Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[MaxManning]

Go to page 30 of that doc -- "A cadaver dog alerted on a golf cart parked in a small garage behind the the main residence" wtf! Earl was known to be driving around in this golf cart.

This case keeps getting more and more bizarre.

It's also documented that the police were sharing information regarding the case with Chuckie. Actual police documents stating things they shared with him while investigating Steven.

Yet these police don't see these other guys as suspects !?!?

How exactly do these guys get excluded ? I just need to know what evidence was critical in excluding these guys. I don't expect to find it in this document - http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

But if there's not an explanation for why they ruled these guys out, how can they say that they did their job !?!?

 

[MaxManning]

This is one thread on it but I read about in few different ones. Not sure I really understand. I think there are different kinds of tubes. But basically it's vacuum sealed and the puncture is simply where the blood travels from the syringe. I believe if a lab worker needed to extract blood they would insert a syringe back into the same hole. The defense lawyer said he talked to the lab and this was not their method. There are some Reddit posters who also dispute it. But it does take away from the whole smoking gun piece of evidence.

https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xpof9/hole_in_the_top_of_the_blood_tube_normal/

Ok, so it's possible that although it wasn't their process at that lab, it doesn't mean that someone new etc might not have followed a protocol from another lab they used to be at. Meaning that it's not crazy for that to happen, but it just wasn't protocol at this lab. So it doesn't have to be nefarious , but rather someone innocently not following protocol based on a different training.

makes sense. thanks for that link.

That link also notes that there are stoppers with that hole prepunched - so that leads me to believe that it's very possibly nothing nefarious. This particular stopper was one that wasn't prepunched, however the fact that prepunched are available, that process must be common, even though not the method for this lab. right ?

 

[Brightbird]

Ok, so it's possible that although it wasn't their process at that lab, it doesn't mean that someone new etc might not have followed a protocol from another lab they used to be at. Meaning that it's not crazy for that to happen, but it just wasn't protocol at this lab. So it doesn't have to be nefarious , but rather someone innocently not following protocol based on a different training.

makes sense. thanks for that link.

Something like that. I kinda skimmed over it, lest I fall down that rabbit hole

 

[MaxManning]

Another important note from that document is that the hole is used in collection of the sample. Meaning that is how they would get the blood into the vial. This explains alot, and a great example of how us people with no knowledge of this kind of thing could be led to believe something and have it seem so obviously nefarious, yet in reality.... completely reasonable. If this had been explained in the documentary, then viewer would not feel quite as outraged by it not having impact. I wish I knew if the prosecution explained this at the trial ? excluding this explanation , would be something I'd consider deceptive an manipulative.

"Avery's lawyers assumed the hole had to have been made to get blood out of the tube. Not working in healthcare, they didn't realize that you have to make a hole in the top just to get blood IN the tube. I'm betting they called LabCorp and asked them if their protocol was to insert a needle into the tube top to remove blood for testing and that LabCorp was like, "uhh, no, we take the cap off to do that, like any lab would do." So the lawyers conclude that the needle hole was made by someone else to withdraw blood for nefarious reasons. The seals were broken, that's also an issue, but my whole point is that we can't sit here and say that the hole in the top of the tube is the smoking gun of this case. There would have been a hole in the top of the tube no matter what, it's how this type of blood collection works."

 

[MaxManning]

Something like that. I kinda skimmed over it, lest I fall down that rabbit hole

haha, i hear ya! But glad I got to read that, because it's an example of how if you just take what the documentary tells you as the gospel, you are potentially just gulping kool aid. This was one area of the documentary where I just couldn't understand why red flags weren't popping up for everyone. So it's possible documentary just didn't show us the prosecution's explanation. (deceptive)

Based on what we read in that reddit, the prosecution could have called a lab worker and said - "How do you collect blood ?" and that would have been all they needed to explain it. right ?

I don't know if I can trust the reddit, but that's why I am interested in if the prosecution explained this or not with a credible expert.

 

[Lamima]

After watching doc, I was right there with you. But clearly there are details left out that many believe are important to the case. I'd say it's fair to say that there are details left out on both sides - prosecution and defense - that most would think are relevant.

