Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tawny

Bye
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
5,576
Reaction score
64
I have seen the question or statements that they were burned, so when I seen that, I thought I would share. I have to wonder about the DNA as well. A lot of this case is not about the DNA/prints found, but the DNA/prints NOT found for me. I'm going to assume there was absolutely no trace of TH on those items since I have not seen/read anything that indicates there was.

Yup. I agree.
 

mcwhit

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I remember reading this a few days ago. Didn't know the context of convalutedbrian...

sry, meant to quote The Alternative article...
 

pleasestandby

Inactive
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
346
Reaction score
54
Haha, I noticed this and posted that earlier on this thread a week or so ago. It is at points where maybe he says things they might not like. Is it possible that it is regarding things that they couldn't expose jury to ? That was what I was thinking might be the case. I think that video is something edited for court usage, not the raw source video.


Either way, would be good to know.

I didn't read all the posts so I missed your eagle eye observation also. : ) I agree, it would be good to know why that section is missing. Maybe they were beating the crap out of him during that time?
 

missy1974

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
10,142
Reaction score
31,353
https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70129 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
PUBLISHED OPINION

I just happened to have this open and remembered reading something about Denny.... this is what I found on page 20

¶38 In Denny, this court adopted the “legitimate tendency” test for thirdparty
liability evidence. Id. at 623 (citing Alexander v. United States, 138 U.S.
353 (1891)). Thus a defendant is required to demonstrate a legitimate tendency
test that a third person could have committed the crime. The Denny court
explained:
[T]o show “legitimate tendency,” a defendant should not be
required to establish the guilt of third persons with that
degree of certainty requisite to sustain a conviction in order
for this type of evidence to be admitted. On the other hand,
evidence that simply affords a possible ground of suspicion
against another person should not be admissible.
Otherwise, a defendant could conceivably produce
evidence tending to show that hundreds of other persons
had some motive or animus against the deceased—
degenerating the proceedings into a trial of collateral
issues. The “legitimate tendency” test asks whether the
proffered evidence is so remote in time, place or
circumstance that a direct connection cannot be made
between the third person and the crime.
Thus, as long as motive and opportunity have been
shown and as long as there is also some evidence to
directly connect a third person to the crime charged which
is not remote in time, place or circumstances, the evidence
should be admissible.
Denny, 120 Wis. 2d at 623-24 (citation omitted). The legitimate tendency test,
characterized as a “bright line standard,” was summarized by the supreme court as
follows:
No. 2010AP411-CR
20
Third-party defense evidence may be admissible under the
legitimate tendency test if the defendant can show that the
third party had (1) the motive and (2) the opportunity to
commit the charged crime, and (3) can provide some
evidence to directly connect the third person to the crime
charged which is not remote in time, place or circumstance.
 

shadowraiths

LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Special
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
2,876
Reaction score
137
Website
crimsonshadows.net
Yep, I do have these documents. I have to admit that at the time I was more interested in what they were saying about the alternative suspects than why they were not allowed in original trial.

I remember reading Denny a million times seemingly! I'll give this a better read on the parts that feel as if they are going to fly over my head, because of the legal speak.

But I remember thinking that State vs Denny likely has details on a criteria for what is admissible ? I'll read this again to see if it gives a criteria.
The case they were citing is State v Denny, 1984. Here's the court's ruling. Justia
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70129 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
PUBLISHED OPINION

I just happened to have this open and remembered reading something about Denny.... this is what I found on page 20

