Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[MaxManning]

I'm going to say that right now, this beginning of the timeline aspect is very troubling to me.

Someone is lying or misremembering.

But, I find the dispatcher for Auto Trader who talks to halbach at 2:30-ish that she is on her way to the Junkyard as the most reliable in terms of a solid timeline. We know factually that the phone call took place and we have a clear accounting of where teresa's been up to that point.

The ONLY way I see the bus driver's account to be correct, is if something delayed Teresa Halbach. That delay could have been BEFORE she got to the property or AFTER she got to the property.

At the moment, I tend to believe that Steve's account on Nancy grace was true because it matches the Auto Trader account.

Doesn't mean that the bus driver is lying, but possibly misremembering. But I definitely would like to see the interview and know more about her potential relationships to people at the junkyard.

We know Steve called her phone at 4:35. What was the purpose of this call ? There could be a really good explanation. But it's suspicious to me, as he didn't use *67 for that call and he did for the others.

His call at 4:35 was after halbach's phone was deemed as off the network - turned off or destroyed potentially.

So hopefully the trial transcripts or an avery interview BEFORE the trial can shed light on if Avery gives an explanation. In the documentary there is video of Avery talking to the police in the same room that brendan was in for one interview at the police station. So we really need to see that interview. In that interview he also mentions the mysterious "Tammy".

My guess right now, is that Avery's defense and the people that made the documentary, would rather not that anyone see's that interview in it's entirety. Why ? I don't know. But not showing it, usually means you don't like what gets said there and it sheds too much light.

My question is whether or not that interview can be introduced as evidence to the trial ? Is it considered testifying against himself ? Does he have to agree to have that accepted as evidence ?

I think we need to see that interview. anyone ? transcript ? Anyone with the magic to make that happen, please do so!

 

[MaxManning]

Love that you mentioned timelines, I interned for a defense firm and worked on a litigation case where I was tasked with helping the two paralegals go through all the evidence and statements and get a timeline together. It was one of the most time consuming tasks I've done, because the defendant was a high schooler, and most of the key witnesses were high schoolers, so they would making hundreds and hundreds of Facebook posts and text messages that would contradict their statements, their statements were inconsistent, etc. the Avery trial seems much worse- so many inconsistencies in these timelines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and it all seems plausible if we are honest.

If you asked me about any given day even this past week and wanted me to recount with reliable accuracy, it might take me quite a bit of thinking. I'd be cross-referencing with events that I could stamp a definite time on, like maybe I knew what time the mailman came that day or had an appointment that allowed me to pinpoint in a 15-30 minute window. But I think it's highly likely that I'd make a mistake and completely change something by even an hour or two. Maybe even misremember if I did a given thing that day or the day before.


So, I do get that. And in this case you have that going on with a whole group of people. So it could seem like they are all lying or changing their story.

That's why I go back to the Auto Trader as the most reliable.

The bus driver and propane guy are next -- but NOT until I understand their relationship to anyone on that property and WHEN the statements were made. That's just me. Making the statement on 11/5 or 11/6 is FAR DIFFERENT than making the statement 6 months later after people are now charged. So how can we accept either of those statements and evaluate them reasonably without at minimum knowing WHEN they were made?

We know in the documentary the defense made a big deal out of the prosecutors not using the bus driver as a witness. But we hear no explanation. Was there a reasonable explanation ? Would a reasonable explanation be that she never gave that account until 6 months later ? -- for me, I think it makes a big difference for sure.


I get why there is confusion. Personally, I am becoming more and more convinced that there are interviews and evidence we have not seen, that although not large in the big picture, are huge in helping us believe or disbelieve key aspects of the evidence. jmo

 

[Hopeful One]

If anybody's really really seriously interested in contentious trials or anything similar, please PLEASE avoid anything that has the name Nancy Grace associated with it. I wouldn't like to make fun of it but Nancy Grace is crap TV - we in the UK have Jeremy Kyle ffs. We deserve more sympathy than anyone who listens to Nancy Grace. Please do yourselves a favour, and think for yourselves. You're all educated people - make it count.

Her show is consistently filled with half-truths, exaggerations and very misleading information. It is not the place to go for any sort of facts on a case. It is purely entertainment television. Truth.

 

[Jacki1971]

Tadych could have been making that statement to explain why he had blood on his clothes, just in case blood was found. (E.g., if he had a role in the murder and knew that he may have had blood on his clothes).

Yes, I agree that we don't have the full story. As you said there are other children in the house. But if Tadych's first reaction to the avery arrest is in regards to blood, I find it suspicious.

