Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[canadianwhitedove]

I am not sure if anyone has posted these links but they are very informative of How the Defence would of like to have proceeded if the "Denny" ruling. The Documents come from the defence side as it is a formal petition to the Courts. It talks about other possible suspects and why, which the defence was not allowed to present during the trial. It is in two parts.

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

Part 2: http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

 

[latentprints]

I'd like to see like even one shred of evidence that it's real! haha

Don't get me wrong, if it's real, I'll be first to listen to more. But right now, it's not a good sign when McCorkle ain't commenting. He might not like the idea that a fabrication will pack a hit to credibility of everything on his blog. I liked his articles, read all of them regarding this case. But maybe he's in too deep on this one ?

I've looked through the court records and the guy was arrest on the two general dates given. I haven't seen the police report showing the collection of the underwear by a female Manitowoc County Sheriffs deputy, but the location in the court records does place both incidents in very close proximity to the salvage yard. The address itself follows what would likely had been Teresa's logical route back to her home. While the coincidence of all of the out buildings burning down about two weeks after the blog post had been posted is quite odd.

To add, I wonder if McCorkle was put off by the barn burning down ... considering the impression I get as an outsider that Manitowoc County exudes the classic small town "we don't like people starting trouble around these parts" vibe - I'm surprised he even made two or three more posts relating to the case.

 

[canadianwhitedove]

I have been doing some more research on DNA. What I have found out there is no such thing as Sweat DNA, Sweat in itself does not have DNA. Also it hard to tell what part of the body DNA came from unless you visually see fluids. Blood, saliva, etc. Now for one to definitely say it is sweat DNA, they would need to see a sweat stain, but it not the sweat that has the DNA it is the skin cells that shed with the sweat that has DNA. So to say that someone left sweat DNA on a car latch with sweaty hands would be an assumption. It could just be regular skin cells that shed from the hand.

Also I have found out that DNA can be found on objects months after they were touched by the person, and since there is no scientific test yet to age DNA left behind, it is hard to determine exactly when that DNA sample was left behind. So for example, if Steven Avery open Teresa Halbach hood at an earlier visit in that year, it is possible that the DNA was left then. (not determining myself either way).

During my research I found this interesting

"As LCN can be recovered from an area where no discrete stain (e.g. blood, semen, saliva) is visible, it can be hard to establish how an individual's DNA came to be there. An occurrence known as secondary transfer can mean that a person's DNA could be present at a scene when the person themselves was not.

Such small levels of DNA, as analysed in LCN, could be passed from one person to another during a handshake and the second party could then deposit the transferred DNA at the scene. This is affected by the propensity at which a person deposits DNA. It has been argued that some people naturally deposit more DNA in their immediate environment than others. If the person shaking another's hand is a heavy shedder and the person who transfers their DNA to the scene is a poor shedder, the innocent party's DNA is more likely to be transferred.

The idea of legitimate contact is also relevant with LCN evidence as, if it is not known how DNA was transferred to a scene, it is also harder to date. Thus a common defence is that the DNA was deposited at another time through legitimate means.

A discrete stain, such as a blood stain, carries much more evidential value as it is relatively uncommon to leave blood at a site unless an incident has occurred. Low template DNA can come from touching an item or even speaking in an area, which is much harder to connect to any incriminating behaviour. It can imply an individual may have been present at the scene but not what the individual may have done there."
​

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/emfpu/genetics/explained/low-problems

So from my conclusion, DNA can not be the only reliable fact in any case.

 

[Midge Montana]

Question: what kind of explanation can anyone come up with as to why Colborn called in Teresa's plate number days before the vehicle was found? He didn't give one in the documentary when questioned about it on the stand, and it wasn't discussed further.

 

[Marah]

I just want to say I don't know any of the Avery clan personally, but know people who do, and know plenty of people who have interacted with them. My uncle delivered packages for the Manitowoc area for almost a decade and wasn't surprised for one second when he saw the salvage yard on the news being investigated for a murder. He said he was only surprised it wasn't CA. He dealt with numerous members of the family a few times a month for years and has plenty of opinions, but said he down right dreaded any interaction with CA.

