Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[Madeleine74]

Actually, one thing that is noted is that there is no crime scene tape over the openings of the cars like the door grooves, which i was told is somewhat standard, but I believe they explain this by saying that weather situation forced them to expedite the process of removing the car from the area.


In terms of someone planting evidence in the car. You do realize that some people believe that the police planted the car, meaning they'd obviously have access to the inside of the vehicle before planting it. right ?

Also, there is evidence of are fine fellow Mr. Lenk signing out of the crime scene, but never signing in. right ?

So if that goes unnoticed, what else goes unnoticed ?

So, with the knowledge that people believe LE was planting evidence, would it surprise anyone if the guy watching the car said no one entered the car ?


I am just saying this, to say that it's futile to try and convince people who believe evidence was planted that it was not.

I am not convinced that anything was planted, but I see lots of odd things that make me question it.

Of course there are people who believe every allegation of tampering whether there's any evidence to back those allegations up or not. There are those who aren't sure if there was any tampering or not. And I'm sure there are some who believe tampering did not and could not occur. I'd say the entire range of opinions is well represented.

 

[Soulmagent]

Still on direct examination of Fassbender...

About the Rav4, condition of the SUV, seizure of the SUV:

TH's body would have to have been in the RAV4 for a while before the HRD would alert on that chemical scent.

I think that time has been stated around 2 hours before decomposition gets to the point where the scent is detectable by dogs.

 

[Madeleine74]

TH's body would have to have been in the RAV4 for a while before the HRD would alert on that chemical scent. I think that time has been stated around 2 hours before decomposition gets to the point where the scent is detectable by dogs.

As far as how quickly could a body leave enough of a scent that a cadaver dog could pick it up... in a Swiss study, it was found that in as little as 10 minutes of exposure to a fully clothed deceased person, a cadaver dog could pick up the scent from a brand new carpet square that had been placed under the newly deceased person. That of course doesn't mean all cadaver dogs will pick up a scent of a person in contact with an item for as little as 10 minutes, but it doesn't necessarily mean it takes a couple hours either.

 

[MaxManning]

As far as how quickly could a body leave enough of a scent that a cadaver dog could pick it up... in a Swiss study, it was found that in as little as 10 minutes of exposure to a fully clothed deceased person, a cadaver dog could pick up the scent from a brand new carpet square that had been placed under the newly deceased person. That of course doesn't mean all cadaver dogs will pick up a scent of a person in contact with an item for as little as 10 minutes, but it doesn't necessarily mean it takes a couple hours either.

My question for you, since I have seen tests that say some cadaver dogs can pick up a scent 100 feet under ground, is why exactly did the cadaver dog not pick up the scent of the blood on the bullet in the garage on 11/5 or 11/6 ?

It picked up the rav4 scent. It picked up a scent on the golf cart.

But a bullet that is in the garage on the floor under the compressor , uncovered, is something that a cadaver dog won't smell ?


Could be a good explanation, but I am kind of skeptical. Because one plausible reason I can think of, is that the bullet wasn't there at that time.


ya know ?

 

[Madeleine74]

My question for you, since I have seen tests that say some cadaver dogs can pick up a scent 100 feet under ground, is why exactly did the cadaver dog not pick up the scent of the blood on the bullet in the garage one 11/5 or 11/6 ?

It picked up the rav4 scent. It picked up a scent on the golf cart.

But a bullet that is in the garage on the floor under the compressor , uncovered, is something that a cadaver dog won't smell ?


Could be a good explanation, but I am kind of skeptical. Because one plausible reason I can think of, is that the bullet wasn't there at that time.


ya know ?

No clue. I've never worked with a service animal, let alone a cadaver dog. That's a question for an expert.

 

[Soulmagent]

As far as how quickly could a body leave enough of a scent that a cadaver dog could pick it up... in a Swiss study, it was found that in as little as 10 minutes of exposure to a fully clothed deceased person, a cadaver dog could pick up the scent from a brand new carpet square that had been placed under the newly deceased person. That of course doesn't mean all cadaver dogs will pick up a scent of a person in contact with an item for as little as 10 minutes, but it doesn't necessarily mean it takes a couple hours either.

I will have to read this ,more closely ,but so will you.

It says the dogs were exposed to the scent of a piece of carpet ,that had been exposed for 10 minutes to a corpse that had died within 3 hours.

Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes. The research concluded that cadaver dogs were an "outstanding tool" for crime-scene investigation.

I stand behind my 2 hour period.

ETA I will add that she might have only been in the RAV4 deceased for 10 minutes, but her body when placed there would be at least 2 hours deceased. Unless the cops transported those bones in the RAV4 to the scene. Then who knows.

 

[MaxManning]

No clue. I've never worked with a service animal, let alone a cadaver dog. That's a question for an expert.

Right, I am posing this question to you, since you have question as to whether things were planted or not.

I assume you are posting these things to show that there was no planting,or to support that theory.

So I am giving you a question to consider.

Would you agree that there are alot of things being discussed here that you are not an expert on, yet you rendered an opinion ? such as your belief that the ballistics resulted in a match of the bullet in the garage to the gun over avery's bed -- which we know is factually incorrect.


So all I'm saying is maybe there are more things that you need to consider, before drawing your conclusions.

That's all. Keep an open mind.

 

[Madeleine74]

Right, I am posing this question to you, since you have question as to whether things were planted or not.

I assume you are posting these things to show that there was no planting,or to support that theory.

So I am giving you a question to consider.

Would you agree that there are alot of things being discussed here that you are not an expert on, yet you rendered an opinion ? such as your belief that the ballistics resulted in a match of the bullet in the garage to the gun over avery's bed -- which we know is factually incorrect.


So all I'm saying is maybe there are more things that you need to consider, before drawing your conclusions.

That's all. Keep an open mind.

I'm apparently reading various passages that are stating facts that are not always corroborated. The challenge is finding completely accurate information. I haven't rendered any opinion other than this one: Brendan should have a retrial.

 

[MaxManning]

I'm apparently reading various passages that are stating facts that are not always corroborated. The challenge is finding completely accurate information. I haven't rendered any opinion other than this one: Brendan should have a retrial.

Yeah, i think most agree there.

I think the trial transcripts are a great example of how lawyers are masters of deception.

Clearly the motive of the prosecutor is to suggest that the car hood can't be moved by 1 person, which fits his narrative of 2 killers.

He asks questions in such a way that it's implied that 1 person can't move it.

Defense lawyer steps up and gets the witness to agree that it's a bunch of malarkey, and it's all just about asking the right question.


I get it, but it shows you how willing both sides are to be deceptive to win a case.


So, that can make it hard for us non lawyers to evaluate all this, because you can't trust the first words out of anyone's mouth without that clarification of cross and recross examination.


So, just further shows that with a guy like kachinsky or another public defender, you are likely in big trouble , even if you are innocent.

 

[bessie]

Well, it is quite possible he used bleach to clean the garage, however, the chlorine bleach that stains clothes doesn't get rid of blood. So it is truly immaterial, no?

Why not pose the question in a new thread?

 

[Sleuther87]

I think before any of that, I would ask myself 'Am I a Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department employee and would my involvement with this case be a conflict of interest?"

My first thought would be "There's a missing woman somewhere on this 27 acre property, how can I help?"

 

[MsArk]

Just finished the documentary. Wow! Now reading the original TH thread, from almost 15 years ago. I don't know if SA did or didn't commit the murder but the Brendan situation is horrendous. I could hardly stand watching the "interrogations" of that child. And his first Atty, <modsnip>... just wanted the publicity because he couldn't get elected into office.
Again, just now jumping into this conversation... as are many, here at WS and elsewhere.

 

[bessie]

I don't even think a new thread is needed. We all know that chlorine bleach doesn't get rid of blood.

There was a luminol hit, so why is anyone surprised if chlorine bleach was used -- if it was oxygenated bleach, there'd be no luminol hit. right ?

I'm kind of confused why people keep pointing out chlorine bleach not cleaning blood, because it truly is irrelevant to cleaning blood.


But it's completely relevant to what brendan told his mother he was doing that day, and why he had bleach on his pants. It's also in no way inconsistent with anything in the garage, as there was a luminol hit, so blood -- whether blood or deer -- was present.

I'm confused by why people are so adamantly opposed to brendan helping clean steve's garage. It doesn't mean he's guilty.

If we are going to throw out what people say because we don't like it, we can probably just stop the thread altogether haha

The idea is to start breaking out the more salient points and issues into topic specific threads. The topic needn't be the question of oxygen bleach, per se, but rather the relevance of BD's bleach stained jeans. Just a suggestion.