I can't say for sure, but I think if the pants were bleached like described, I could see her focusing more on big white splotches as opposed to tiny red ones. I'd say it's very plausible that I might know that there is little blood spots on my pants with big bleach spots, but no one would notice them unless I pointed it out to them.

But saying there were no bloodstains on dassey's pant's 6 months later after hmmm how many washes ? Seems rather reasonable to expect the blood could be gone. But I'll admit I don't know how many times something has to be washed to have blood removed.


I do agree games could be played with Barb, just the same as brendan.

But in terms of plausibility and probability, I lean more towards brendan had bleach and blood on his pants. For all I know, he helped Tadych clean something up and he told brendan to say he helped steve. ya know ?

Or while doing the laundry, Tadych noticed the blood ?

But, in terms of what I have heard, I think I lean towards brendan having bleach and blood on his pants. Barb aware of the bleach. Tadych aware of the blood. Brendan oblivious to it all.

All just speculation of course, but I don't think it's a crazy theory. All I have to believe is statements/observations attributed to these people BEFORE police interviewed brendan.

I am just looking at 3 pieces of evidence that are separate and actually fit together, if you assume no one is lying or misremembering.

 

[MaxManning]

Her show is consistently filled with half-truths, exaggerations and very misleading information. It is not the place to go for any sort of facts on a case. It is purely entertainment television. Truth.

Completely agree, however the clip that was posted here was brief and had Steve Avery giving his own timeline evidence. So, as much as I despise Nancy Grace, in this case she delivered something that we can't find anywhere else.

 

[diesel]

Could we please put this false information to sleep, it's not true.

It's all here, what Nancy Grace actually said -


http://www.bustle.com/articles/1344...rderer-is-guilty-and-that-theres-mountains-of

Edit: not that I watch this lady, but we can't blame her for something she never said. The person on the radio misheard obviously.

I watched her show on Jan 6th and she said Avery was now blaming his brothers and they smeared Teresa's blood in 6 places in his car. I looked up the transcripts for her show for that date and the one for Jan 6th is not there. Slip of the tongue most likely but she did say it.

Edited to add: FWIW

 

[Oakland CA]

We know in the documentary the defense made a big deal out of the prosecutors not using the bus driver as a witness. But we hear no explanation. Was there a reasonable explanation ?

I've never quite understood the mentality/thought process of many, many LE investigators.
Why wouldn't you want something--anything--that can be substantiated as fact allowed into an investigation?
Isn't the whole point to find the actual person, not just any person, who could have committed the crime
Do they actually care/not care if they help convict an innocent person?
Is their mentality just to get a conviction if the suspect shows opportunity and motive?

It never ceases to amaze me the number of times I've heard a detective state::

"We are so disappointed the DNA evidence proves without a doubt he isn't our guy. We really thought he did it".

Why are they disappointed?
They actually would've been happy if they could've got a guilty verdict on someone who is completely innocent?

 

[Jaiddie]

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=YkUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6718,6903949&hl=en

Yet another possible suspect that the police failed to look into...the pertinent part states, " " Avery has raised questions about a 42 year old Manitowoc man who was arrested Monday on suspicion of hitting his girlfriend in the head with an ax Saturday. Avery said he befriended the man in prison and that, as a regular customer at his family's salvage yard, he is familiar with the property. Authorities said they had no reason to believe the man has any connection to Halbach's disappearance. "

 

[TheDuchess]

Nancy Grace - Duke LaCross - nothing further....:scared:

 

[SCHMAE]

I've never quite understood the mentality/thought process of many, many LE investigators.
Why wouldn't you want something--anything--that can be substantiated as fact allowed into an investigation?
Isn't the whole point to find the actual person, not just any person, who could have committed the crime
Do they actually care/not care if they help convict an innocent person?
Is their mentality just to get a conviction if the suspect shows opportunity and motive?

It never ceases to amaze me the number of times I've heard a detective state::

"We are so disappointed the DNA evidence proves without a doubt he isn't our guy. We really thought he did it".

Why are they disappointed?
They actually would've been happy if they could've got a guilty verdict on someone who is completely innocent?

Not to mention NOT catching the right perp means the real perp is out there going to kill again.

 

[TheDuchess]

I'd like to discuss for a moment the salvage yard property. It is a peculiar place in this situation as that it happens to be both a public, as well as a private place for several people. From what I understand, there are at least 4-5 private residences occupied by at least 10 different people, if not more. That said, it is also a public place in that it is a business. People come in and out on a regular basis for several business purposes throughout each day. There is a lot going on there. So it makes things a bit difficult to treat one separate from the other.