The family had a reputation not just in Manitowoc but Sheboygan County as well. Plenty of it is rumor I'm sure, but when you hear first hand accounts from different people about dealing with certain members of the family, and they are all the same, you start to wonder. It wouldn't surprise me that the cousin had a vendetta against Steven- doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the 6 years but it wouldn't surprise me a bit. I've heard plenty of the family's own volatile relationships w. Each other. Plenty of people believe CA or EA set Steven up, I would say from what I've heard in Sheboygan in the past week, that's the most popular theory. After reading some of the comments Chuck has made about Steven to various news outlets over the years, and Brendan and Barb's allegations and statements, that family has certainly some issues of its own.

Not trying to say any of them are guilty, just wanted to provide some of the local opinion on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is there a link somewhere with the avery family tree with pictures of who they are and how they are related?

 

[latentprints]

Question: what kind of explanation can anyone come up with as to why Colborn called in Teresa's plate number days before the vehicle was found? He didn't give one in the documentary when questioned about it on the stand, and it wasn't discussed further.

It is my understanding that he claimed that he was calling in to verify the information passed on to him about the missing persons report.

I got the impression he was actually calling in the car in real time - it simply doesn't make sense for someone to call in to verify information that way. Besides, his demeanor in the trial comes through as someone that is lying or covering up something damaging.

 

[khaki]

I read that TH was running late that day and called SA to let him know this. I wonder why she was running late? Does anyone know if there is any transcript of interviews with the people at her two other appointments that day? Could she have been getting calls from someone, (i.e. boyfriend, former boyfriend, mysterious caller, etc) that caused her delay? Was there something at the earlier appointments that caused her to be late? Did she stop somewhere before going to SA's? Just wondering if anyone knows.

 

[stephsb]

Of the people I mentioned, Steve, Chuck and, Earl are brothers. Barb Janda is their sister. They all live on that same property, so do the parents. (Can't remember names at moment) Brendan Dassey is Barbs son. Bobby and Blaine are also Barbs children, and I think there is one more but I'll have to look back into the docs to get it.

I will see what I can do as far as a more extended family tree by asking around today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nomoresorrow]

As latentprints stated ^ I too got the impression Sergeant Colborn was calling in real time and I agree that his demeanor was very suspect when being questioned on the stand about this. IMO, this is just another one of issues - out of many - that point straight at LE's involvement - just like the key found after the trailer had previously been searched several times AND, when found, had NO other DNA on it except for Steven Avery's (huge factor that can only point toward LE), the mattress in the bedroom that had no DNA of Teresa's on it - despite LE's story of her being bond and tortured on it, the blood in the RAV4 belonging to SA + the vial of SA's blood that had very obviously tampered with, and Teresa's blood in the back of the RAV4 that doesn't fit at all into LE's narrative, and was never explained. Sorry, but to me, there's just way too much that points toward LE's involvement in this and I mean beyond simply the mishandling of evidence... JMO ~

 

[LemonMousse]

Question: what kind of explanation can anyone come up with as to why Colborn called in Teresa's plate number days before the vehicle was found? He didn't give one in the documentary when questioned about it on the stand, and it wasn't discussed further.

I really can't think of any innocent explanation for that.

He said (I think) that he was confirming the info that he'd been given. Does he do this every time another officer gives him details of a car to be on the look out for? Nah.

To me it's clear that he performed an illegal search of the yard, found the car and ran the plates....just as he would if he'd found it legitimately.

What's very, very interesting is that he seemed to be reading the plates.....although these were not actually on the car when it was found.

 

[stephsb]

But then why would he hide the plates? Wouldn't he want the vehicle to be found as quickly as possible and identified as Teresa's?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LemonMousse]

But then why would he hide the plates? Wouldn't he want the vehicle to be found as quickly as possible and identified as Teresa's?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He realised he'd messed up. He knew his call was recorded and he knew that there was evidence of him calling in the plates of a car that hadn't been discovered yet.

So he takes them off so that he can say, "Well, I can't have been reading the plates, can I, since they weren't even on the car".

He did want the car discovered as soon as possible...and it was, two days later by a couple of amateur searchers who found it within 20 minutes. The only two amateur searchers....out of many....who were specifically given a camera.

 

[coeurfragile]

I have been avoiding this thread until I finished the series. I'm on the last episode now. There are so many things that I just don't know what to believe. I hope by reading this thread and the Avery thread on here that maybe some of my questions will be answered.

