Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[MaxManning]

It appears the Wisconsin Department of Justice has joined Brendan's attorney for the filing of his latest writ of habeas corpus. Which is a good sign. Many probably already knew this (I didn't) bc this article was posted on December 27, 2015. While I won't be holding my breath, it does give me some hope that Brendan's mistreatment will be vindicated. Even though, I admittedly wonder what effects (negative, I'm sure) this whole thing has on Brendan, as he's been in prison for a decade.

Since he was tried as an adult, I wanted to see what Wisconsin's provisions are for such cases. Here's a comprehensive document prepared for the Wisconsin Legislative Council, written in 2008: Treatment of Juveniles in the Wisconsin Criminal Court System: An Analysis of Potential Alternatives. Additionally, a bill has been introduced to the Wisconsin legislature to would cut number of juveniles charged as adults in Wisconsin. Unfortunately, this bill, had it been passed pre-2005, would still not have affected Brendan, as he was only 16 at the time. And, even if he had been 17, he was accused of having committed a violent crime.

All things considered, I would love to see some changes come about as a result of the publicity this case has received. Especially, with regard to questioning minors.

Among these, I would like to see laws change that require a parent be present. I was surprised that very few states actually require this. Although, I admittedly do not think his mother being present would have helped, as she seemed as clueless as he.

Importantly, it is my hope that people educate themselves and their children regarding how miranda really works. That is, do not volunteer anything, even for "friendly questioning." While this may seem counter-intuitive, as the court of public opinion views those who ask for a lawyer as exhibiting guilt, so what. Better to be viewed as guilty by a bunch of arm chair jurors, than go to prison for something you did not do.

Great post.

Also, there is a document that was in the first thread about False Confessions. We need to dig that up for people to read. It changed my mind and gave me quite a bit of perspective into the interrogation techniques and how the cognitively impaired can be victimized.

Anyone who hasn't watched the full dassey interviews, needs to do so. Particularly the end of the 3/1 interview where he is waiting for his mother after confessing to rape/murder. Reading a transcript cannot give you a full picture of this individual. It's heartbreaking to watch him at the end of that interview, as he listens to music waiting for the great unknown.

 

[Shellbell619]

Oh, that's an easy one. It takes a great deal of time and investigative work to bring someone they think "did it" to trial. If it turns out they'd fingered the wrong person, that means they must start the process all over again. This is why so many cases go unsolved (iirc, 40% is the national average). If they are able to get a conviction, they can bring closure to the victim's family, and society, at large, and close that case.

In other words, it's not about wanting an innocent person to go to jail. It's about solving the crime.

That said, while this case shines a light on questionable LEO and defense atty (i.e., len kachinsky) behavior, I am of the opinion that these types of cases are the exception and not the rule. I would argue the high number of unsolved cases supports my contention.

That's exactly right. I have several friends that are defense attorneys and I like to annoy them with my unintelligent questions about the justice system because I simply do not understand how these trials work. As sad as it is.... Justice departments want to close cases as soon as possible. There just isn't enough time or resources to search for a murderer at random. Once a suspect is chosen... It's crunch time to depict every little evidence that can be used to prove that this suspect is the killer. No matter the truths to the evidence. It honestly blows my mind. Anything that can possibly be used against Steven Avery will be used in order to convict him and move on with the case. Even if a crime lab found other conflicting evidence while running tests, it might not get noted because that's not what was being looked at specifically. The problem is no one ever finds out the truth and the media spreads biased views on the case. After watching this series on a binge over Christmas, I was pissed and immediately called my attorney friend. He sat on the phone with me and was going off too because the case made him so mad. BUT the documentary is shown from one side so we do feel sympathetic towards Steven. And the comment about him being a sociopath is more than likely true. Whether he committed the crime or not, his lack of emotion could definitely be a developmental disability. I have a degree in counseling and many of my psychology classes discussed the different level of sociopaths. Some are so brilliant that they know how to manipulate and fake their emotions in certain situations, but in reality do not feel anything. These high functioning sociopaths are scary because they can sometimes be our leaders in society...so smart and do not care to hurt anyone to get what they want. The other type of sociopath is one that never developed empathy due to a lack of a thriving environment during critical growth stages. Growing up in a neglectful home for example could possibly lead to sociopath tendacies. There are many other reasons also that can cause a person to not feel empathy. I guess I'm just "pro-counseling" but I wish Steven Avery would undergo a psych evaluation and therapy. Whether he has or not I'm not aware of it. I'd like to see what other professionals from an unbiased perspective had to say about Steven's traumatic circumstances and the reactions that he has towards handling his situations. Sorry for rambling on! This is my first post ever by the way. I'm obsessed with websleuths. Thanks for all of the interesting info and hard work that is put into this site.