¶38 In Denny, this court adopted the “legitimate tendency” test for thirdparty
liability evidence. Id. at 623 (citing Alexander v. United States, 138 U.S.
353 (1891)). Thus a defendant is required to demonstrate a legitimate tendency
test that a third person could have committed the crime. The Denny court
explained:
[T]o show “legitimate tendency,” a defendant should not be
required to establish the guilt of third persons with that
degree of certainty requisite to sustain a conviction in order
for this type of evidence to be admitted. On the other hand,
evidence that simply affords a possible ground of suspicion
against another person should not be admissible.
Otherwise, a defendant could conceivably produce
evidence tending to show that hundreds of other persons
had some motive or animus against the deceased—
degenerating the proceedings into a trial of collateral
issues. The “legitimate tendency” test asks whether the
proffered evidence is so remote in time, place or
circumstance that a direct connection cannot be made
between the third person and the crime.
Thus, as long as motive and opportunity have been
shown and as long as there is also some evidence to
directly connect a third person to the crime charged which
is not remote in time, place or circumstances, the evidence
should be admissible.
Denny, 120 Wis. 2d at 623-24 (citation omitted). The legitimate tendency test,
characterized as a “bright line standard,” was summarized by the supreme court as
follows:
No. 2010AP411-CR
20
Third-party defense evidence may be admissible under the
legitimate tendency test if the defendant can show that the
third party had (1) the motive and (2) the opportunity to
commit the charged crime, and (3) can provide some
evidence to directly connect the third person to the crime
charged which is not remote in time, place or circumstance.

Thank you for posting I was just going to post the three prong test :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TheDuchess

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
600
One thing the docu did not show was the domestic violence of SA towards Jodi. I wonder if the no contact had more to do with that ? ** speculative**

It did discuss it when they showed Jodi's final goodbye. She was saying that now LE was going after her because she smiled at SA when passing in the hall and it violated her no contact order. She said then in frustration that she was "out of here." In other words, she simply couldn't associate with SA any longer because LE would basically prosecute her over any contact going forward.
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70129 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
PUBLISHED OPINION

I just happened to have this open and remembered reading something about Denny.... this is what I found on page 20

¶38 In Denny, this court adopted the “legitimate tendency” test for thirdparty
liability evidence. Id. at 623 (citing Alexander v. United States, 138 U.S.
353 (1891)). Thus a defendant is required to demonstrate a legitimate tendency
test that a third person could have committed the crime. The Denny court
explained:
[T]o show “legitimate tendency,” a defendant should not be
required to establish the guilt of third persons with that
degree of certainty requisite to sustain a conviction in order
for this type of evidence to be admitted. On the other hand,
evidence that simply affords a possible ground of suspicion
against another person should not be admissible.
Otherwise, a defendant could conceivably produce
evidence tending to show that hundreds of other persons
had some motive or animus against the deceased—
degenerating the proceedings into a trial of collateral
issues. The “legitimate tendency” test asks whether the
proffered evidence is so remote in time, place or
circumstance that a direct connection cannot be made
between the third person and the crime.
Thus, as long as motive and opportunity have been
shown and as long as there is also some evidence to
directly connect a third person to the crime charged which
is not remote in time, place or circumstances, the evidence
should be admissible.
Denny, 120 Wis. 2d at 623-24 (citation omitted). The legitimate tendency test,
characterized as a “bright line standard,” was summarized by the supreme court as
follows:
No. 2010AP411-CR
20
Third-party defense evidence may be admissible under the
legitimate tendency test if the defendant can show that the
third party had (1) the motive and (2) the opportunity to
commit the charged crime, and (3) can provide some
evidence to directly connect the third person to the crime
charged which is not remote in time, place or circumstance.

So, this is the part that flies over my head due to legal speak.


I think everyone on that property fits #2.
Chuck, Earl, Fabian, Scott, and Bobby could potentially fit #1 based on the asset appeal transcript
#3 , seems nearly impossible to fit for anyone imo if you didn't investigate. right ?
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
It did discuss it when they showed Jodi's final goodbye. She was saying that now LE was going after her because she smiled at SA when passing in the hall and it violated her no contact order. She said then in frustration that she was "out of here." In other words, she simply couldn't associate with SA any longer because LE would basically prosecute her over any contact going forward.

But the documentary doesn't ever discuss why there was a no contact order to begin with, does it ?

I have heard that there was some kind of domestic violence that resulted in a restraining order.

Is this confirmed anywhere in terms of when it happened and what happened to result in this restraining order ?

I was confused by the no contact order thing in the documentary. Did I miss something ?
 

Safeguard

On Time Out
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
5,681
I'm glad you brought up Jodi! Who does 7 months in jail for a DUI? And yes, it seems like they abused their power and used the no contact order to harass them both. In addition, they kept trying to get her to turn on SA, and when that didn't pan out, set their sites on Brendan.