I still say it's possible that the police were corrupt and planted evidence and that Avery could STILL be guilty. The investigation was lacking due to their tunnel vision, same as with his original conviction.

But to answer your more direct question, yes, I do believe that avoiding paying money to Avery could have been a primary motive to focus on him alone and potentially even plant evidence. I also think they had opportunity and means to do that. A needle hole in top of that vial needs to be investigated to understand how that could have happened. Tampering with that is criminal, and it was clearly tampered with, unless someone can provide an explanation.

That's the part that puzzles me. What does it take for a judge to accept that the needle hole on the top of that vial of Avery's blood is NOT of concern. Is judge possibly corrupt too ? that's possible. right ?

But again, me believing this to be a valid concern, doesn't allow my mind to exclude Avery as a suspect. Just means he didn't get a fair trial.

A hole is always on top of a vial of blood, is it not? To get the blood in. It's a resealable material with a slot in the top, I thought.
Edit: I see this was mentioned above.

 

[MaxManning]

Ok... page 30 of this doc - http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

When the police came to earl's house to get a DNA sample, he hid in an upstairs bedroom under some clothes.

That is an actual police report that notes that! haha

Is there anything about this cast of characters surrounding this junkyard that is not bizarre ??

Then to get even more bizarre, the police don't seem to feel the need to even suspect this guy and investigate further ?

Makes you wonder if the whole lot of them don't have closets full of skeletons that have just not been discovered.

 

[Ava Adore]

Random, but who was Barb hitting at her car after the Brendan conviction was read?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery documents 1-22.pdf

start reading about tadych on page 21.

If this cast of characters doesn't convince you that theres a chance that nearly everyone at this junkyard was a damn good suspect, you must be an related to this family in some way

I think the documentary should have presented this stuff to the viewers, even though it wasn't allowed as evidence - for some completely bizarre reason.

I want to better understand why they couldn't give show that their were others with motive and opportunity to commit this crime, and have prosecution explain why they were excluded.

I'll say this. Steve Avery is the one guy that is more than willing to get on camera and say he had nothing to do with this. None of these other guys are seen denying involvement, but rather tossing out things to suggest Steve might have done it from the shadows?

 

[MaxManning]

Random, but who was Barb hitting at her car after the Brendan conviction was dead?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I wondered the same. Good question. I was trying to make it out, but I don't believe I had seen the guy in the documentary until that time.

 

[Itsmevkb]

The defense was allowed to argue that someone other than Steven was perhaps responsible for killing Teresa, they just weren't allowed to actually start naming names. There is a legal test for that with the idea being if you allow the defense to start naming everyone else who was on the property that day, which I think is around 10 people, what is a trial of Steven becomes a trial of 10 more people despite none of those 10 being charged with a crime. So, there's a distinction there and a formula for the court to use to decide if other people can be specifically named. Nothing was stopping the defense from arguing, and they did in fact argue, that someone other than Steven may have killed her along with arguing that he was set up by the police.

 

[Brightbird]

Random, but who was Barb hitting at her car after the Brendan conviction was dead?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I thought it was Scott Tadych, her boyfriend.

 

[MaxManning]

The defense was allowed to argue that someone other than Steven was perhaps responsible for killing Teresa, they just weren't allowed to actually start naming names. There is a legal test for that with the idea being if you allow the defense to start naming everyone else who was on the property that day, which I think is around 10 people, what is a trial of Steven becomes a trial of 10 more people despite none of those 10 being charged with a crime. So, there's a distinction there and a formula for the court to use to decide if other people can be specifically named. Nothing was stopping the defense from arguing, and they did in fact argue, that someone other than Steven may have killed her along with arguing that he was set up by the police.

I get that, and do understand the concept.

But what maybe is the largest issue is that police chose to exclude people, and there should be some legal mechanism for specifying "this guy couldn't of did it", and therefore not allow that. I am assuming that is what you are talking bout with this formula. Which is why I personally would like to know how all these guys are excluded. Maybe there are good reasons, but not one of them had an iron clad alibi, and 2 of them were each other's alibi.

So would love to understand this formula and who makes final decision (judge?)

I am guessing that the blood evidence is what would have excluded everyone else ?