 

[SCHMAE]

Does this mean we're upstairs now ?

 

[bessie]

Does this mean we're upstairs now ?

Yes, it does.

 

[anonymess]

I appreciate all the great posts on the timeline inconsistencies. One thing I just noticed was that the day before Teresa went missing was a fall back time change day (Sun.,Oct 30). I know it sometimes takes me awhile to change clocks. I wonder if this may have contributed to bad time estimates.

 

[MaxManning]

I appreciate all the great posts on the timeline inconsistencies. One thing I just noticed was that the day before Teresa went missing was a fall back time change day (Sun.,Oct 30). I know it sometimes takes me awhile to change clocks. I wonder if this may have contributed to bad time estimates.

Wow, this is such a great detail!

 

[norest4thewicked]

Who??? Who in THIS forum is insisting SA is innocent? I haven't seen one person come to that conclusion. The only posters I see with a set-in-stone opinion are those who believe him to be guilty and won't budge.

Please read previous comments of mine. I've answered this question at least 3 times and don't care to keep answering it.

 

[TheDuchess]

I appreciate all the great posts on the timeline inconsistencies. One thing I just noticed was that the day before Teresa went missing was a fall back time change day (Sun.,Oct 30). I know it sometimes takes me awhile to change clocks. I wonder if this may have contributed to bad time estimates.

That is quite interesting because on top of the clocks possibly being off, there is the fact that we sometimes remember things based on the darkness of the day. In other words, here it starts to get dark around 5:00 or so. So without even thinking of time changes, I may look back on a day and think that it must have been around 5:00 because it was getting dark...

 

[Tawny]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/

" Avery then called Halbach’s cell phone three times the day she died, twice using *67 to obscure his identity."

I am looking for a better source but I heard it on two shows.
He called her using *67 before he dialed so it would not show that it came from him. Then when he called her phone after he murdered her ( in my opinion) He did not use the blocking feature and left a message about why she did not show up.

He is making an alibi at the time of the murder and that says more to me than a lot of other things.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/things-steven-avery-making-murderer/story?id=36090236
"Avery called her job to request that she come to his house and that he called Halbach's cell phone three times, twice using the a feature to hide who was calling. "

None of that is new information. I need to know where you're getting that he called her to ask her where she was and was she still coming. We have NO idea why he called at 4:35. He didn't leave a message at 4:35 that I'm aware of.

 

[SCHMAE]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/

" Avery then called Halbach’s cell phone three times the day she died, twice using *67 to obscure his identity."

I am looking for a better source but I heard it on two shows.
He called her using *67 before he dialed so it would not show that it came from him. Then when he called her phone after he murdered her ( in my opinion) He did not use the blocking feature and left a message about why she did not show up.

He is making an alibi at the time of the murder and that says more to me than a lot of other things.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/things-steven-avery-making-murderer/story?id=36090236
"Avery called her job to request that she come to his house and that he called Halbach's cell phone three times, twice using the a feature to hide who was calling. "

Scarlett, I'm glad you joined this thread. As for the *67 calls, I have not seen one source of ' verification'. Are they showing Teresa's phone logs or SA's? If they are only showing Teresa's then the caller is unknown. If they showed them on SA's phone records, that would be definitive proof that he is the caller but I've not seen it.

 

[SCHMAE]

