Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[Really?]

Was this after TH's disappearance? If I were in SA's shoes, I'd be worried about a frame job too, considering he'd just gotten out from under the previous one.

I hear a lot of people thinking along the same lines as you -- like maybe he thought he was untouchable or should get a freebie. Of course that's possible, but I don't see the evidence for it in Avery's actions or demeanor. He seemed elated when he was let out of jail and even talked a lot about forgiving those responsible for putting him away. He seemed sincere to me.

Ya, no motive. Why would he do this given that he spent all those years incarcerated.

Seems silly to think that he thought...."oh good....now I have a pass to do something and nobody will think it was me.
" heck...just because this will be her last stop, they owe me one"


Makes no sense to me....not at all.

 

[MaxManning]

lolol. Well, truth be told. I think Tricia started the site in response to the 1996 JonBenét Ramsey murder. I have no idea when she actually launched the site but I'm pretty sure it's been around for quite a long time.

Well, truth be told, it stung a bit reading the comment as it reminds me how old I am.

 

[MaxManning]

Well here's what I don't get: #1 says motive. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied based on no motive for 3rd parties in prong 1 - yet - what was SA's motive once you remove the sexual assault charges? The prosecution doesn't even have to provide a motive and they have the weight of the burden. The defendant has to show motive? OK - it could have been sexually motivated. But now prong #3 is the final limitation nail in the coffin: the defendant has to show that there is evidence linking the OTHER to the crime charged (murder and mutilation of corpse) which is not remote in time, place or circumstance. If you can't investigate the OTHER, you can't find any evidence.

So until the SCOTUS takes up a case on this - it's all over the place with the states.

Glad it's not just me reading it this way. To me it reads like law enforcement has the ability to remove a legitimate suspect, by just choosing not to investigate.

Shouldn't there be some mechanism in place for a defendant to demand investigation BEFORE going to trial and certainly before being convicted ? Every person on that junkyard property should have been scrutinized to the same degree as Avery.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why Avery is the #1 suspect. He was the reason TH was there. He was in contact with her multiple times that day.

But certainly the level of sketchiness at the junkyard was to a high enough degree that anyone could have been a prime suspect. The ex boyfriend, you should be investigating, just because you are supposed to do your job.

 

[khaki]

not sure if anyone's posted this yet,

Steven Avery has a new attorney.

The Law Firm of Kathleen T. Zellner and Associates, based in the Chicago area, announced they will be assuming the full and complete representation of Avery.

According to the firm's online bio, Zellner claims she has righted more wrongful convictions than any other private attorney in America.

Zellner's firm will be assisted by local Wisconsin counsel, Tricia Bushnell.

Bushnell is the legal director of the Midwest Innocence Project.


source: Zellner's Twitter and Fox11online.com

 

[TheDuchess]

not sure if anyone's posted this yet,

Steven Avery has a new attorney.

The Law Firm of Kathleen T. Zellner and Associates, based in the Chicago area, announced they will be assuming the full and complete representation of Avery.

According to the firm's online bio, Zellner claims she has righted more wrongful convictions than any other private attorney in America.

Zellner's firm will be assisted by local Wisconsin counsel, Tricia Bushnell.

Bushnell is the legal director of the Midwest Innocence Project.


source: Zellner's Twitter and Fox11online.com

That is AWESOME!!! Thanks for sharing!!!
:loveyou:

 

[stephsb]

Well here's what I don't get: #1 says motive. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied based on no motive for 3rd parties in prong 1 - yet - what was SA's motive once you remove the sexual assault charges? The prosecution doesn't even have to provide a motive and they have the weight of the burden. The defendant has to show motive? OK - it could have been sexually motivated. But now prong #3 is the final limitation nail in the coffin: the defendant has to show that there is evidence linking the OTHER to the crime charged (murder and mutilation of corpse) which is not remote in time, place or circumstance. If you can't investigate the OTHER, you can't find any evidence.

So until the SCOTUS takes up a case on this - it's all over the place with the states.