I feel at the very least, the Dassey case was suspect from the beginning. You have a 16 year old who is clearly somewhat developmentally delayed, being questioned repeatedly without a lawyer or parent present. The videoed "confessions" clearly coerced. He says what you want him to. If anything, his statements aren't credible because of all the different stories he told at different times. How can you put forth the theory that he was even there and helped with this murder?

He told grandiose stories of Teresa being shackled, raped, shot, throat slit, etc. but if that were true as he was telling it, where was the blood? How can you say they killed her in the bedroom on the bed and slit her throat if the mattress, walls, floors. Etc. we're spotless? And for the same crime with a different defendant (Avery) put the idea out there that she was killed in the garage? Which is it? Bedroom or garage? Again, with no evidence of that ever occurring except for a fired bullet that was suspicious evidence to begin with?

I don't know if either of them killed or or how. I thought I would have a clearer picture after the documentary but I'm still as on the fence as ever (unless they clear any of this up in the remaining episode). It's certainly possible that one or both of them killed Teresa. But from what evidence the documentary presented, I would never have been able to convict either one of them. There's too many hinky things about it all, to definitely say that XYZ happened or that PERSON X did it.

JMOO, off to do some independent research about this!

 

[Midge Montana]

In review, what physical evidence do we have besides what Colborn and Lenk had part of providing? You know, the two that weren't even supposed to have anything at all to do with this investigation...
BTW, was the Manitowoc PD ever ordered to keep away from the investigation in any formal way?

 

[LemonMousse]

In review, what physical evidence do we have besides what Colborn and Lenk had part of providing? You know, the two that weren't even supposed to have anything at all to do with this investigation...
BTW, was the Manitowoc PD ever ordered to keep away from the investigation in any formal way?

I don't know how formal it actually was - no order from a judge or anything - but Sheriff Pagel (sp?) specifically said at that press conference that he recognised a potential conflict of interest so in order for there not even to be any room for suspicion the police from a neighbouring county would investigate.

Since searches = investigation then Colbourn and Lenk should never, ever have been on the scene in order to make their discoveries.

One thing that I wonder is if they had, in fact, planted the key earlier and were growing frustrated that the other searches hadn't uncovered it, so volunteered their services and...lo and behold....the key was found.

With regard to other evidence, there's really nothing implicating Steven that doesn't have serious, serious questions surrounding it...

The bones behind his garage were probably moved

The key was not found until police officers who should not have been involved showed up

Theresa managed not to leave any DNA on the car key she'd been using for 10 years

The bullet showed up in a relatively obvious place yet had been missed in multiple, very thorough searches earlier

The bullet was the only place in that entire garage that had traces of blood and DNA

There were only two sources of Steven's blood...himself or the test tube. The box containing the test tube showed clear evidence of tampering (not convinced by the pin prick on the top)

Steven's DNA was found under the hood only after detectives had wheedled out of Brendan a "confession" that he'd seen Steven pop the hood (months later). Why, by the way, had this area not been swabbed for DNA earlier since the police knew from the beginning that the battery was removed meaning that whoever took it out had to have touched the hood latch?

All the evidence against him stank, IMO.

 

[Midge Montana]

One point I'd like to make about the "hole" in the test tube...there will be a hole there. That's how the blood gets INTO the tube. They put the needle into your arm and attach each tube that needs to be filled onto that needle. That way they can fill multiple tubes with one poke to the donor.
I was confused about why they were making a big deal about the hole in the stopper of the tube.

 

[LemonMousse]

One point I'd like to make about the "hole" in the test tube...there will be a hole there. That's how the blood gets INTO the tube. They put the needle into your arm and attach each tube that needs to be filled onto that needle. That way they can fill multiple tubes with one poke to the donor.
I was confused about why they were making a big deal about the hole in the stopper of the tube.

Yes. Lots and lots of experts saying the same thing online.

 

[Midge Montana]

I've scoured the web trying to find any interviews with jurors from either case. Besides the excused juror (who basically lied to get excused, I've found), I can't find anything at all. Have any of you here found any?
I, and everyone else I know IRL that has watched/studied the cases cannot understand the verdicts. Even if there were 50 more pieces of evidence against the defendants, there was SO much room for reasonable doubt! We are baffled, even though some of us actually do think SA and/or BD could actually be guilty. With all of the head-scratchers, how in the world did they convict?
As for the hollering about the documentary being slanted, well...I can understand that. This was probably made and presented to draw attention to the problematic points against the defense. Heaven knows that the media DURING the whole ordeal was absolutely slanted in favor of the prosecution. Public opinion was so horrible against the Avery clan and that was obvious by the jury pool questionnaires. Out of 131 surveys, ONE said they might not be guilty. So I do see this as a cry for help after the fact from the defense. I have no problem with that bit of 'equalization' at all.

