Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[joe jones]

one thing that makes me go hmmmmmmmmmm is they dropped the sexual assault against Steven as it relied on Brendans testimony and the state did not want Brendan to be a feature of Stevens trial but the sexual assault charge was continued on for Brendan,

I don't remember what the state said was the motive for Steven (memory a little fuzzy after all this time) once they discounted the sexual assault and decided that he had killed her in the garage

 

[MaxManning]

Big factor in why I believe planting of evidence is that they had cadaver dogs at the property. Surely they were in the garage. Why no cadaver dog hit on the bullet with blood on it under the compressor ?

I was puzzled as to why the defense didn't question them on this.

So I think that's convincing evidence the bullet was planted.

 

[MaxManning]

one thing that makes me go hmmmmmmmmmm is they dropped the sexual assault against Steven as it relied on Brendans testimony and the state did not want Brendan to be a feature of Stevens trial but the sexual assault charge was continued on for Brendan,

I don't remember what the state said was the motive for Steven (memory a little fuzzy after all this time) once they discounted the sexual assault and decided that he had killed her in the garage

I haven't read the avery trial transcripts yet. This part that you are mentioning about proving the guilt of each with different scenarios shows how flawed the system is.

If someone is convicted of a murder, the prosecution of the second trial should have the obligation of being consistent on how the crime went down. I think we'd all agree on that.

Does anyone know legally why this is possible ? It seems like common sense that it should be required.

 

[Ringfinger]

I think everyone agrees that the state's story is wrong. I can't imagine anyone believes the story as they tried to paint it.

The initial version was transparent story-telling with the intention of convicting two people beyond any doubt in the public eye. The entire "Sweaty Steve" and Branden in the bedroom with the ropes and chains story was really hard to watch.

I think there are very few people here (if any) that trust that police department.

I don't have an opinion of SA being innocent or guilty. It seems that the state is clearly biased towards him being guilty, and we can all see how this benefits the state. There were people in that police department that didn't have a problem putting him away for ever, BEFORE there was 36 million dollars and a couple of careers at stake.

At the same time, I think the documentary was also biased. I think they made a very good case for SA being set up. I am sure that almost everyone here would be able to agree that there was at least some tampering by the state on this case, even if just getting BS from BD and their officers being in places they shouldn't have. Personally, I have no doubt that these guys would plant evidence, especially if they are convinced the person is guilty. I just didn't see a strong case for him being innocent. I did see a good case for him being framed, and it was clear that LE didn't look deeply into the other suspects.

I came here to read parts that were left out from the documentary. There's a lot to be learned just from this thread alone. Personally, I like to stay open to everything. I want to be able to look at information in as unbiased of a way as possible. There are quite a few people on that property that should have been heavily looked at for this. We haven't found any smoking bullet that says SA is guilty, and we haven't found anything saying he has to be innocent. This isn't the same as his first case, where over 20 people allibied him.

People have been repeating that they hope they never get accused of a crime in this country. We really shouldn't forget that it was being accused and having the remains of a dead woman (whom you were the last person seen with her when she was alive) found behind your house.

 

[steveml]

Big factor in why I believe planting of evidence is that they had cadaver dogs at the property. Surely they were in the garage. Why no cadaver dog hit on the bullet with blood on it under the compressor ?

I was puzzled as to why the defense didn't question them on this.

So I think that's convincing evidence the bullet was planted.

I've seen test results for cadaver dogs but only with a minimum quantity of 0.01 ml of blood. This would be the approx. equivalent of an inch square cloth soaked with blood. A complete .22 bullet is much narrower than this (and I believe the partial lead fragment retrieved was smaller still), therefore it's quite possible that the dog would fail to detect this.

I can offer no reason why the bullet remained undiscovered after the garage was searched numerous times. If you're anticipating a dead body, there are guns on the property and you find bullet casings in the garage, then surely a bullet (or part thereof) is something you'd expect crime scene investigators to find during numerous searches of the garage. Amazingly it took from November 6th 2005 until March 2nd 2006 (4 months) before this bullet fragment was 'found'.

 

[steveml]

There are quite a few people on that property that should have been heavily looked at for this.

I agree with this, and this has become a source of conflict between Steven Avery's lawyers and Judge Willis. Steven Avery wished to introduce other possible persons that may have been responsible for Teresa's murder, however Judge Willis barred SA's lawyers from introducing evidence that a person other than Brendan Dassey was responsible for the crime/s.