I realize that was the view from the documentary point of view. I'd like to know more about why Jodi served 7 months in jail for a DUI. Most people do a little jail time, lose their license & pay a fine - unless it was a 3rd or 4th offense.

Also, can't remember why there was a no contact order?

And finally they just made it impossible for her to not move away and cease contact. Was this for her own good? Is it legal? Or was it just to punish SA even more?

Seemed unusually harsh to me, considering the repeat offenders that go in and out of jail without this much scrutiny on their day to day life.

Add to that that Jody had a BAC of just 0.02 !
So not even legally drunk! ( MAM eps, 2 16:56). It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Sandy didn't buy her a beer at one of dem dere many taverns, ( which Sandra Morris walks to of course.:angel: )
 

rocket_girl

New Member
Joined
May 14, 2013
Messages
16
Reaction score
5
I think the fire is the key to me. I know they said the bones were intermingled with the steel belts/wheels. But I also remember somewhere saying that there were no bones/matter on the van seat (which is what Brendan states he and SA put on the fire).

Presumably the bones are under the van seat and matter. But are they? I'd love photos and an exact description of where and how they are found.

To me this would convince me one way or the other:

1. Bones are undoubtedly under the van seat and were in the fire prior to 9pm Oct 31. In that case it's hard to imagine a scenario where SA is not involved.

2. Bones, steel off to side or seemingly could have been placed there separate. Then who knows!

Teresa was without a doubt not killed in the scenario painted by Dassey.

I can't imagine someone killing her on that property at that time. There were so many potential witnesses and no motive for their to be a "fight" that leads murder (such as a lovers spat). That being said, I have seen several cases on here where the truth was wilder than fiction!! (E.g. Tim Bosma)
 

SCHMAE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
13,143
Reaction score
2,883
Add to that that Jody had a BAC of just 0.2 !
So not even legally drunk! ( MAM eps, 2 16:56). It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Sandy didn't buy her a beer at one of dem dere many taverns, ( which Sandra Morris walks to of course.:angel: )

Sorry, I think that is a mistake. The legal limit in Texas is .08 , so .2 would be 3 times that much , give or take .

ETA How much do you have to drink (BAC*) for a OWI/DUI in Wisconsin?

Under 21
.02%
21 or older
.08%
Commercial
.04%

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/wisconsin.php
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
So, this is the part that flies over my head due to legal speak.


I think everyone on that property fits #2.
Chuck, Earl, Fabian, Scott, and Bobby could potentially fit #1 based on the asset appeal transcript
#3 , seems nearly impossible to fit for anyone imo if you didn't investigate. right ?

Fabian was never mentioned in the post-conviction motion so I won't answer on him as the defense wasn't attempting to bring him in. Of the four that they were, I think they all could meet motive. As for opportunity, they would have to have been on the property when Teresa was. This would include CA and BD, and possibly EA. You are correct that the third prong would be difficult to meet without an investigation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ziggy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
4,750
Reaction score
18
Website
Visit site
On Fox News tonight on Kelly File Kratz was on. He said the documentary left out that they found her camera and her phone in another area on the property in a burn barrel. I didn't see it my brother told me so I'm going watch it when the show repeats.

I wonder why ID Discovery is upset? My take is maybe they have a family member in the Sheriffs Department. Lol

Yes, this is true. In a burn barrel they found burned remnants TH's Motorola Razor phone, her Canon camera and palm pilot.

KEVIN HEIMERL
From Dassey transcript Day 2 / Direct Examination of Witness (Arson investigator)

Day 2 / Page 43
“Q: Um, the 7[SUP]th[/SUP], that would be Monday, the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] of November, were you involved in, and did you participate in, search efforts of the Avery salvage property?
A: Yes. I was assigned to, um, assist with the recovery of some evidence.
Q: Describe for the—Well, I’m going to have you look at, uh, a photograph, Exhibit No. 95. Tell the jury what it is that Exhibit No. 95 is?
A: It’s a photograph of a steel burn barrel. It was found in the, uh, front yard area of Steven Avery’s residence.
Q: And could you tell me where the burn barrel was located, please?
A: The gravel driveway that you, um, see in the background behind the barrel, uh, is the access roadway, or a driveway to provide access to Steven Avery’s trailer and his detached garage. This barrel is north of that driveway, um, and Steven Avery’s trailer and garage are south of the driveway and to the right of the barrel as you’re looking at the photograph.”

