Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[RainCheck]

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?

Once again, I don't claim to think any of it is valid. I'm only concerned it was left out of the documentary. People are extremely worked up over the documentary but it clearly left out some very important pieces the jury had to consider and I'm sure there's more. I thought I made it pretty clear the first time I posted all the information I felt Brendan was innocent. I felt Steven Avery might have some sort of involvement or possibly none at all. Ultimately I feel retrials are a no brainier, but I still think the documentary left out information they should not have.

 

[CoolJ]

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.

In the name of Justice and fairness to SA and BD, the documentary SHOULD have had a slight bias in their direction. Their trials certainly had quite the bias against them.

The documentary wasn't about telling the story of the trials. The documentary was about bringing to light governmental corruption and a gross injustice of monumental proportions.

 

[RainCheck]

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

Steven Avery's DNA being found under the hood is significant. Phone records are significant. Two other women claiming he raped them is significant. Come on! They didn't leave it out because it was insignificant!

 

[RainCheck]

In the name of Justice and fairness to SA and BD, the documentary SHOULD have had a slight bias in their direction. Their trials certainly had quite the bias against them.

The documentary wasn't about telling the story of the trials. The documentary was about bringing to light governmental corruption and a gross injustice of monumental proportions.

Okay, so you feel they left out the really bad stuff about Steven Avery because if they told the whole story people would not have as much sympathy for him and might miss the gross injustice part? In other words, it didn't fit their narrative?

 

[chaleigh26]

CoolJ just perfectly explained what the aim of the documentary was.

 

[Soulmagent]

Steven Avery's DNA being found under the hood is significant. Phone records are significant. Two other women claiming he raped them is significant. Come on! They didn't leave it out because it was insignificant!

Have you seen a transcript for this? I looked but did not find what I was looking for.

 

[TheDuchess]

Questions for anyone who may know:

1.) Did SA ever say he actually saw her actually drive away? Or did he simply just walk back into the house and that was the end of it?
2.) When did these women claim that he raped them?
3.) When did the informant claim he told him about the torture chamber? What was he given in return?

And like I said before - I don't care if they have a videotape of him actually murdering her, he deserves a new trial simply based upon the plethora of unconstitutional depriving SA of his due process rights. Return the case for a new trial. Leave out all the stuff we know is tainted (the key, the blood stains in the car, any evidence that Manitowoc found, Brandan's confession, etc...and any fruits from that confession.) And then try him again legally. But how any person in the legal community and on this board, who really know the law, can feel good about this conviction is absolutely beyond me.

 

[RainCheck]

Have you seen a transcript for this? I looked but did not find what I was looking for.

I pulled all this information from this thread after reading all 70 plus pages. If you start at the beginning and read every page you'll run across it. I literally didn't even write it myself just copy and pasted it from information presented here and put it in the notes on my phone. Then when I finished reading everything I put it together. The only information from else where is from an article written by a journalist at the time of the trial who a 22 page document outlining the prison informant information and the two other rape victims. Unfortunately, no one has read the full trial transcripts yet. The trial was 5 weeks long.

Edited to add: I'm not sure if it would be possible to get the affidavits of the two women who claim SA raped them. Do copies exist where the victims names are redacted and these can be accessed by the public? Obviously no one wants to expose them to public ridicule.

 

[RainCheck]

Questions for anyone who may know:

1.) Did SA ever say he actually saw her actually drive away? Or did he simply just walk back into the house and that was the end of it?
2.) When did these women claim that he raped them?
3.) When did the informant claim he told him about the torture chamber? What was he given in return?

And like I said before - I don't care if they have a videotape of him actually murdering her, he deserves a new trial simply based upon the plethora of unconstitutional depriving SA of his due process rights. Return the case for a new trial. Leave out all the stuff we know is tainted (the key, the blood stains in the car, any evidence that Manitowoc found, Brandan's confession, etc...and any fruits from that confession.) And then try him again legally. But how any person in the legal community and on this board, who really know the law, can feel good about this conviction is absolutely beyond me.

Agree 100%! Even with a videotape of him murdering her he should get a new trial. However, so don't think all of that evidence would be excluded. I think it would be a long process of new investigators and judges trying to decide what might stil be admissible and a complete circus. I don't even know how they could be retried as much of a mess as it is. I would hate to be the new investigators trying to wade through this mess!

 

[CoolJ]

Okay, so you feel they left out the really bad stuff about Steven Avery because if they told the whole story people would not have as much sympathy for him and might miss the gross injustice part? In other words, it didn't fit their narrative?

No, I think the "really bad stuff" is likely lies, planted evidence and whatever else goes into a frame job these days. The documentary was bringing to light corruption. What is the point in repeating the lies of the corruptors?

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

I don't agree.

People seem to think that the documentary was trying to show that Steven was innocent.

I don't see that. They were documenting the court case. None of those things made it into court, so why should they be in the documentary?

 

[CoolJ]

Steven Avery's DNA being found under the hood is significant. Phone records are significant. Two other women claiming he raped them is significant. Come on! They didn't leave it out because it was insignificant!

In most cases, conducted by honest, hard working investigators, yes these things are significant. In a case where the real criminals are those in positions of trust and authority, those things are utterly meaningless. JMO

 

[LemonMousse]

Steven Avery's DNA being found under the hood is significant. Phone records are significant. Two other women claiming he raped them is significant. Come on! They didn't leave it out because it was insignificant!

