist. There’s a story after the story, and if you haven’t seen the series yet, we don’t want to spoil for you.

Attorneys Dean Strang and Jerry Buting were the defense lawyers in the documentary series, and they’ll be at the Royal Oak Music Theatre on March 19 discussing the show. They “will participate in a moderated discussion regarding the operations of the criminal justice system, as well as the broader implications of the Steven Avery case.”

https://feedly.com/i/subscription/feed/http://feeds.feedburner.com/DailyDetroit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I finished last night. I have always understood that the point of a trial isn't to decide who did it. It's to decide whether the state proved the defendant did it. Seems to me the judge and prosecutor and county decides the trial is to bring justice any way they can. Avery appeared close enough so go with it. Prosecutors would not want me on a jury anyway. I would have a high standard.

Hint: if you are ever called for a Capital case and find it inconvenient to serve, tell them you are a Promise Keeper. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...