[Exhibit 96 is a photo taken looking into the barrel and the burned contents therein]

[Exhibit 115 is a two-page report, of examination was completed by, Mr. Curtis Thomas of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s laboratory in Virginia. He is in a unit assigned to the Cryptographic and Electronic Analysis.]

Page 47
“Q: Uh, we’ll talk about the individual, um, uh, findings through some other photos, but, uh, if you could tell the jury, uh, what Mr. Thomas’ findings were?

A: Mr. Thomas was able to conclude that the components, um, depicted in the photograph, all came from the three electronic devices, which he was able to identify as a Canon A310 PowerShot digital camera, a Motorola RAZR cellular telephone, and a Palm Zire PDA.”


Cross Examination pages 68-87

“Q: OK, now looking at that burn barrel, the location is approximately in front of the Avery trailer? Or, I guess, if you want to say, kind of a triangular, uh, angle from the trailer and the garage; correct?
A That’s correct. It’s almost, um, due north of the garage and northeast of the trailer.
Q So that would be that opening—the gar—the actual main entrance of the garage?
A Correct.”

________________

Hard to tell, but it seems like there was a separate burn barrel that contained the phone, camera and Palm pilot parts. Why would SA burn them separately and not throw them in the pit?

All these burned items, either burned in a separate location and moved, or burned in an illogical area, or left sitting around for at least 4 days...just weird.

I don't think ID Discovery is mad - they want to cash in on they HYPE! follow the $$$ They know it's a trending topic and are jumping on the bandwagon.

 

ziggy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
4,750
Reaction score
18
Website
Visit site
I think the fire is the key to me. I know they said the bones were intermingled with the steel belts/wheels. But I also remember somewhere saying that there were no bones/matter on the van seat (which is what Brendan states he and SA put on the fire).

Presumably the bones are under the van seat and matter. But are they? I'd love photos and an exact description of where and how they are found.

To me this would convince me one way or the other:

1. Bones are undoubtedly under the van seat and were in the fire prior to 9pm Oct 31. In that case it's hard to imagine a scenario where SA is not involved.

2. Bones, steel off to side or seemingly could have been placed there separate. Then who knows!

Teresa was without a doubt not killed in the scenario painted by Dassey.

I can't imagine someone killing her on that property at that time. There were so many potential witnesses and no motive for their to be a "fight" that leads murder (such as a lovers spat). That being said, I have seen several cases on here where the truth was wilder than fiction!! (E.g. Tim Bosma)

Good point. I remember reading in the transcripts about how the burn pit looked when they discovered it and where the van seat was. I seem to recall it was off to the side, now that you brought this up! I'll go back and look at the transcripts.
 

SCHMAE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
13,143
Reaction score
2,883
Yes, this is true. In a burn barrel they found burned remnants TH's Motorola Razor phone, her Canon camera and palm pilot.

KEVIN HEIMERL
From Dassey transcript Day 2 / Direct Examination of Witness (Arson investigator)

Day 2 / Page 43
“Q: Um, the 7[SUP]th[/SUP], that would be Monday, the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] of November, were you involved in, and did you participate in, search efforts of the Avery salvage property?
A: Yes. I was assigned to, um, assist with the recovery of some evidence.
Q: Describe for the—Well, I’m going to have you look at, uh, a photograph, Exhibit No. 95. Tell the jury what it is that Exhibit No. 95 is?
A: It’s a photograph of a steel burn barrel. It was found in the, uh, front yard area of Steven Avery’s residence.
Q: And could you tell me where the burn barrel was located, please?
A: The gravel driveway that you, um, see in the background behind the barrel, uh, is the access roadway, or a driveway to provide access to Steven Avery’s trailer and his detached garage. This barrel is north of that driveway, um, and Steven Avery’s trailer and garage are south of the driveway and to the right of the barrel as you’re looking at the photograph.”

[Exhibit 96 is a photo taken looking into the barrel and the burned contents therein]

[Exhibit 115 is a two-page report, of examination was completed by, Mr. Curtis Thomas of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s laboratory in Virginia. He is in a unit assigned to the Cryptographic and Electronic Analysis.]

Page 47
“Q: Uh, we’ll talk about the individual, um, uh, findings through some other photos, but, uh, if you could tell the jury, uh, what Mr. Thomas’ findings were?

A: Mr. Thomas was able to conclude that the components, um, depicted in the photograph, all came from the three electronic devices, which he was able to identify as a Canon A310 PowerShot digital camera, a Motorola RAZR cellular telephone, and a Palm Zire PDA.”


Cross Examination pages 68-87

“Q: OK, now looking at that burn barrel, the location is approximately in front of the Avery trailer? Or, I guess, if you want to say, kind of a triangular, uh, angle from the trailer and the garage; correct?
A That’s correct. It’s almost, um, due north of the garage and northeast of the trailer.
Q So that would be that opening—the gar—the actual main entrance of the garage?
A Correct.”

________________

Hard to tell, but it seems like there was a separate burn barrel that contained the phone, camera and Palm pilot parts. Why would SA burn them separately and not throw them in the pit?

All these burned items, either burned in a separate location and moved, or burned in an illogical area, or left sitting around for at least 4 days...just weird.

I don't think ID Discovery is mad - they want to cash in on they HYPE! follow the $$$ They know it's a trending topic and are jumping on the bandwagon.

Maybe he thought he would keep them. They were expenisve items. Then he thought better of it when the heat got on him ? Again speculative **.
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
Add to that that Jody had a BAC of just 0.2 !
So not even legally drunk! ( MAM eps, 2 16:56). It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Sandy didn't buy her a beer at one of dem dere many taverns, ( which Sandra Morris walks to of course.:angel: )

0.2 is well over the legal limit, you don't get to 0.2 after one drink. This was also her 5th DUI.

Btw Schmae, 0.08 is also the current legal limit in WI as of 2003.

Edit: Just saw you added that, sorry lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
Her BAC was 0.02

She would have likely been under different restrictions due to the multiple DUIs and revoked licenses, so even .02 would be illegal. But thank you for the clarification on the .02/.2 discrepancy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

shadowraiths

LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Special
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
2,876
Reaction score
137
Website
crimsonshadows.net
Websleuths cited in Wired article:

3202d77f.gif

MAKING A MURDERER GIVES THE INTERNET ITS HOTTEST CASE YET

ON NOV. 4, 2005, a member of the long-running crime-finding site Websleuths started a forum dedicated to a missing-persons case that was fascinating, despite its obscurity: A few days earlier, a young woman named Teresa Halbach had vanished after a work-related visit to Avery’s Auto Salvage, a sprawling junkyard in rural Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. Soon, the charred remains of Halbach, along with her abandoned car, were found on the property; eventually, one of the yard’s namesake workers, Steven Avery, would be arrested, tried, and convicted for Halbach’s murder, and sentenced to life in prison. “Too bad the death penalty wasn’t an option,” wrote one Websleuths user at the time, echoing the sentiment of many fellow online peers.

Nearly a decade later, though, a new Avery-obsessed thread appeared on the site—one that found many of its commenters notably more skeptical about his guilt. They discussed alternate theories, bemoaned what they saw as blatant abuses of power, and shared public-record court transcripts (some of which had been unearthed by a new and equally agitated Reddit forum) that they scoured for more info. Before long, there were about 1,200 comments on the thread—enough to necessitate a second thread, in which commenters grew even more incredulous about Avery’s case. “I am certain there was a conspiracy here,” one user noted. “Certain.”

EYESR_zps1dff9e53.gif

Wired

Comment: I am rather surprised that a technology reporter does not appear to know what a "thread" as opposed to a "forum" is. They also incorrectly cited the WM3, stating it was a case of 3 murdered teenagers, when, in fact, it was a case of a murdered little boy, and 3 teenagers, allegedly involved in Satanism, were charged, tried, and convicted. Outside of these rather glaring errors, the article is interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top