Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[CoolJ]

You have no problem with excluding the following information that was brought up in trial or otherwise documented in other legal documents filed with the court or from previous convictions and arrests of Steven Avery? I do not understand how you can be okay that. Even if the evidence wasn't allowed in court it's still in all the legal paperwork filed for the case. You don't know what Brendan thinks because no one asked him!


Used in court
1. In the criminal complaint, Brendan's mother noted that brendan had bleach on his pants and that he told her that he was helping clean Avery's garage floor. "On February 27, 2006, your complainant spoke with [Brendan's mother] Barb Janda. Barb Janda stated on October 31, 2005, when Brendan Dassey returned from Steven Avery's residence, Dassey had bleach stains on his jeans. Barb Janda asked Dassey what happened to his jeans, he told her that his jeans were bleached while he was helping Steven Avery clean his garage floor with bleach. On March 1, 2006, Investigator Wiegert recovered the jeans worn by Dassey on October 31, 2005. Investigator Wiegert noted that the jeans contained bleach spots and other stains."

Used in court
2. Avery bought shackles and handcuffs just weeks before, and his sister was with him. They were found in the burn barrel.

Used in court
3. Avery used a different name when requesting Halbach for taking photos. He called her phone several times that day using *67 to hide his phone number.

Was not allowed in court. Testimony was from TH coworker.
4. Halbach noted she was uncomfortable in going to Avery's place because he has answered the door in only a towel before.

5. In addition to Steven previous convictions, both his brothers Chuck and Earl had been convicted of previous sexual assault which is why the locals felt this way about the family. It was not just based on gossip. Of course, this has no bearing on his guilt in this case, but it explains the overall distrust and dislike of the family.

Used in court
6. Susan Brandt, who worked an internship as a counselor at Mishicot middle and high schools in early 2006... Brandt said Kayla Avery told her and a Mishicot counselor in January 2006 that 'she was scared because her uncle Steven Avery had asked one of her cousins to help move a body.' The girl didn't specify which of her cousins allegedly helped Avery, Brandt said, and she was scared but not 'confused.'"

7. This earlier interview with Brendan, with a completely different and more plausible scenario was not addressed in the documentary
https://youtu.be/drwb15E_taM


Used in court
8. Rav 4 battery had been disconnected and Avery's non blood DNA was found on the hood latch.

The transcript of the phone call was used in court because Bredan tells his mother he committed the crime during the course of the investigation.
9. Brendan claims Avery sexual molested him and other children while speaking to his mother.

Previous arrest information. The documentary never mentioned any domestic issues with Jodi.
10. The documentary painted the relationship between Steven and Jodi as a rosy, trouble free relationship. They failed to disclose Avery was arrested for violating a disorderly conduct ordinance after a domestic incident with Jodi. The court ordered him to stay away from the woman for 72 hours and pay a fine of $243.

Used in court.
11. According to a prison informant, Avery drew a torture chamber while in prison and according to statements made by other victims, Avery was violent to other women
According to an Appleton Post Crescent article from March 9, 2006, "While he was in prison, Steven Avery planned the torture and killing of a young woman, new documents released Wednesday indicate. The allegations are included in 22 pages of court documents accompanying additional charges filed by Calumet County Dist. Atty. Ken Kratz. ... Kratz also included in Wednesday's filings statements from prisoners who served time with Avery at Green Bay Correctional Institution. They said Avery talked about and showed them diagrams of a torture chamber he planned to build when he was released."

Furthermore, reported the newspaper, "The filings also include statements from a woman, now 41, who said she was raped by Avery, who told her ‘if she yelled or screamed there was going to be trouble.’ There also is an affidavit from a girl who said she was raped by Avery. ‘The victim's mother indicated that the victim does not want to speak about the sexual assault between her and Steven Avery because Steven Avery told her if she 'told anyone about their activities together he would kill her family,'" the filing said. According to the newspaper article, "The affidavit said Avery admitted to his fiancee that he had sexually assaulted the girl

The problem with all of this stuff is that, because of the corrupt behaviour of investigators and others in positions of trust and authority, it is not believable. There was a frame job going on. Almost everyone can acknowledge that. With that in mind, How can anything else brought forth be considered credible?