Prosecution had 'got their man' so to speak, therefore they were more than happy that the judge ruled that no further suspects could be introduced.

 

[MaxManning]

I've seen test results for cadaver dogs but only with a minimum quantity of 0.01 ml of blood. This would be the approx. equivalent of an inch square cloth soaked with blood. A complete .22 bullet is much narrower than this (and I believe the partial lead fragment retrieved was smaller still), therefore it's quite possible that the dog would fail to detect this.

I can offer no reason why the bullet remained undiscovered after the garage was searched numerous times. If you're anticipating a dead body, there are guns on the property and you find bullet casings in the garage, then surely a bullet (or part thereof) is something you'd expect crime scene investigators to find during numerous searches of the garage. Amazingly it took from November 6th 2005 until March 2nd 2006 (4 months) before this bullet fragment was 'found'.

The cadaver dog hit on the golf cart, yet I don't see any evidence of blood and to my knowledge they either didn't test for blood or sweat dna or didn't find it.

When someone tells me a cadaver dog can hit on a body 100 feet under ground, I am going to question a bullet that recently went through a skull is not hit on by a cadaver dog.

At least hearing evidence from an expert on this would be worthwhile, imo.

I bring this up because the defense's case was that the evidence was planted. So pressing this point , which is easy for the common person to understand if told by an expert, can have great value.

I guess a test of that cadaver dog's abilities would be needed.

 

[Ava Adore]

I think everyone agrees that the state's story is wrong. I can't imagine anyone believes the story as they tried to paint it.

The initial version was transparent story-telling with the intention of convicting two people beyond any doubt in the public eye. The entire "Sweaty Steve" and Branden in the bedroom with the ropes and chains story was really hard to watch.

I think there are very few people here (if any) that trust that police department.

I don't have an opinion of SA being innocent or guilty. It seems that the state is clearly biased towards him being guilty, and we can all see how this benefits the state. There were people in that police department that didn't have a problem putting him away for ever, BEFORE there was 36 million dollars and a couple of careers at stake.

At the same time, I think the documentary was also biased. I think they made a very good case for SA being set up. I am sure that almost everyone here would be able to agree that there was at least some tampering by the state on this case, even if just getting BS from BD and their officers being in places they shouldn't have. Personally, I have no doubt that these guys would plant evidence, especially if they are convinced the person is guilty. I just didn't see a strong case for him being innocent. I did see a good case for him being framed, and it was clear that LE didn't look deeply into the other suspects.

I came here to read parts that were left out from the documentary. There's a lot to be learned just from this thread alone. Personally, I like to stay open to everything. I want to be able to look at information in as unbiased of a way as possible. There are quite a few people on that property that should have been heavily looked at for this. We haven't found any smoking bullet that says SA is guilty, and we haven't found anything saying he has to be innocent. This isn't the same as his first case, where over 20 people allibied him.

People have been repeating that they hope they never get accused of a crime in this country. We really shouldn't forget that it was being accused and having the remains of a dead woman (whom you were the last person seen with her when she was alive) found behind your house.

Wow. Amazing post. Well said.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[nomoresorrow]

I've seen test results for cadaver dogs but only with a minimum quantity of 0.01 ml of blood. This would be the approx. equivalent of an inch square cloth soaked with blood. A complete .22 bullet is much narrower than this (and I believe the partial lead fragment retrieved was smaller still), therefore it's quite possible that the dog would fail to detect this.

I can offer no reason why the bullet remained undiscovered after the garage was searched numerous times. If you're anticipating a dead body, there are guns on the property and you find bullet casings in the garage, then surely a bullet (or part thereof) is something you'd expect crime scene investigators to find during numerous searches of the garage. Amazingly it took from November 6th 2005 until March 2nd 2006 (4 months) before this bullet fragment was 'found'.

And to add to that is the fact that, after digging up and testing the concrete floor of the garage (the area where there was an existing crack in the floor and would most likely contain blood evidence...), there was none to be found. It may be possible to clean the surface of concrete with bleach, however, it would be impossible to get all blood evidence out of the cracks and crevices - impossible.

 

[nomoresorrow]

I think everyone agrees that the state's story is wrong. I can't imagine anyone believes the story as they tried to paint it.

The initial version was transparent story-telling with the intention of convicting two people beyond any doubt in the public eye. The entire "Sweaty Steve" and Branden in the bedroom with the ropes and chains story was really hard to watch.

I think there are very few people here (if any) that trust that police department.