In other words, while both Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey's private residences are within the confines of the salvage yard, the salvage yard itself is actually quite open to the public. From what I understand there are several entrances in and out of the yard without a lot of security in place. I see no evidence of guard dogs, electric fences, locked gates, video surveillance, etc... It's a junkyard. Not a lot of people looking to rummage through someone's junkyard, but I suppose it could happen.

So it makes a lot of what could have possibly taken place within that property very difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty, in my opinion. I remember SA mentioning I think to NG that he saw headlights in the junkyard one night prior to the report of her going missing and right around the time of mysterious phone call from Colburn calling in the plates. Just one thought.

Add to that the recognition of SA within the community. I wonder if there had been lookeyloos hanging around the property, both from the general public as well as within and surrounding the LE community. It wouldn't be surprising to learn that SA was under constant surveillance just waiting for him to trip up.

But whatever the case, I just think it is an interesting note that in most cases we have a private residence OR a public place and in this case, we have BOTH combined. Just helps muddy the waters even more.

 

[TheDuchess]

Just a note - if I hear one more person state "trust the legal system" one more time in this case, I will scream. Everyone "trusted the legal system" in the first case and we know where that got us!

 

[Soulmagent]

On reddit ,someone has done a QTip project and shown has much like the dash ,they were able to create . It was an amusing read.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Agreed. I think at least semi-valid excuses can be made for almost every singular piece of evidence on its own (the witness is lying, the evidence is planted, *67 because he likes privacy, just a coincidence that he had a bonfire capable of burning humans that night at the same place the last known person to see him alive's burnt bones are found, etc.).

The problem is that so many of these excuses are unrelated and when added all together, you've got an absurd list that's pages long of bizarre occurences you need to believe if you're to believe Avery didn't do it.

What blows me away is that people actually DO believe the list of bizarre occurrences. lol

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Agreed. I think at least semi-valid excuses can be made for almost every singular piece of evidence on its own (the witness is lying, the evidence is planted, *67 because he likes privacy, just a coincidence that he had a bonfire capable of burning humans that night at the same place the last known person to see him alive's burnt bones are found, etc.).

The problem is that so many of these excuses are unrelated and when added all together, you've got an absurd list that's pages long of bizarre occurences you need to believe if you're to believe Avery didn't do it.

This.. I believe when looking at the evidence. The blood on the bullet, the car keys, the fact that he lied about her being there and yet admits it on live tv, that her car was found on his lot and covered and buried to look like it had been there awhile.
It all adds up to guilt. If there was one thing, but there is too much to walk over and look past.

 

[norest4thewicked]

If any of you have a moment in your day to say a prayer for me, please do so. I am now going to watch that Nancy Grace clip that someone posted yesterday. I don't have blood pressure issues, but when I watch her, I can often question if I do.

Take everything she says with even less than a grain of salt. But, you probably already know this.

 

[JanIreland]

didn't Steven have a German Shepard that was pictured standing on the ashes , as far as I remember they had to control him so they could look through the ashes

 

[norest4thewicked]

Just finished last night. Will probably rewatch again at a slower pace while researching. I am still unsure where I stand on SA's innocence as far as facts go, but my heart says not guilty. But, the astounding feeling on ineptitude from LE makes me thing all the cases they have handled need to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. I think yournaverage citizen who has watched a handful of true crime shows would be better investigators.

No disrespect meant, but if you are going to do research on this case based off of this propaganda film, then you may as well save your time. Anyone who just watches this travesty of truth and doesn't see it for what it is, won't come to any other conclusion but that he is innocent. Hundreds of thousands of people have already.

 

[TheDuchess]

What blows me away is that people actually DO believe the list of bizarre occurrences. lol

I know right? Like the same people who believed that a man with an airtight alibi could have possibly committed an attempted rape? Like the same people who believed that several flags about a much more sensible suspect could have committed the crime, but was repeatedly rebuffed? The same people who could believe that our system could have possibly allowed an innocent man to spend 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit? The same people who couldn't possibly believe that innocent people confess to crimes?

Yeah...I guess I see your point....

:thinking:

 

[TheDuchess]

No disrespect meant, but if you are going to do research on this case based off of this propaganda film, then you may as well save your time. Anyone who just watches this travesty of truth and doesn't see it for what it is, won't come to any other conclusion but that he is innocent. Hundreds of thousands of people have already.

Very many believed he was guilty the first time as well. You know..guilty of the crime he was basically set up to take the fall for by a bunch of prejudiced people in the first place that are all pretty much the same cast of characters in this case?