 

[SCHMAE]

They didn't use Brendan to build Avery's case, but that wasn't for lack of trying. Avery had been arrested months prior to Brendan confessing, Brendan's confession was an attempt to strengthen the extremely weak case they had against Steven. This is JMO, but I believe they thought Brendan would be the easiest to get a confession from, and they were going to use that confession that they fed to him to force him to take a plea in exchange for his testimony against Steven. That didn't go exactly how they planned, as Brendan couldn't give consistent statements even after being fed the info they wanted, and he refused to take a plea. At that point, they were screwed. They had gone public w. that disgusting press conference, they couldn't just drop the charges against Brendan w.o the public noticing. So they went ahead and charged Brendan, while dropping the charges against Steven that had been added as a result of the confession, and not using Brendan at Steven's trial. Their actions were disgusting and shameful. They'd rather see a child to to prison for life than admit they were wrong and his confession was complete garbage. I truly have no idea how they live with themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will tell you I am not 100% convinced SA is innocent. I certainly think there was not enough proof to convict him and the one juror who will speak said a mouthful about what went on in deliberations. But in the final episode when Brendan's mom spoke, that really got me thinking. She said ( paraphrasing) " I do not think my brother would let my son sit there in prison knowing he is innocent, if he ( SA ) did it''. That's really a very compelling statement , imho obviously. SA has the power to free Brendan if SA did the crime . Why wouldn't he ? I bounce back and forth . But I am keeping an open mind to all things. I'm hoping Anonymous can find a literal smoking gun in some of the LEO or DA's emails that will help this one way or another.

ETA No matter what happens, the actions of the many within both of those counties were sickening. I would be terrified to get a traffic ticket anywhere near either of them. Imagine how many other jurisdictions these things happen in that do not get a national spotlight put on them. And Brendans' first lawyer " LEN" ? ......... he should be disbarred, end of story.

 

[Soulmagent]

Avery had been arrested and charged for months before Brendan "confessed". His confession was not used at Avery's trial, and the State eventually dropped all charges against Avery that they added as a result of the garbage confession


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No his confessions were used to obtain the warrants and all false information that panned out..some magical way.They didnt need them in Steven case because ,after they had Brendan's lies to enter the house ,time after time for any reason they fed to him they were done with Brendan . It took 4 interviews. And this was all after the 8 days seizure of the whole junkyard where the whole family was made to leave. Even other people.

 

[Tawny]

SA's non-blood DNA being found under Teresa's car hood means nothing to me at this time. It could have been as simple as him checking her windshield wiper fluid. I don't know if he ever mentioned anything about it, if he did please do link me so I can know more about it. Lord knows my opinion has swayed back and forth ever since the first episode of MaM!! I'm absolutely enthralled by this case.

STILL don't know if SA is guilty or not, even though I believe with 100% certainty the murder did NOT happen in his trailer.

 

[Soulmagent]

So this has me thinking.. why did they need that bullet so badly?

They had bones and the fire pit ,the key , blood in the car ..why did they need a bullet? Months later . I hope the complete case file is released on both cases one day. I think the finding of the skull having a bullet like injury in it was a shocking unexpected finding.

The blood hair pattern should have indicated a gun shot to the head ,but they never looked for casings? even after they took the 22 out of the house?

 

[Tawny]

So this has me thinking.. why did they need that bullet so badly?

They had bones and the fire pit ,the key , blood in the car ..why did they need a bullet? Months later . I hope the complete case file if released on both cases one day. I think the finding of the skull having a bullet like injury in it was a shocking unexpected finding.

The blood hair pattern should have indicated a gun shot to the head ,but they never looked for casings? even after they took the 22 out of the house?

IMHO, the needed the bullet to corroborate Brendan's "confession".

 

[Soulmagent]

IMHO, the needed the bullet to corroborate Brendan's "confession".

No because they fed him the confession . See the issue?

 

[Tawny]

No because they fed him the confession . See the issue?

Oh I completely understand and agree. I think they assumed, got Brendan to "confess" to that, and then needed the bullet to be sure.

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR they already had "a" bullet, sought to get Brendan to "confess" to that, and THEN they dropped that convenient little piece of lead where they did.

Don't get me started on how that bullet had only enough DNA for one single sample if it went through her head.

 

[ZooSleuth]

Brendan was also convicted of mutilation of a corpse which Steven was acquitted of by the jury, he was convicted of first degree sexual assault which makes the dropping of sexual assault rape against Steven even more questionable, how could they argue Brendan assaulted her but Steven didn't,

It was not the prosecutions choice to drop the sexual assault and kidnapping charges, nor did they argue that Brendan sexually assaulted her and Steven didn't. The judge dismissed the sexual assault and kidnapping charges in Avery's case because Brendan's confessions were inadmissible in Avery's trial and those were the only pieces of "evidence" that a sexual assault or a kidnapping occurred. Brendan's confessions were used in his case, so the sexual assault charges remained.