It's up to you guys. I'm trying to give you the option to start your own threads on topics you see as relevant.

 

[bessie]

Some posts have been moved here:
[h=1]Bleach: Brendan's pants and the garage floor[/h]

 

[Sleuther87]

Some posts have been moved here:
Bleach: Brendan's pants and the garage floor

My post got moved but had nothing to do with Brendan's jeans, so I'll post it here again.

Interesting article with some background into the forensics investigation.

http://www.lawofficer.com/articles/print/volume-3/issue-12/features/putting-pieces-together.html

This was a huge, huge crime scene, says Pagel, with 27 acres, more than 3,800 vehicles, numerous ponds and quarries surrounding the property. We had to call upon as many experts as we could. We knew we needed help and needed it now.

Ken Olson, a forensic scientist with the Wisconsin State Crime Lab, was also able to confirm the presence of lead in the burn pit where the remains were recovered. This lead, he testified, was consistent with that from a high-energy projectile, such as a bullet.

 

[bessie]

My post got moved but had nothing to do with Brendan's jeans, so I'll post it here again.

Interesting article with some background into the forensics investigation.

http://www.lawofficer.com/articles/print/volume-3/issue-12/features/putting-pieces-together.html

My apologies for the error, Sleuther87. Thank you for re-posting.

ETA: Actually, evidence in the burn pit is a good idea for a topic thread. Just sayin'.

 

[Soulmagent]

http://www.examiner.com/article/crucial-new-evidence-of-steven-avery-s-guilt-may-have-been-contaminated

According to an MSNBC interview with the &#8220;Making a Murderer&#8221; filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, the DNA evidence was obtained after a member of the crime lab inspected Avery's vehicle. Demos explained that the officer in question did not change his gloves after inspecting Avery's vehicle. The defense argued that the DNA could have been transferred from Avery's vehicle to Halbach's vehicle during the inspection. Demos further states that the evidence &#8220;didn't go very far'&#8221; in the courtroom and was not considered a key piece of evidence. It was not included in the documentary for that reason.

 

[MaxManning]

http://www.examiner.com/article/cru...even-avery-s-guilt-may-have-been-contaminated

Great example of how something like this can happen so easily, even on accident , yet some are so skeptical that it's possible that such a thing could ever happen on purpose.

Of course the prosecution wasn't going to be honest about what happened and the defense has to convince a jury it happened, otherwise a jury accepts it as DNA proof that avery touched that latch.

 

[shadowraiths]

Has this case come up on its first appeal? If so, did the higher court render a decision?

While its true the state must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt but since there was a verdict of Guilty in the first trial then to get a re-trial it must be decided by the appellate court, right? Have they said they believe one or both defendants deserve a new trial? Have any of the higher courts even mentioned this case since the documentary aired?

About the law on theories concerning the defense not being able to enter one........ that is very strange because the defense theory in the first trial was he had been framed by LE and evidence planted. That was their theory even back then.

It is very easy for defense attorneys to say 'the evidence COULD HAVE BEEN planted' however; that is not proof to the higher court who hears the case. Many defense lawyers claim evidence was planted or tainted so the Judges are already very well aware of that common claim. Does this DT have substantiated proof to support their claims that evidence was planted to frame Avery?

I would think if they had positive proof the police planted evidence the Governor of the state would have long ago stepped in. Has the Governor of the state made any comments about this case?

tia

SA has exhausted all of his appeals. You can find the appeals and resulting opinions here.

Brendan, I believe, has one last appeal, his writ of habeas corpus, and [is] awaiting Magistrate Judge William E Duffin's ruling.

The Governor of Wisconsin has stated that he will not pardon SA or Dassey, in response to the petitions asking him to do so.

While I get some people's "emotional response" neither he, nor the president (who could not, anyway), pardoned these men. I, personally, am glad they did not. Simply bc, regardless of the problems, such pardoning would set a very bad precedent. (i.e., get a documentary made about your case, and you too, can be pardoned!)

Imnsho, we need to stay within the system. And if the system is broken, we need to fix it.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I just wanted to add that my husband was living not too far from the area the time of the murder. He said that anyone who believes SA didn't kill TH is just plain crazy. I think most people within a 100 mile radius of Manitowoc believe he killed her and would not want SA as their new neighbor....just saying...