So we have to be open to the idea that any of these guys might likely have planted that blood, and that police were actually manipulated by these guys instead of actually planting evidence. These guys likely knew that the cops would prefer Avery to be the killer.

Any of these guys had the ability to move bones to Avery's pit, plant bullets, obtain avery's blood or DNA - without even sneaking around.

Would be good to know exactly how Avery cut his hand. Did he say how it happened and when ? Is it possible one of these guys was present or had access to a towel or something he used to tend to it ?

So I guess it's back to the blood evidence, as being very important. But all these shifty characters, including the cops, makes this one hell of a mess to untangle.

 

[MaxManning]

Seeing in these documents that chuck avery was communicating with police during the investigation is highly suspicious. Because it opens the door to him being able to plant something and say - hey, why don't you search *whatever* at a given time and you can expect to find something.

Any of these guys could have potentially done something of that nature. So maybe they were in direct contact with Lenk or someone who reported to him. Which then would make sense as to why he was a constant in all this, willing to be convinced avery did the murder, but never actually planting something. I'm sure if one of these guys was the murderer and understood cops wanted Avery for means of killing that lawsuit, they'd likely use that to manipulate the cops to lead them away from their own involvement.

 

[MaxManning]

One question I have regarding the blood is -

Is there some kind of protocol in terms of documenting the amount of blood drawn, and then the amount of blood used for any given test ?

Depending on how precise this was, you might be able to determine how much blood SHOULD be in the vial based on the amount collected and the amount used for any given documented test.

I haven't ever dealt with blood vials, but I have heard of people marking their liquor bottles to monitor if their kids were drinking it! Same concept.

 

[Itsmevkb]

Maybe you should actually watch the documentary instead of believing everything you were fed by the media back in....what, 2007? I think the election and all this ISIS bombing stuff has taught people how biased the media is (and I'm not the least bit into politics). No one even questioned this 10 years ago. You believed what was reported on TV as GOSPEL. You believe that because that's what the media told you happened. Yeah, you deal with this stuff all day but are reluctant to possibly watch this show? I live in Wisconsin....this stuff (corruption) is commonplace. Maybe you just don't want to admit you might be part of the problem.

I haven't formed my opinions based merely on news reports nor on this documentary (although you clearly have which is a shame since the documentary certainly shouldn't be taken as gospel truth anymore than media reports should be). I've based them on reading documents written by Mr. Avery, reading court documents regarding the case and just having a gut feeling.

And as far as I remember back in 2007, Mr. Avery, along with others were arguing pretty strongly that he was being set up and all of that was reported by the media.

I can either believe that Steven killed her, or that the police targeted both him and her and killed her, or that perhaps a relative of Avery's killed her and then framed him with the help of the police. I believe he killed her, as did a jury, and as do many others so it's not like it's a completely out there idea.

 

[MaxManning]

I very much want to watch this show but I'm not sure I can bear it. I work for the federal court in Wisconsin and have done some work on a few of Mr. Avery's cases (civil rights cases) and I just have a view of him that isn't even in the least bit good. And, I find Theresa's murder horrifying to the point that it makes me very uncomfortable to even think about. I'll have to work my way up to watching.

Are you familiar with the rest of the family as well ? specifically chuck & earl ?

I know the averys have a not so great reputation, but can you shed some light on why you have a negative opinion of steve or either of his brothers ?

I am not at all skeptical that you have good reasons, but for alot of us who have no other exposure to him than what we see in this documentary and in the news, it might help us to know what your opinion of him is based on.

I am sure that in a court of law they wouldn't let someone come in and just spout off reasons they don't trust him, based on non criminal observances. I could dislike someone for them letting their dog take a dump on my lawn and that's an indicator of how much they respect other people's property etc.

But I do personally wonder what Steve and his brothers are like in an everyday situation/conversation. We all know people that act a different way when they don't have reason to be on their best behavior. I say that to point out that the documentary show a Steve that is always on his best behavior and knowing he shouldn't say anything questionable. But my guess is that in normal everyday conversations, he is a different person. I say that because there are seemingly many people who have a negative impression of him, and I can't buy that he is just completely misunderstood because of his last name.