That's exactly right. I have several friends that are defense attorneys and I like to annoy them with my unintelligent questions about the justice system because I simply do not understand how these trials work. As sad as it is.... Justice departments want to close cases as soon as possible. There just isn't enough time or resources to search for a murderer at random. Once a suspect is chosen... It's crunch time to depict every little evidence that can be used to prove that this suspect is the killer. No matter the truths to the evidence. It honestly blows my mind. Anything that can possibly be used against Steven Avery will be used in order to convict him and move on with the case. Even if a crime lab found other conflicting evidence while running tests, it might not get noted because that's not what was being looked at specifically. The problem is no one ever finds out the truth and the media spreads biased views on the case. After watching this series on a binge over Christmas, I was pissed and immediately called my attorney friend. He sat on the phone with me and was going off too because the case made him so mad. BUT the documentary is shown from one side so we do feel sympathetic towards Steven. And the comment about him being a sociopath is more than likely true. Whether he committed the crime or not, his lack of emotion could definitely be a developmental disability. I have a degree in counseling and many of my psychology classes discussed the different level of sociopaths. Some are so brilliant that they know how to manipulate and fake their emotions in certain situations, but in reality do not feel anything. These high functioning sociopaths are scary because they can sometimes be our leaders in society...so smart and do not care to hurt anyone to get what they want. The other type of sociopath is one that never developed empathy due to a lack of a thriving environment during critical growth stages. Growing up in a neglectful home for example could possibly lead to sociopath tendacies. There are many other reasons also that can cause a person to not feel empathy. I guess I'm just "pro-counseling" but I wish Steven Avery would undergo a psych evaluation and therapy. Whether he has or not I'm not aware of it. I'd like to see what other professionals from an unbiased perspective had to say about Steven's traumatic circumstances and the reactions that he has towards handling his situations. Sorry for rambling on! This is my first post ever by the way. I'm obsessed with websleuths. Thanks for all of the interesting info and hard work that is put into this site.

:welcome: Glad you're with us !

 

[Sleuther87]

I started reading the trial transcripts and let me just say that everyone who is only using the documentary to determine their opinion of guilt or innocence in this case has been snookered big time. The movie makers are only showing you what *they* want you to see, but they have purposely not shown evidence that defacto proves guilt of Avery.

As for Brendan, I think some of his rights were violated and he needs another trial, but he *did* share info with the police that not even the police knew about! Later, police were able to corroborate Brendan's account on several things. Brendan was there at the time of her being killed. He knew things no one else could possibly know unless they were there; things the cops didn't know. You can call that innocent if you want, but I'm not so sure. There were things done that only 2 people could have accomplished.

I call B.S. on Avery claiming his brothers or anyone else (including LE) could have murdered TH. Nope. The evidence doesn't point to anyone else and that's even if you decide to throw out the keys altogether and SA's blood evidence found in 6 places in TH's vehicle. BTW, SA had a cut in his middle finger of his right hand that was fairly deep. It was photographed. It was starting to heal by the time of the photo but it's plainly obvious that cut would have bled; it was not a simple scratch.

My challenge to all is this: look only at the evidence. Not the hyperbole of the filmmakers. Just the evidence. And all of the evidence was not shown or mentioned in the documentary. Use the trial transcripts. That's the evidence the jurors saw and heard about.

Very well said. I agree completely.

 

[TheDuchess]

Please read previous comments of mine. I've answered this question at least 3 times and don't care to keep answering it.

Actually, you didn't. You said "people" was a general term to refer to those outside of this forum that are frustrating you because they seem to base their opinion on the documentary only. I get that. But why do you keep belaboring that point, here, where people are considering other options and ARE open to other opinions and ARE basing their opinions on other things other than the documentary?? It seems kind of a wast of a post to keep belaboring a point that seems to be irrelevant in THIS forum. If you are frustrated with THOSE people on OTHER forums, take it up with them. Many of us here have expressed our frustration at your continued belittling of those of us who simply don't agree with your opinion.

We get it. You believe he is guilty. That's great. Good for you. We can continue to go back and forth and give our opinions as to why we respectfully disagree, but none of us are interested in being considered close-minded sheep who only base our opinions on one documentary. There are people here who have very valid concerns about how this investigation was handled and feel they have some reasonable doubts as to whether or not these men are guilty. There is a LOT of information out there to discover and share and that is why we are all here. If you have figured it all out already, then what else is there for you to discuss or learn? Unless you are here to listen to other people's opinions, consider the evidence that others are putting forward, I have to ask you why you are even here to begin with?

 

[Madeleine74]

But even despite that, I think you'll come around to how unreasonable it would be to accept anything he said as reliable.

I don't think it's unreasonable to understand some things he said might have been the truth. How did Brendan know there were about 10 shots made by the 22 caliber rifle of his uncle's in the garage (11 shells were eventually found, all were ballistically tested and matched to SA's rifle)? How did Brendan know bleach, gasoline, and lighter fluid were used in the garage on some stains? Brendan produced his own jeans that were bleach-stained from that very night. Just a lucky guess? Remember, detectives did not know all the details Brendan knew. Some things they knew, yes. All of it, no.