 

[MaxManning]

Honestly not trying to be snarky, but I think it's more likely Dassey's confession is legit than Avery not taking the stand to explain a bill of sale factored at all in his conviction. Avery's defense team did a great job providing his defense, especially since they went with the defense that police framed him, which is not a popular defense to use at trial, as it's a tough sell to the jury (which one of the attorneys acknowledged in the documentary).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm ok with the snark.

What would be some reasons to not take the stand ? The stated was that everyone knew he was innocent. If I was on a jury, that right there wouldn't be a positive thing for me to hear. Not sure if jury heard that, but I'd hope not.


As a juror, and even as just a person looking at the case as I am now, I think it's a good point. The clear implication is that teresa went into the house with the intention of filling out a bill of sale, and the bill of sale wasn't even started. 2 things that were at all previous stops - auto trader magazine and a bill of sale were present, but not completed. It's also a process that results in the money being put in her hand. Am I suppose to believe that she left without money ?

If avery did pay her, is that important to know ? we don't know if he did, do we ?

I did come away very impressed with the defense team based on the documentary, and based on how little we saw, they made a convincing argument.

But, if they failed to somehow explain how that might of happened, via even getting testimony from auto trader on what happens if the person doesn't come into contact with the person who is supposed to pay them. Do they take the picture anyways. My understanding is that this a cash payment transaction. She says in her phone message, that was on Barb Janda's message machine by the way, that she can't come to the house unless she makes contact. So, is that not worth a question ? Is it possible that Avery called/texted her personally ? We know that he has her number on a pad of paper on his desk. right ?

So to be clear the narrative I see is :

1. Halbach calls Barb Janda's because that is what information she had, her name, her number. That is what auto trader dispatcher knows.
2. She leaves a message because no one is home, saying that she wants to set the appointment but she needs to make contact first -- Not noted in the documentary by the way.
3. Avery calls or texts halbach saying "hey, the van is on my property, but it's barb's , sorry about that." -- this means auto trader doesn't know avery was the person or even the right number.
4. Halbach shows up at residence , Avery is there and she takes pictures.
5. She goes inside possibly to fill out bill of sale and get paid.


Is that not plausible and furthermore reasonable ? Given the fact that we KNOW Avery gave B.Janda as the name/# and that teresa left a message saying she couldn't come unless she made contact ?

Did teresa make contact with Barb ? or Avery ?

Just saying, this is not just some random detail, it's a part of a very logical narrative that without explanation can be extremely convincing to a jury. Likely why they didn't include that narrative in the documentary.

imo

 

[MaxManning]

Bill of sale or receipt? I think it's a receipt book and it's a two form with the receipt (or bill of sale) given to the customer and the duplicate is kept in the book and needs to go to the company. It's a way of accounting for the money. So she wouldn't just give him a blank receipt/bill of sale. It would be filled out in the book. Maybe he just took a blank one to make it look like she had been there and left and not thought it needed to be filled out also for her office. Did they find the receipt book or was it burned in the fire?

Read my explanation above, as I gave it to steph in response to her comment. I got this narrative from the dassey trial by listening to what they are saying. Not to the closing arguments yet, so not sure of the official narrative. But based on what I have read so far, that is where I think they are going. Yes, I think it's a carbon copy, even that detail might come up yet in the dassey trial.

I think if you just say there was a blank bill of sale, like the documentary did, it has no impact whatsoever. But if you build a narrative based on how she does her job in relation to being dispatched, taking photos, and getting paid. I think it has a large impact on a jury.

So if he did get on the stand, now he has to answer how teresa ended up at his property when she said she wasn't going to come unless she made contact. Why ? because she needs to get paid. simple as that.

One alternative I can see is if she got there, because she came there often and no one was there so she took the pics and figured next time she was there, she'd get paid and complete the sale.

Asking auto trader or other photographers if that ever happens would be one way to suggest that , right ?

But, since we don't see that explanation, shall we assume it's irrelevant and the defense doesn't need to explain it at all ?