Their reasoning in providing motive is so that the defense can't point the finger and potentially damage the reputation of people who are not on trial themselves. I'm totally ok with the first two prongs in Denny but the third one is where I start to disagree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GigiG]

not sure if anyone's posted this yet,

Steven Avery has a new attorney.

The Law Firm of Kathleen T. Zellner and Associates, based in the Chicago area, announced they will be assuming the full and complete representation of Avery.

According to the firm's online bio, Zellner claims she has righted more wrongful convictions than any other private attorney in America.

Zellner's firm will be assisted by local Wisconsin counsel, Tricia Bushnell.

Bushnell is the legal director of the Midwest Innocence Project.


source: Zellner's Twitter and Fox11online.com

OMG, Kathleen Zellner is brilliant! She's the one who FINALLY succeeded in getting Ryan Ferguson's murder conviction overturned, setting him free after he'd served 10 years in prison.

https://www.facebook.com/FreedRyanFerguson/

 

[chaleigh26]

I posted this once before, but will post it again. The details surrounding how long it took to find the key as presented in the series are misleading: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...mation_on_the_searches_of_averys_trailer_and/

"The key was found on the sixth entry into the trailer, but it was only the second general search of the trailer after the first search was called off due to the rain and late hour. So it was technically found in the first 3.5 hours of searching for general physical evidence."

Calmut Deputy testified that both the book shelf and the spot on the floor, where the key was found, we're both searched before and the key wasn't there.

 

[stephsb]

Hi!
So I've been watching this too, I'm on episode 4. Some things really stand out to me about the corruption theory.
The Dassey interrogation was very hard to watch. I think they really did some leading to get him to agree to some of the things they believed happened. I know the body was found burned in a pit used for a bon fire. But could they tell she was shot in the head, her throat cut and sexually assaulted from the ME report? I mean did they go in there knowing her cause of death before Dassey agreed with the injuries? I'm trying to figure out if he actually gave any new information as opposed to just agreeing with the LE officers. Also, the bon fire the night of her disappearance. Any one who was involved in a conspiracy to frame SA must have known about that fire pit and its use. So someone who resides on the property sure would know but.. was SA under surveilience by LE? That could go a long way towards knowing what were the comings and goings on of the Avery family. Lastly the delay in finding the key with his dna on it really gets under my skin. The Dassey confession there was a point made about how SA was very sweaty when he answered the door (sweat was found on the key, to sort of drive that point home).

Pretty much everything in the Dassey confession is garbage, because he was just repeating information that was fed to him. They had no idea that her throat was cut and if she was sexually assaulted, that was information Brendan offered when pushed. As for the sweat, I believe that may have also been fed to him or he was pushed to give that kind of information, but I'll check his statements and make sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

Interesting that he has a new attorney and she is working with an attorney with the Midwest innocence project.

so uhmmm are they claiming he is innocent of the crime too? (isn't that what the Innocence projects are for?) I have actually been on the fence about this LOL I don't know if he did it, I don't know if he is innocent, but I do think that the investigation and trials were seriously flawed. Can't wait to see if this new attorney starts doing interviews in the media and will be interested to see what she says!

 

[stephsb]

Regarding the sweat mentioned in Brendan's statements, it does appear he mentions it himself in the 3/1 statement:

pg 569
F: You knock and he comes to to the door. What's he look like? Is he dressed, has he got anything on him, what's he look like?
B: He's got a white shirt on w. red shorts and all sweaty
F: He's all sweaty. Any blood, at this time?
B: No

However, he only gets to this point after the detectives reject his earlier descriptions of going to Steven's house, w. lots of "we know what happened, we need the truth, etc. etc. Here is earlier in the same interview:

pg 566
F: I think you went over to his house and then he asked him to get his mail something in here is missing
B: Well, when I got the mail there was like an envelope in it w. his name on it
F: Alright
W: OK, now we're going, so what did you do?
B: I knocked on the door and he answered it
W: Yeah, and then what
B: I gave it to him and then I left
W: Come on now. You just heard screaming over there
F: You're making this hard on yourself
W: Be honest. You went inside didn't you?