With Brendan however, I think what you see is what you get. I would not be surprised in the least if the kid was always like that, even when not on trial for murder. You likely don't find anyone who had a bad thing to say about the kid before all this, except from maybe a kid bullying him at school.

 

[Batman's Mommy]

One question I have regarding the blood is -

Is there some kind of protocol in terms of documenting the amount of blood drawn, and then the amount of blood used for any given test ?

Depending on how precise this was, you might be able to determine how much blood SHOULD be in the vial based on the amount collected and the amount used for any given documented test.

I haven't ever dealt with blood vials, but I have heard of people marking their liquor bottles to monitor if their kids were drinking it! Same concept.

Steven Avery was in prison for 18 years prior to this murder. This vial of blood was taken during those years. He was exonerated through the use of DNA evidence that was not around at the time of his initial arrest, 1985. The date on the blood vial was 1995 (?), approximately eight years before his exoneration. Could this vial have been accessed more than once during the DNA testing process that was used to exonerate him? There is just so much left to question, IMO, about the whole blood vial/blood planting.

I need to read through this whole thread, but why would the police kill this woman or cover for someone who did? In episode 3(I think), IMO, it was very telling when SA's female attorney makes a statement to the effect that being in prison could have driven SA to commit this crime. That statement coupled with the fact that his fiancee was in jail for approximately 8 months when the crime occurred...... I'm not going to elaborate.

Something else that has troubled me, and it may be a fabrication since I have only seen reference to it online, but the whole animal torture (burning a cat, IIRC) sent up a huge red flag for me.

Unfortunately, the corruption was glaringly obvious in this documentary. Because of the corruption, there will always be the "what if" in the minds of many.

I've been meaning to look into other unsolveds and missing cases in the area..... Could there be or have been other crimes committed by a member(s) of this family that put the target on SA? Or, could SA have done other things that we are unaware of that made it important (take away the $$$ lawsuit) to keep him locked up? Will we ever know?

ALL JMO :moo:

 

[Lamima]

Did either Steven or Brendan take a lie detector test with LE?

 

[Itsmevkb]

Are you familiar with the rest of the family as well ? specifically chuck & earl ?

I know the averys have a not so great reputation, but can you shed some light on why you have a negative opinion of steve or either of his brothers ?

I am not at all skeptical that you have good reasons, but for alot of us who have no other exposure to him than what we see in this documentary and in the news, it might help us to know what your opinion of him is based on.

I am sure that in a court of law they wouldn't let someone come in and just spout off reasons they don't trust him, based on non criminal observances. I could dislike someone for them letting their dog take a dump on my lawn and that's an indicator of how much they respect other people's property etc.

But I do personally wonder what Steve and his brothers are like in an everyday situation/conversation. We all know people that act a different way when they don't have reason to be on their best behavior. I say that to point out that the documentary show a Steve that is always on his best behavior and knowing he shouldn't say anything questionable. But my guess is that in normal everyday conversations, he is a different person. I say that because there are seemingly many people who have a negative impression of him, and I can't buy that he is just completely misunderstood because of his last name.

With Brendan however, I think what you see is what you get. I would not be surprised in the least if the kid was always like that, even when not on trial for murder. You likely don't find anyone who had a bad thing to say about the kid before all this, except from maybe a kid bullying him at school.

Steven has filed multiple civil rights lawsuits over the years, mainly regarding the legality of the search warrants, the arrest warrant, asking that he be reimbursed for a half a tank of gas that was used when his car was seized, as well as being reimbursed for damage to some of the seized property and also for being put in segregation after his arrest. He filed the lawsuits pro se, so he represented himself without an attorney. The defendants were mainly county and state employees so they were represented by either private attorneys or the WI Dept of Justice. His family had no involvement in the suits and I live in the "big city" vs small town Wisconsin where all this happened so I have no real knowledge about his family other than what I've read and no sort of small town gossip that I'm relying on. Daily I deal with things from litigants and you just get a feeling about some of them from their tone, from the documents filed, etc. I get that that's not really something you can put your finger on.

I should be clear, my job does not involve any kind of decision making in any cases, including those filed by Mr. Avery. That is all left up to people at a way higher positions and pay grades than mine.