I said upstream I believe Brendan deserves another trial. As a cognitively challenged 16 year old I don't agree with him being interrogated without a parent or an attorney present.

 

[TheDuchess]

I want to address one thing about Colborn and Lenk.

From the start, the series makes it seem like Colborn and Lenk are villains and have a lot to lose from the lawsuit (in reality, this is not true at all- they are not named in the suit and everyone has already been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing).

Then later on they find the key, and you think to yourself, "What are the odds! These guys have all the motive and they're the ones to find the key!"

The truth of the matter is that they're the ones who found the key, therefore they're the ones who the filmmakers/defense choose to portray as villains with a motive.

This is one way the series tricks you and so many others.

Really? The series tricked us into thinking that it is strange that two of the guys who were just recently deposed in a lawsuit by SA in a $36 million lawsuit had nothing to lose? OK. If you think so, but just because there are many of us who disagree with you on that, it doesn't mean we were "tricked."

 

[Miette]

I want to address one thing about Colborn and Lenk.

From the start, the series makes it seem like Colborn and Lenk are villains and have a lot to lose from the lawsuit (in reality, this is not true at all- they are not named in the suit and everyone has already been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing).

Then later on they find the key, and you think to yourself, "What are the odds! These guys have all the motive and they're the ones to find the key!"

The truth of the matter is that they're the ones who found the key, therefore they're the ones who the filmmakers/defense choose to portray as villains with a motive.

This is one way the series tricks you and so many others.

Why were they even involved with the search to begin with knowing that it was a clear conflict of interest to have anyone from the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department there?

 

[Madeleine74]

I want to address one thing about Colborn and Lenk.

From the start, the series makes it seem like Colborn and Lenk are villains and have a lot to lose from the lawsuit (in reality, this is not true at all- they are not named in the suit and everyone has already been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing).

Then later on they find the key, and you think to yourself, "What are the odds! These guys have all the motive and they're the ones to find the key!"

The truth of the matter is that they're the ones who found the key, therefore they're the ones who the filmmakers/defense choose to portray as villains with a motive.

This is one way the series tricks you and so many others.

Exactly the same tactic that was used in the OJ trial to try and insinuate Mark Furhman 'planted' the glove at Rockingham--a glove that just so happened to have the blood of both victims and Simpson on it. Except... 17 officers at the Bundy crime scene ahead of when Furhman arrived only saw 1 glove. There was no 'second' glove at Bundy to take to Rockingham to plant even if someone had wanted to. But how many people were willing to believe Furhman did exactly that because 10 yrs before he used the 'N' word for a North Carolina screenwriter and then lied about it? People.Are.Gullible.

 

[MaxManning]

Who??? Who in THIS forum is insisting SA is innocent? I haven't seen one person come to that conclusion. The only posters I see with a set-in-stone opinion are those who believe him to be guilty and won't budge.

To be fair, if you go back to thread #1, it was pretty unpopular to be suggesting SA might be guilty. I've been called Kratz before, even though a majority of what I said was from a very unbiased place of just evaluating all the evidence.

But if you got back to thread #1, you will clearly see the bandwagon rolling along imo. Seems much more accepted now, to look at things objectively.

 

[Sleuther87]

Really? The series tricked us into thinking that it is strange that two of the guys who were just recently deposed in a lawsuit by SA in a $36 million lawsuit had nothing to lose? OK. If you think so, but just because there are many of us who disagree with you on that, it doesn't mean we were "tricked."

Why would being deposed mean they have something to lose? Here, read the opinion of a civil defense attorney who deals with these exact types of lawsuits: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...houghts_from_a_civil_defense_attorney_on_the/

 

[Madeleine74]

Maybe they found it when they found the SUV. Maybe it was in her apartment when they went there to question the roommate. Maybe it was in the glove compartment. *shrug*

It has NONE of Teresa's DNA on it. Not even the fabric part, as far as I know.

It had SA's DNA on it (not his blood). No DNA from Lenk or Colhourn either. How'd they get SA's DNA? The only thing available for planting (allegedly) was his blood inside an EDTA filled vial taken years before during the rape trial and stored inside the Wisconsin State Crime Lab.