 

[Truthy]

Who was this person that divluged this information ? Was this recorded in any way ? when was it divluged ? Was it included as evidence in the trial ?

See, if it was evidence in the trial, and the documentary didn't mention that.... that's troubling in terms of the integrity of the documentary. Surely they understand that a jury is going to place quite a bit of weight on that information, especially if Steve has said that he didn't do that. Which the documentary doesn't come out and say, but most certainly plays it off as he didn't specifically request her.

Don't get me wrong on this, I think that obviously it could be completely innocent that Steve regularly called auto trader and requested her. But to deny it, if it occurred, that's called deception.

From what I recall, it was someone else at the paper who said they took the call and he said "send that girl out here" which to me means nothing, if it was always her going out anyway (at least in the last year or so- I mean, how many photographers were there?)
Also, the way other evidence and testimony was handled, the bleach on the pants could have happened a different night but police said it was that night. The way they screwed around with other info, I just don't trust it. If they hadn't found lots of Steves DNA all over the garage, meaning it was not cleaned well, then I have to wonder.

 

[Soulmagent]

2006 article with quotes from Pam.

http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/

 

[Random-me]

Jodi said in the documentary that when SA was arrested the officers kept trying to get her to say that SA had done things but she refused. It was stated that they then set their sights on Brendan and kept questioning him

 

[matou]

Does anyone know where in the skull the bullet hole was located? TIA

 

[LemonMousse]

You have no problem with excluding the following information that was brought up in trial or otherwise documented in other legal documents filed with the court or from previous convictions and arrests of Steven Avery? I do not understand how you can be okay that. Even if the evidence wasn't allowed in court it's still in all the legal paperwork filed for the case. You don't know what Brendan thinks because no one asked him!


Used in court
1. In the criminal complaint, Brendan's mother noted that brendan had bleach on his pants and that he told her that he was helping clean Avery's garage floor. "On February 27, 2006, your complainant spoke with [Brendan's mother] Barb Janda. Barb Janda stated on October 31, 2005, when Brendan Dassey returned from Steven Avery's residence, Dassey had bleach stains on his jeans. Barb Janda asked Dassey what happened to his jeans, he told her that his jeans were bleached while he was helping Steven Avery clean his garage floor with bleach. On March 1, 2006, Investigator Wiegert recovered the jeans worn by Dassey on October 31, 2005. Investigator Wiegert noted that the jeans contained bleach spots and other stains."

Used in court
2. Avery bought shackles and handcuffs just weeks before, and his sister was with him. They were found in the burn barrel.

Used in court
3. Avery used a different name when requesting Halbach for taking photos. He called her phone several times that day using *67 to hide his phone number.

Was not allowed in court. Testimony was from TH coworker.
4. Halbach noted she was uncomfortable in going to Avery's place because he has answered the door in only a towel before.

5. In addition to Steven previous convictions, both his brothers Chuck and Earl had been convicted of previous sexual assault which is why the locals felt this way about the family. It was not just based on gossip. Of course, this has no bearing on his guilt in this case, but it explains the overall distrust and dislike of the family.

Used in court
6. Susan Brandt, who worked an internship as a counselor at Mishicot middle and high schools in early 2006... Brandt said Kayla Avery told her and a Mishicot counselor in January 2006 that 'she was scared because her uncle Steven Avery had asked one of her cousins to help move a body.' The girl didn't specify which of her cousins allegedly helped Avery, Brandt said, and she was scared but not 'confused.'"

7. This earlier interview with Brendan, with a completely different and more plausible scenario was not addressed in the documentary
https://youtu.be/drwb15E_taM


Used in court
8. Rav 4 battery had been disconnected and Avery's non blood DNA was found on the hood latch.

The transcript of the phone call was used in court because Bredan tells his mother he committed the crime during the course of the investigation.
9. Brendan claims Avery sexual molested him and other children while speaking to his mother.

Previous arrest information. The documentary never mentioned any domestic issues with Jodi.
10. The documentary painted the relationship between Steven and Jodi as a rosy, trouble free relationship. They failed to disclose Avery was arrested for violating a disorderly conduct ordinance after a domestic incident with Jodi. The court ordered him to stay away from the woman for 72 hours and pay a fine of $243.

Used in court.
11. According to a prison informant, Avery drew a torture chamber while in prison and according to statements made by other victims, Avery was violent to other women
According to an Appleton Post Crescent article from March 9, 2006, "While he was in prison, Steven Avery planned the torture and killing of a young woman, new documents released Wednesday indicate. The allegations are included in 22 pages of court documents accompanying additional charges filed by Calumet County Dist. Atty. Ken Kratz. ... Kratz also included in Wednesday's filings statements from prisoners who served time with Avery at Green Bay Correctional Institution. They said Avery talked about and showed them diagrams of a torture chamber he planned to build when he was released."

Furthermore, reported the newspaper, "The filings also include statements from a woman, now 41, who said she was raped by Avery, who told her ‘if she yelled or screamed there was going to be trouble.’ There also is an affidavit from a girl who said she was raped by Avery. ‘The victim's mother indicated that the victim does not want to speak about the sexual assault between her and Steven Avery because Steven Avery told her if she 'told anyone about their activities together he would kill her family,'" the filing said. According to the newspaper article, "The affidavit said Avery admitted to his fiancee that he had sexually assaulted the girl

Actually, I have addressed all these at different times. They come from Kratz and are not very compelling.

The bleach on the jeans: Meaningless since there's no evidence at all that anyone used bleach to clean up a crime scene in that garage. Unless you're supporting the notion that Brendan and Steven cleaned the floor with bleach and then laid Steven's DNA back over the top? Also...it's chlorine bleach that leaves spots in clothes, and that will not obliterate haemoglobin....IOW blood would have been found in the garage. To clean up that well requires oxygen bleach...but that does not leave spots in clothes.

The handcuffs and leg irons WERE NOT in the burn barrel. Can we not make things up, please. A set was found in Barb's house and a set in Steven's. No DNA or blood from Teresa found on them.

Steven gave Barb's name because it was her car that was being sold. This is not a fake name! And he wasn't pretending to be Barb, putting on a female voice, was he?!

Lots of people use *67 to make calls to preserve their privacy. I use the UK equivalent everytime I call someone who is not family or a friend. I guess that means I want to murder whoever answers, huh?

There's no evidence that Teresa ever said she didn't want to visit Steven again. She laughingly told the receptionist about the towel incident, saying "ewww". If she was that freaked out, why did she go back by herself? She would have recognised the AVERY ROAD address having been there multiple times before.

No interrview with Brendan was ever plausible or believable. He was walked through every single time. He volunteered nothing. NOTHING. Not once.

I have already said that I don't believe Steven molested Brendan. If you read through the interview with the police immediately beforehand, it is yet another clear indication of the police leading him.

Jodi clearly had/has drinking problems. I am not even faintly suprised that she and Steven had difficulties in their relationship. You bringing that up seems a bit desperate.

Who is the police informant? Exactly what did he say? When did he say it? You can't answer this because it was NEVER tested...it's just x person said xyz. A prison inmate of all people!!!!!

And, by the way, where was Steven's torture chamber, then? Any indication that he ever tried to build one? There's also no evidence that Theresa was subject to a sexual assault....so what we have is an unknown prison inmate alleging something for which no evidence was ever found. And you find this compelling? Why? Because it fits with your preconceived notions, huh?

The rape allegation was never tested in any way. It never saw the inside of a courtroom and no evidence was ever presented.

The reason it was not raised in court is because of people like you who are prepared to convict someone based on an unsubstantiated allegation. This is exactly the reason innocent people end up in prison and sometimes even executed because of ignorant and unfair prejudgement.

Excuse me if I prefer actual evidence.

And I meant what I said before....the more I read posts like yours, the more convinced I become of Steven and Brendan's innocence. This list of smoking guns is lame.

 

[Random-me]

The skull was in multiple parts but it looked like the side of the forehead above the eye

 

[matou]

The skull was in multiple parts but it looked like the side of the forehead above the eye

Thank you. So she was stabbed or had her neck slit AND shot in the head? Sounds like a ****-show of BS to me. JMO

 

[CoolJ]

Thank you. So she was stabbed or had her neck slit AND shot in the head? Sounds like a ****-show of BS to me. JMO

Sounds like an execution to me. Hallmark sign of organized crime. JMO

 

[LemonMousse]

I genuinely think that Auto Trader has been overlooked as evidence of Steven's innocence.