The rape claims were irrelevant with regards to the court case which is what the documentary was all about.

There are too many perfectly innocent explanations for the use of *67 for this to be important.

The DNA under the hood was less significant than the blood in the car or the DNA on the bullet. If we take it that there was some suggestion that blood and DNA could have been planted then this quite obviously could have been the case with the hood latch DNA.

Although I wish they had included that......they (the police) knew the battery had been disconnected which necessarily would see the hood latch being touched. They didn't bother to swab it. Then (weeks/months) later they got Brendan to say Steven went under the hood....THEN went back, swabbed it and found "sweat" DNA. Yeah, right.

Steven presumably bleeds and sweats through gloves.

But, really, they had to leave some things out otherwise we'd have had a show 6 solid weeks long rather than 10 hours.

 

[RainCheck]

Okay, I guess we'll all just have to agree to disagree. I wish it had been addressed but at this point I'm beating a dead horse.

Moving forward, if you haven't read this already it's interesting and it outlines who Steven Avery himself named as the other possible suspects.

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

 

[LemonMousse]

Questions for anyone who may know:

1.) Did SA ever say he actually saw her actually drive away? Or did he simply just walk back into the house and that was the end of it?
2.) When did these women claim that he raped them?
3.) When did the informant claim he told him about the torture chamber? What was he given in return?

And like I said before - I don't care if they have a videotape of him actually murdering her, he deserves a new trial simply based upon the plethora of unconstitutional depriving SA of his due process rights. Return the case for a new trial. Leave out all the stuff we know is tainted (the key, the blood stains in the car, any evidence that Manitowoc found, Brandan's confession, etc...and any fruits from that confession.) And then try him again legally. But how any person in the legal community and on this board, who really know the law, can feel good about this conviction is absolutely beyond me.

I can only answer number one. He said in the doc:

"Why do they keep saying I was the last person to see her? I saw her drive away. I wasn't the last person to see her....the person who done this was the last person to see her".

And you're right in your last paragraph.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Steven is factually innocent. But even that is beside the point.....everyone, but everyone, must receive a fair trial with evidence presented with honesty and integrity. His presumption of innocence...SO important, otherwise justice fails for everyone.....was absent thanks to that despicable sleezeball Kratz. Who reminds me of Ros from Monster's Inc. Or one of those giant slugs from Doctor Who.

 

[wally]

https://youtu.be/DhlgZh28Fx8

Thoughts?

 

[IM4TRUTH]

I just binge watched it and I am not convinced of his guilt. I do think the evidence was planted by the cops but I don't think they killed her. After watching the documentary, I am wondering more about the ex boyfriend and the roommate.

 

[LemonMousse]

Also...before he's even arrested, Steven talks to the press about his suspicion that he's being set up and the police could even plant evidence.

Normally, this would suggest that a guilty man is preparing his defence in advance knowing that there will be evidence found implicating him.

BUT....lo and behold...every single piece of evidence against him comes with enormous and very troubling questions.

The only place, other than his finger, where his blood existed was in two boxes that had clearly been tampered with.

The bullet, key and hood DNA were found weeks after very thorough searches had already been carried out and nothing found. They were discovered at precisely the time a police department would be becoming troubled by the lack of physical evidence against him.

Even the bones behind his garage was tainted evidence because they'd almost certainly been moved there.

The blood in the car troubles me. I would like to know exactly when the splodges later attributed to Steven were first photographed. Was it almost as soon as they had the car at the depot?

Presumably, Lenk and Colborn would not have access to a building not run by their own department.

If they planted that blood, I think it would have to be before the car was found...a time when no one supposedly even knew that Theresa was dead.

Were they really so evil and uncaring about the victim that they found her car awash with blood, did nothing to try and find her and, instead, instantly conceived a plot to frame Steven? Unless they already knew she was dead which takes the conspiracy to a whole new level which I struggle to buy.

 

[catswhiskers]

Steven, Chuck and Earl have all been convicted of violent felonies they actually did commit. Chuck and Earl have both been convicted of sexual based crimes. Chuck was arrested in 2011 for filming children undressing. They're a troubled and violent family which is why people are wary of them.

I wonder if SA is the only Avery that local LE seem to have a history of targeting? I wouldn't be surprised if the family in general have been singled out over the years. I'm not disputing the charges against the other males, as I really only know what I have seen referenced here and other forums about them - but given what we have seen in the documentary regarding some shonky police evidence, it makes me wonder. IMO the female cousin and her LE husband may very well have been instrumental in perpetuating negative perceptions of the family in general, especially in the LE community. I was also struck by the email from investigator O'Kelly to the defense attorney, where he says he'd been told it's a one branch family tree that needs to be cut down (paraphrasing as I don't have it in front of me) etc. Vile man - I wonder who his contacts were when he was doing his 'research'?

Honestly though, I was probably thinking more of SA's parents and some of the other family members including BD's mum and the cousins and aunts featured in the series in my previous post.

 

[TheDuchess]

https://youtu.be/DhlgZh28Fx8

Thoughts?

I have heard about this somewhere else but not to this extent. Sounds really freaky! That said I wonder how and why he would have come into contact with her at the Avery address and gotten all of her remains the car etc into there. I'll need to sleep on this one but wow. Crazy stuff!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk