Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #3

[ElleElle]

That would still fall under "framing."

Perhaps I'm the only one (besides Scarlett Scarpetta?) who does not see framing of SA or LE having anything to do with TH's death or rather, not without evidence to prove it.

My opinion is based on testimony I have seen and scenarios that just don't make sense.

 

[ElleElle]

I can't go with beliefs without some kind of corroborating evidence. I'm fully open to looking at evidence but if someone's argument is "because soAndso hated Avery and wanted to bring harm to him to save the county...." that's not going to fly without evidence.

And frankly, if someone's burned body parts showed up in anyone's yard and that person was absolutely with the victim at the time they went missing, and that person also absolutely had a bonfire that went for hours at the same time the victim was missing, you bet that person should (and would) be looked at very closely, and I don't care what state you live in.

Don't you think, just like any disappearance, more than one person (or two, if you want include a 16 year kid) should be at least investigated?

This is my issue. They already had SA pinned from day 1. Sure, she was known to be at his property, but there are multiple people who live on that property.

I believe the LE and state were on all the page with tunnel vision.

 

[missy1974]

For people that believe he burned her body in the fire pit and left her remains there, and even moved some to a barrel and a quarry..... why didn't the jury convict him of mutilation of the body? Did they get it wrong?

I'm curious how it can be rationalized that they didn't find him guilty on that, but guilty of the murder. IMO this is one of the things that I'm hung up on and I'm undecided about his guilt..... I don't think he left the bones there and moved some to other places, either move them all, or leave them, what was the point.

**** I guess it should be mentioned that there was an article in the last few weeks that stated that a juror did say they "traded" votes.... vote guilty for murder and I'll vote not guilty for mutilation**** So it could just be that, right? :scared:

 

[missy1974]

few tweets from Kathleen Zellner:


Kathleen Zellner ‏@ZellnerLaw 10h10 hours ago
Yesterday: in bedroom where key was "found." Room is so small could not have missed unless they searched w/eyes closed. #MakingAMurderer
Kathleen Zellner ‏@ZellnerLaw 10h10 hours ago
Also body was not burned in burn pit bc heat would have burned down Avery's garage. A lot of junk science at the junkyard. #MakingAMurderer

ETA: someone else tweeted her afterwards about a propane tank close by too.... I don't recall and I have to go to work for a few hours. Will have to look later.

yep... I'm quoting my own post hahaha *placing tinfoil hat back on head*

I found a picture of the fire pit. I didn't realize how close it was to the garage. And yes... there is a propane tank close by, but I'm not sure how big a fire would have to be before it would be a danger? Also... so far from what I have read.... no one smelled an odor that night (IMO indicates that no one smelled a body or tires), and I did see in the cross-examination of Eisenberg she was asked if the bones had an odor, and she said no. (some were in a box from fire pit, I think the ones from the barrel were in a plastic container with a lid). I cannot remember where I read it, it may have been here, but someone had pointed out that the strong smell of the tires should have been left on the remains, which makes sense, but I have no idea if that is true.

 

[stephsb]

yes it does Defense had the burden show motive in the 3 pong denny test, to point the finger at another person. But the state doesn't have to prove. Is that not a double standard?

These are two completely different points, and Denny has nothing to do w. Burden of proof. The burden of proof lies only with the State, and all they have to do is prove the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is required to prove NOTHING. It is their right to rest their case after presenting no witnesses. They are not required to present opening or closing. Madeleine is correct that motive need not be proven (although IMO it is wise for the State to give something, even if it's just argument in the closing)

Denny deals with the defense being able to name alternate suspects by name in open court. The defense is absolutely able to argue "Someone other than LE or Steven Avery killed Teresa, and the tunnel vision of the investigation is what protected that person, Teresa's real killer" (which they did argue) but if they want to say, for example: "Bobby Dassey killed Teresa, and the tunnel vision of the investigation is what protected him" then they need to provide the Court with evidence in order to use his name. I agree with the reasoning behind Denny- Bobby Dassey is NOT on trial, and the defense shouldn't get to point the finger at anyone they want. However, I think Denny's three prong test places too much burden on the Defense- IMO, opportunity and access to crime scene should be sufficient, because, in the hypothetical above, all the Defense is asking for is to use Bobby's name- which could hurt his reputation, but ultimately, he isn't the one on trial, he won't be imprisoned for what the Defense says, so the burden could slightly lower, JMO.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jaiddie]

I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a post on here saying that rather than a petition asking for a pardon for SA, there should be a petition asking for an investigation in LE and officials. If so, I agree with this 100%...btw, there is an ongoing petition in place for that that still needs quite a few signatures, so I thought I would include that here.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...manitowoc-county-and-calumet-county-wisconsin

 

[MysticJynx]

These are two completely different points, and Denny has nothing to do w. Burden of proof. The burden of proof lies only with the State, and all they have to do is prove the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is required to prove NOTHING. It is their right to rest their case after presenting no witnesses. They are not required to present opening or closing. Madeleine is correct that motive need not be proven (although IMO it is wise for the State to give something, even if it's just argument in the closing)

Denny deals with the defense being able to name alternate suspects by name in open court. The defense is absolutely able to argue "Someone other than LE or Steven Avery killed Teresa, and the tunnel vision of the investigation is what protected that person, Teresa's real killer" (which they did argue) but if they want to say, for example: "Bobby Dassey killed Teresa, and the tunnel vision of the investigation is what protected him" then they need to provide the Court with evidence in order to use his name. I agree with the reasoning behind Denny- Bobby Dassey is NOT on trial, and the defense shouldn't get to point the finger at anyone they want. However, I think Denny's three prong test places too much burden on the Defense- IMO, opportunity and access to crime scene should be sufficient, because, in the hypothetical above, all the Defense is asking for is to use Bobby's name- which could hurt his reputation, but ultimately, he isn't the one on trial, he won't be imprisoned for what the Defense says, so the burden could slightly lower, JMO.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just found it odd that the defense was unable to point to Named individuals that even testified against Avery. They said yes it was this Denny issue. So I had to go and look up the 3 prong test to get the names to be included. Unless I read wrong they had to prove MOTIVE, opportunity, and direct evidence that he could be indicated. So unlike the state against the defendant the defendant had the burden to prove MOTIVE as well as Direct Evidence and Opportunity. That is true that the case burden falls on the state they don't have to prove motive so to include someone I do not think that the defense should have had the burden of proving motive. They surely had opportunity and direct evidence pointing to others. That yard was in every ones access. so that car, the license plates, the burn barrel on a property not belonging to SA, the Bones in a fire pit that everyone had access to. This is all direct evidence that points to others as well that were on living or visiting the Business or other residents that lived on the lot. SO there is direct Evidence. Opportunity too they had many of people living on that 40acre land. One even testifies to being one of the last to see her alive. So because they couldn't place motive they could not be used. that's strong. Because you are not allowed to just point at anybody, there should be cause. And IMO there is. Someone needs to change the Denny thing so that Motive doesn't have to be proven. That's a huge burden of proof to put on the Defense team when in fact that burden should lie then with the state.

Also they were given permission to point at LE and BD by name. But then the state goes and changes this BD in his preliminary language, to just state that he was a party to a crime that possibly ANOTHER did the crime. So again its ok for the state to point at any other, but not the defense. The Prosecution should have had to keep that in their argument too. Or drop the party to a crime. They didn't have to think he actually killed her but just helped another to get that 1st degree intentional homicide conviction. ANY OTHER. that is something that needs to be changed. And that is my only point. If anyone should have to prove motive especially in a case the LIFE or DEATH is the outcome, it should be the prosecution.

 

[Malli]

Would you if you were the LE officer that called them in. You don't think that the LE Officer may not want them on the back of the car so it looks less likely like he was looking at the plate when he did so. but plant the car with the big huge RAV4 on the back showing to make sure someone found the car.

No I don't see it like that at all, but that is only my opinion. I think the more that people try and pin the whole thing on LE, the further degrees into ridiculousness it becomes. If I'm LE and framing someone, I'm not making work for myself and my colleagues scattering a bit of evidence here and there like confetti.

If I think like someone who is framing someone I would have put a lot more evidence out than was found. I think the more every tiny part of the investigation is scrutinised (even if some of it was a bad job), suggestions people make of what fits their narrative just become one large, ridiculous fairytale.

 

[Rivernh]

I am undecided about whether or not LE tried to frame SA. I'm not convinced of his innocence.

But the kindest I can be towards LE is they completely botched the investigation and mishandled evidence to such an extent that I'm not sure there was a fair trial.

 

[Sustained]

yep... I'm quoting my own post hahaha *placing tinfoil hat back on head*

I found a picture of the fire pit. I didn't realize how close it was to the garage. And yes... there is a propane tank close by, but I'm not sure how big a fire would have to be before it would be a danger? Also... so far from what I have read.... no one smelled an odor that night (IMO indicates that no one smelled a body or tires), and I did see in the cross-examination of Eisenberg she was asked if the bones had an odor, and she said no. (some were in a box from fire pit, I think the ones from the barrel were in a plastic container with a lid). I cannot remember where I read it, it may have been here, but someone had pointed out that the strong smell of the tires should have been left on the remains, which makes sense, but I have no idea if that is true.
View attachment 87781

I can't fathom how SA would burn TH's body in a fire pit that close to his and the Dassey's houses. Did he have everyone's schedule and know what would be the best time to burn the body ? Folks were coming all afternoon and evening, so what would've prevented any of them drifting over to the bonfire ? Not only that, it was Halloween and the Avery's may have gotten a few trick-or-treaters and kids may have come round the fire to say hi to Brendan if he was indeed there.