He said she took the photos, took the money then handed him a copy of the magazine just before she left....just as she always did. And from the reports of her previous visits that day, she did the same thing with other customers. Handing over a complimentary magazine is obviously part of her routine.

So...Steven's copy was found beside his computer....exactly where he said he put it.

This strongly implies that things proceeded normally between them at least up until then...she took the photos, took the money and then handed him the magazine.

Did he then attack her? Incapacitate her and sling her in the back of her car? Holding on to the magazine all the time?

Or did he run back in with it, then come out again and attack her? Why hadn't she left?

Or alternatively, did he help himself to a magazine from the car after murdering her? Why? He must have figured out that he'd need the magazine to make it look like everything proceeded normally....which seems awfully clear thinking for a not very bright man who'd just done the most terrible thing any human being can.

Nah. That magazine sitting innocently beside the computer...exactly where Steven said it was....strongly implies (to me at least) that he was telling the truth.....she took the photos, took the money, handed him a magazine (as she always did) and then drove away.

IMO, obviously.

 

[RainCheck]

Actually, I have addressed all these at different times. They come from Kratz and are not very compelling.

The bleach on the jeans: Meaningless since there's no evidence at all that anyone used bleach to clean up a crime scene in that garage. Unless you're supporting the notion that Brendan and Steven cleaned the floor with bleach and then laid Steven's DNA back over the top? Also...it's chlorine bleach that leaves spots in clothes, and that will not obliterate haemoglobin....IOW blood would have been found in the garage. To clean up that well requires oxygen bleach...but that does not leave spots in clothes.

The handcuffs and leg irons WERE NOT in the burn barrel. Can we not make things up, please. A set was found in Barb's house and a set in Steven's. No DNA or blood from Teresa found on them.

Steven gave Barb's name because it was her car that was being sold. This is not a fake name! And he wasn't pretending to be Barb, putting on a female voice, was he?!

Lots of people use *67 to make calls to preserve their privacy. I use the UK equivalent everytime I call someone who is not family or a friend. I guess that means I want to murder whoever answers, huh?

There's no evidence that Teresa ever said she didn't want to visit Steven again. She laughingly told the receptionist about the towel incident, saying "ewww". If she was that freaked out, why did she go back by herself? She would have recognised the AVERY ROAD address having been there multiple times before.

No interrview with Brendan was ever plausible or believable. He was walked through every single time. He volunteered nothing. NOTHING. Not once.

I have already said that I don't believe Steven molested Brendan. If you read through the interview with the police immediately beforehand, it is yet another clear indication of the police leading him.

Jodi clearly had/has drinking problems. I am not even faintly suprised that she and Steven had difficulties in their relationship. You bringing that up seems a bit desperate.

Who is the police informant? Exactly what did he say? When did he say it? You can't answer this because it was NEVER tested...it's just x person said xyz. A prison inmate of all people!!!!!

And, by the way, where was Steven's torture chamber, then? Any indication that he ever tried to build one? There's also no evidence that Theresa was subject to a sexual assault....so what we have is an unknown prison inmate alleging something for which no evidence was ever found. And you find this compelling? Why? Because it fits with your preconceived notions, huh?

The rape allegation was never tested in any way. It never saw the inside of a courtroom and no evidence was ever presented.

The reason it was not raised in court is because of people like you who are prepared to convict someone based on an unsubstantiated allegation. This is exactly the reason innocent people end up in prison and sometimes even executed because of ignorant and unfair prejudgement.

Excuse me if I prefer actual evidence.

And I meant what I said before....the more I read posts like yours, the more convinced I become of Steven and Brendan's innocence. This list of smoking guns is lame.

I don't care if all the evidence can be explained away! What I care about is it was left out of the documentary. I think you're misunderstanding my reason for trying to gather what the jury saw and heard that was not included in the documentary. I'm not arguing the validity of any of it. What I'm saying is the documentary should have included it and explained it just like you are attempting to do!

Edited to add: we are concerned about very different things. I do not at all believe one thing I mentioned is a "smoking gun". However, I do think it should not have been left out of a documentary on the subject. I'm talking about the documentary and whether it was biased or not. I believe it was very biased by them leaving out evidence that put SA in the worst light. This is stuff that was out either presented at trial or filed with the court at different times. This is a completely separate issue than whether Steven Avery is guilty or not. I don't know if he is. He might be, he might now be. I'm just talking about the choices made by the directors of the documentary.

 

[chaleigh26]

The directors of MAM mention in a recent interview that they left out the less significant evidence, as it was impossible to include everything.