I don't have an opinion of SA being innocent or guilty. It seems that the state is clearly biased towards him being guilty, and we can all see how this benefits the state. There were people in that police department that didn't have a problem putting him away for ever, BEFORE there was 36 million dollars and a couple of careers at stake.

At the same time, I think the documentary was also biased. I think they made a very good case for SA being set up. I am sure that almost everyone here would be able to agree that there was at least some tampering by the state on this case, even if just getting BS from BD and their officers being in places they shouldn't have. Personally, I have no doubt that these guys would plant evidence, especially if they are convinced the person is guilty. I just didn't see a strong case for him being innocent. I did see a good case for him being framed, and it was clear that LE didn't look deeply into the other suspects.

I came here to read parts that were left out from the documentary. There's a lot to be learned just from this thread alone. Personally, I like to stay open to everything. I want to be able to look at information in as unbiased of a way as possible. There are quite a few people on that property that should have been heavily looked at for this. We haven't found any smoking bullet that says SA is guilty, and we haven't found anything saying he has to be innocent. This isn't the same as his first case, where over 20 people allibied him.

People have been repeating that they hope they never get accused of a crime in this country. We really shouldn't forget that it was being accused and having the remains of a dead woman (whom you were the last person seen with her when she was alive) found behind your house.

In response to bolded portion ^ This point is not forgotten; however, stating that fact alone - out of context - of the circumstances and history surrounding Steven and Manitowoc county law enforcement does make it look bad - really bad. Put in context, however, changes everything. And yes, the same could be said if bones were found were found in my backyard. But also let me add that that fact alone did not equate to an automatic conclusion of a set up or framing. It was everything that occurred thereafter (lack of looking at other possible suspects, questionable and suspect collection, timing of finding, and testing of evidence, etc.)...

 

[atthelake]

This thread is often at the top... is it only available on Netflix ...or somewhere else as I do not have/subscribe Netflix (YouTube yet )?

 

[nomoresorrow]

This thread is often at the top... is it only available on Netflix ...or somewhere else as I do not have/subscribe Netflix (YouTube yet )?

Episode one, in it's entirety, is available on youtube: [video=youtube;34M2zdLc-2U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34M2zdLc-2U"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34M2zdLc-2U[/video]

I've also found the transcripts for all 10 episodes. Here's the link for that: http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewforum.php?f=524

 

[MaxManning]

And to add to that is the fact that, after digging up and testing the concrete floor of the garage (the area where there was an existing crack in the floor and would most likely contain blood evidence...), there was none to be found. It may be possible to clean the surface of concrete with bleach, however, it would be impossible to get all blood evidence out of the cracks and crevices - impossible.

Based on dassey trial transcripts, there was a 3x3 - 3x4 patch that tested positive for luminol. This was I believe on 11/7 or 11/8.

Defense asked in cross examination if the blood had to be human, or if it could be for example from a deer. Expert agreed that it could be a spot where a deer or other animal was butchered.

The problem with bleach and the other things allegedly used, they make the DNA unusable for testing. I was completely unaware of this until now, and I've watched alot of crime tv! But even after using chlorine bleach and if the dna is unusable, the blood or whatever is in it will react to the luminol and light up

The expert explained that you want to make sure that you have collected all the forensic evidence before using doing this because it can contaminate some evidence. I believe it was said that they weren't able to visibly see this patch on the ground, so they didn't try to get dna samples BEFORE luminol testing. My assumption from there is that they then were not able to collect usable DNA from those locations that tested positive with luminol.

So end result is that it wasn't a DNA match, and I didn't even get the sense they actually found DNA to test.

I could be wrong, but based on my limited understanding, that's what I believe to be the case.

Someone earlier on this thread posted about bleach and cleaning up blood, she's researching because she is a writer. She posted links to information that some I could understand enough, and others way over my head.

Edit -- I take that back. I think it was said that chlorine bleach would not make the DNA unusable. Maybe whoever knows about this can reiterate, I admit I am unsure now. Paint thinner and gasoline was allegedly used as well. Have no idea how they know that, or if that's just an allegation. But all I know for sure is that the luminol testing was positive on that 3x3 / 3x4 spot , defense cross examined to note it was possible it could be deer blood. I saw no DNA evidence, for that spot, so assuming it was not testable for DNA.

 

[atthelake]

Episode one, in it's entirety, is available on youtube: [video=youtube;34M2zdLc-2U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34M2zdLc-2U"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34M2zdLc-2U[/video]

I've also found the transcripts for all 10 episodes. Here's the link for that: http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewforum.php?f=524

:happydance: I would love to be able to listen to it while I am driving on a long distance road trip day after tomorrow streaming on my smartphone... so I will get the first episode. Perhaps another will find a later one :bigsmile:

:tyou : :daisy:

 

[nomoresorrow]

Based on dassey trial transcripts, there was a 3x3 - 3x4 patch that tested positive for luminol. This was I believe on 11/7 or 11/8.

Defense asked in cross examination if the blood had to be human, or if it could be for example from a deer. Expert agreed that it could be a spot where a deer or other animal was butchered.

The problem with bleach and the other things allegedly used, they make the DNA unusable for testing. I was completely unaware of this until now, and I've watched alot of crime tv! But even after using chlorine bleach and if the dna is unusable, the blood or whatever is in it will react to the luminol and light up

The expert explained that you want to make sure that you have collected all the forensic evidence before using doing this because it can contaminate some evidence. I believe it was said that they weren't able to visibly see this patch on the ground, so they didn't try to get dna samples BEFORE luminol testing. My assumption from there is that they then were not able to collect usable DNA from those locations that tested positive with luminol.

So end result is that it wasn't a DNA match, and I didn't even get the sense they actually found DNA to test.

I could be wrong, but based on my limited understanding, that's what I believe to be the case.

Someone earlier on this thread posted about bleach and cleaning up blood, she's researching because she is a writer. She posted links to information that some I could understand enough, and others way over my head.

Edit -- I take that back. I think it was said that chlorine bleach would not make the DNA unusable. Maybe whoever knows about this can reiterate, I admit I am unsure now. Paint thinner and gasoline was allegedly used, have no idea how they know that, or if that's just an allegation. But all I know for sure is that the luminol testing was positive on that 3x3 / 3x4 spot

Yes, however that was the purpose of digging down and removing much of the area of the concrete surrounding a major crack because, if human blood had been there - even after using bleach - there should have been some (even a speck) of untainted blood to be found and tested for a match to Teresa. Even with clothing that has been bleached (10 + times), blood evidence can often be found in the seams (http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/detecting-evidence-after-bleaching.html).

ETA: To simply state that "luminol testing was positive" alone is highly misleading. Further testing is required to establish what the source of blood is (animal vs. human...). It is my understanding that this was a hunting family and deer had been killed and hung in the garage in the past.

 

[nomoresorrow]

Just wanted to add, for those who are unaware of this fact, Teresa had been to Avery's Salvage Yard several times before to photograph vehicles for Auto Trader.

"Halbach, who lived in Hilbert in neighboring Calumet County, had been to Avery's trailer several times to photograph vehicles he was selling through Auto Trader magazine." http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29388834.html

I think this is highly relevant, especially in light of DNA evidence being found on Teresa's front hood latch, and yet none on any other vital areas where one would expect to find it (i.e., battery cables, steering wheel, etc.). The DNA on the hood latch could have been the result of Teresa complaining about a mechanical issue on a prior visit and SA lifting the hood to check it out. We don't know but, as I said, in light of there being no DNA on the internals under the hood, I lean toward SA's DNA being planted there by LE OR occurring during a previous visit as I described. JMO ~

 

[MaxManning]

ETA: To simply state that "luminol testing was positive" alone is highly misleading. Further testing is required to establish what the source of blood is (animal vs. human...). It is my understanding that this was a hunting family and deer had been killed and hung in the garage in the past.

Agreed, I noted it, and actually edited a few times at the end to make sure I was clear about that again.

Sum of it, is that the luminol hit is for blood, but INCONCLUSIVE for human blood. Also, is it possible to even tell the age of that blood ?

We heard evidence that they can make some limited visual assessments about the age of blood depending on the amount of blood and the pattern. But clearly there was no visual blood evidence to assess in that spot.

 

[MaxManning]

Just wanted to add, for those who are unaware of this fact, Teresa had been to Avery's Salvage Yard several times before to photograph vehicles for Auto Trader.

"Halbach, who lived in Hilbert in neighboring Calumet County, had been to Avery's trailer several times to photograph vehicles he was selling through Auto Trader magazine." http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29388834.html

I think this is highly relevant, especially in light of DNA evidence being found on Teresa's front hood latch, and yet none on any other vital areas where one would expect to find it (i.e., battery cables, steering wheel, etc.). The DNA on the hood latch could have been the result of Teresa complaining about a mechanical issue on a prior visit and SA lifting the hood to check it out. We don't know but, as I said, in light of there being no DNA on the internals under the hood, I lean toward SA's DNA being planted there by LE OR occurring during a previous visit as I described. JMO ~

Correct, we know that the avery's chuck and steve moved cars in and out of that garage to work on them. So doesn't seem crazy to suggest that teresa or anyone else who was somewhat familiar with them, might ask them to check something. She had very good reason to believe they had knowledge of cars and were not the average client selling a car.

 

[stephsb]

Based on dassey trial transcripts, there was a 3x3 - 3x4 patch that tested positive for luminol. This was I believe on 11/7 or 11/8.

Defense asked in cross examination if the blood had to be human, or if it could be for example from a deer. Expert agreed that it could be a spot where a deer or other animal was butchered.

The problem with bleach and the other things allegedly used, they make the DNA unusable for testing. I was completely unaware of this until now, and I've watched alot of crime tv! But even after using chlorine bleach and if the dna is unusable, the blood or whatever is in it will react to the luminol and light up

The expert explained that you want to make sure that you have collected all the forensic evidence before using doing this because it can contaminate some evidence. I believe it was said that they weren't able to visibly see this patch on the ground, so they didn't try to get dna samples BEFORE luminol testing. My assumption from there is that they then were not able to collect usable DNA from those locations that tested positive with luminol.

So end result is that it wasn't a DNA match, and I didn't even get the sense they actually found DNA to test.

I could be wrong, but based on my limited understanding, that's what I believe to be the case.

Someone earlier on this thread posted about bleach and cleaning up blood, she's researching because she is a writer. She posted links to information that some I could understand enough, and others way over my head.

Edit -- I take that back. I think it was said that chlorine bleach would not make the DNA unusable. Maybe whoever knows about this can reiterate, I admit I am unsure now. Paint thinner and gasoline was allegedly used, have no idea how they know that, or if that's just an allegation. But all I know for sure is that the luminol testing was positive on that 3x3 / 3x4 spot

gasoline and paint thinner were brought up by Dassey and came from his confession. Paint thinner especially would not be a very effective way of cleaning a crime scene. They mention cleaning as early as the first 2/27 confession:

pg 462:
"I heard he told you how he cleaned things up. Be honest, if he didn't it's ok but if he did, you need to tell us"
(pause)
"You didn't see it, did he tell you about it?
(pause)
"No? Say yes or no" -No

Here is the context in the 3/1 confession:
pg 542:
"Cuz, I already know you were in the garage and stuff apparently cleaning up and stuff so tell us about that"
(nod yes) -Well he was working on his car and like he did something wrong and then he like poked a hole in something and then it started leaking. And then later on when cuz I was helping him before I went over there a little bit

pg 606:
"Um, when you get the bleach on you, let's talk about that, he thanks you for helping him and then what do you guys do? -Well that's when my Mom called

pg 607:
"What time is it when your Mom calls" -Like 9:30
"Ok so what do you do between 9:30 and 10" -We watch TV a little bit, talked, about that he was glad that I helped him cuz he couldn't do it by himself
"When do you clean the place up" -Like at 9:50
"Tell me, what do you do?" -He took the bedsheets, took em outside and he burnt them
"What else did he do" -He hid the, that's when he hid the keys and then

pg 608:
"And what else did you guys do?"
(pause)
"Where's her clothes at this time?" -In the garage
"So how'd they get out in the garage?" -When we went out there to clean up that, the blood
"When did you do that?" -Like 9:50
"So you and Steven do what at 9:50 then" -We cleaned that up and then he told me to go throw that on the fire
"Throw what on the fire?" -The clothes, that's full of, the, the blood that was like cleaned up

pg 609:
"So what'd you do in the garage now? What kind of cleaning do you do, how do you do it?" -We threw gas on it so he could get it off. Then he tried paint thinner and then he went to bleach to get it off and like, he like, probably like, he went like he was spraying it like. I thought he got it on the floor and it splashed up on my pants or something
"How much bleach, no let me go back. How much blood was there on the floor, quite a bit?"
(nods yes)

pg 610:
"Were there multiple spots that you cleaned in the garage or just one?" -Two
"Where'd you get the bleach from" -In his house, by, in his bathroom
"Was Steven bleeding?" -On his finger, that's it
"Did Steven know he was bleeding?" -Yeah
"Did he make any comments about that?" -Well he just went in the bathroom, he got a band-aid, when he went to get the bleach

 

[Juan23]

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.

He also named the make and model of the vehicle and asked dispatch to confirm. It seemed to me that he was looking right at it during the call.