 

[Tawny]

My apologies for being unclear earlier. I'm well aware an arrest can be made if there is reason to believe the person being arrested is responsible for the missing person's death.

What I would like to know is, after finding only the Rav4, why did LE immediately arrest only Steven Avery? The investigation had not even begun, why was he immediately the only suspect?

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Defense openings did not have Steven leaving for crivitz until the morning of the 5th. I've heard the 1st and 3rd in various timelines. Bryan's statement first mentions Steven being there on the 4th IIRC.

Also I know you weren't the original poster, but just wanted to correct the person you quoted- Manitowoc and Crivitz are 100 miles apart- 94.7 to be exact (per google maps)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, I'll concede my route is 82.5 miles. I've traveled it a billion times--it just doesn't seem that far to me...LOL It's a 4 lane highway (I-43) until Green Bay. 141 used to be a 2 lane highway up til about 10 years or so ago when they made it a 4 lane all the way to Crivitz. North of Crivitz it becomes 2 lane again. I can make it from Manitowoc to Crivitz in under an hour. Guess I'm a lead foot. :blushing:

 

[missy1974]

MAKING A MURDERER' STANDOUT REPORTER ANGENETTE LEVY ON WHAT THE SERIES LEAVES OUT

http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/q-and-a/a33352/angenette-levy-making-a-murderer-reporter/

The press conference that the prosecutor held, that changed everything. We were all sitting there absolutely stunned. You can imagine what it was like sitting in a room listening to this story that he told, a horror story, it was really shocking. That really changed everything in the case. A lot of people in the general public then thought he was guilty.

good article, she was the one that always asked the good questions in the documentary LOL

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Defense openings did not have Steven leaving for crivitz until the morning of the 5th. I've heard the 1st and 3rd in various timelines. Bryan's statement first mentions Steven being there on the 4th IIRC.

Also I know you weren't the original poster, but just wanted to correct the person you quoted- Manitowoc and Crivitz are 100 miles apart- 94.7 to be exact (per google maps)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, I'll concede my route is 82.5 miles. I've traveled it a billion times--it just doesn't seem that far to me...LOL It's a 4 lane highway (I-43) until Green Bay. 141 used to be a 2 lane highway up til about 10 years or so ago when they made it a 4 lane all the way to Crivitz. North of Crivitz it becomes 2 lane again. I can make it from Manitowoc to Crivitz in under an hour. Guess I'm a lead foot. :blushing:

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Just curious. Who here (besides me) does not believe LE framed Avery for TH's murder?

I do not believe LE framed Avery for TH's murder.

I voted in the poll on whether I thought Avery was guilty or not. I wonder if the mods could do another poll to see if people who were on the fence have been swayed one way or the other after reading the trial transcripts.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Not true...Many people have been arrested for murder without a body or murder weapon, many of them discussed on this website. None come to mind and I don't have time to search right now. I'm not saying that I think LE framed SA...I'm still on the fence about that...I do think he killed her, but how much LE was involved in planting corroborating evidence? Just not sure...

This is true, Scott Peterson was arrested without a murder weapon and without the body of Stacy Peterson at least.

 

[Sustained]

I do not believe LE framed Avery for TH's murder.

I voted in the poll on whether I thought Avery was guilty or not. I wonder if the mods could do another poll to see if people who were on the fence have been swayed one way or the other after reading the trial transcripts.

I have not been over the transcripts yet, but I'm intrigued that Kathleen Zellner would take on the Avery case. She has nothing to gain as her reputation is already stellar via Ryan Ferguson and others, but tons to lose. And I'm sure she's been over the transcripts with a fine-tooth comb.

Why would she take the case if she didn't believe Avery was innocent ?

 

[BigCityAccountant]

yes it does Defense had the burden show motive in the 3 pong denny test, to point the finger at another person. But the state doesn't have to prove. Is that not a double standard?

I read in the trial transcripts the state has to prove intent...not motive....

 

[Whickswi]

I'm wondering the same. Seems like a pretty bold move she must have something IMO.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

yep... I'm quoting my own post hahaha *placing tinfoil hat back on head*

I found a picture of the fire pit. I didn't realize how close it was to the garage. And yes... there is a propane tank close by, but I'm not sure how big a fire would have to be before it would be a danger? Also... so far from what I have read.... no one smelled an odor that night (IMO indicates that no one smelled a body or tires), and I did see in the cross-examination of Eisenberg she was asked if the bones had an odor, and she said no. (some were in a box from fire pit, I think the ones from the barrel were in a plastic container with a lid). I cannot remember where I read it, it may have been here, but someone had pointed out that the strong smell of the tires should have been left on the remains, which makes sense, but I have no idea if that is true.

Definitely not an expert on fires...does a fire have to be large in order to get hot enough to burn a body? Could it have been a medium to small fire--but a very HOT fire? I wonder if someone that is an expert in that area on here, would know the answer to that question.