No mention of the sweat at that point. And then he never brings it up in the 5/13 interview w.o prompting:

pg 804
F: One question. When you went over at 4:00 Brendan, the first time you told us that Steven was kind of sweaty and stuff. Was he sweaty? Did he tell ya that he had already had sex w. her before you got there?
B: No
F: Was he sweaty?
B: Yeah
F: And did he tell you that he had already had sex w. her once and had just gotten done?
B: No

So the sweat coming from Brendan is not too convincing IMO (but then again, almost nothing that comes from him is)

 

[Sleuther87]

Calmut Deputy testified that both the book shelf and the spot on the floor, where the key was found, we're both searched before and the key wasn't there.

But how thoroughly did he actually search the bookshelf on the first time around. It'd be nice to see the transcripts.

 

[Aleph]

Well, truth be told, it stung a bit reading the comment as it reminds me how old I am.

Story of my life. I feel you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[katydid23]

Calmut Deputy testified that both the book shelf and the spot on the floor, where the key was found, we're both searched before and the key wasn't there.

But if you were a cop and you were going to place it there to be suddenly found, would you put it out in the open like that, right on the floor?

It seems possible to me that it fell from somewhere , like from under something else that was moved or something. I just think that if it were planted, it would not have been put right there like that, causing people to wonder why it was overlooked previously.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Regarding the sweat mentioned in Brendan's statements, it does appear he mentions it himself in the 3/1 statement:

pg 569
F: You knock and he comes to to the door. What's he look like? Is he dressed, has he got anything on him, what's he look like?
B: He's got a white shirt on w. red shorts and all sweaty
F: He's all sweaty. Any blood, at this time?
B: No

However, he only gets to this point after the detectives reject his earlier descriptions of going to Steven's house, w. lots of "we know what happened, we need the truth, etc. etc. Here is earlier in the same interview:

pg 566
F: I think you went over to his house and then he asked him to get his mail something in here is missing
B: Well, when I got the mail there was like an envelope in it w. his name on it
F: Alright
W: OK, now we're going, so what did you do?
B: I knocked on the door and he answered it
W: Yeah, and then what
B: I gave it to him and then I left
W: Come on now. You just heard screaming over there
F: You're making this hard on yourself
W: Be honest. You went inside didn't you?

No mention of the sweat at that point. And then he never brings it up in the 5/13 interview w.o prompting:

pg 804
F: One question. When you went over at 4:00 Brendan, the first time you told us that Steven was kind of sweaty and stuff. Was he sweaty? Did he tell ya that he had already had sex w. her before you got there?
B: No
F: Was he sweaty?
B: Yeah
F: And did he tell you that he had already had sex w. her once and had just gotten done?
B: No

So the sweat coming from Brendan is not too convincing IMO (but then again, almost nothing that comes from him is)

Its very convincing to me. He is the one who told them about Avery lifting the hood of TH's vehicle to take the cable off. That is why they checked under the hood of her car for any of his DNA, imo.

The interview with Brendan seems typical. I don't see them leading him in his answers.

To me Brendan is not smart enough to make all of this up and then the evidence matches what he said.

I also read today that Brendan also confessed to his own mother about what happened. He said Avery made him do what he did. He acted like he was very afraid of SA. Also when talking with his mom she mentioned Avery was always making Brendan do things. She didn't elaborate but it made me feel like it was things he really didn't want to do.

He also mentioned to her about Avery touching him inappropriately and she tells him if he had told her about it she would have made SA leave before all of this happened.

Has anyone put up that part of this conversation between him and his mom since it was word for word on the site I read it on.

It may have already been put up here but I am just starting to read today's post.

IMO

 

[chaleigh26]

But if you were a cop and you were going to place it there to be suddenly found, would you put it out in the open like that, right on the floor?

It seems possible to me that it fell from somewhere , like from under something else that was moved or something. I just think that if it were planted, it would not have been put right there like that, causing people to wonder why it was overlooked previously.

There was originally a pair of slippers in the place where the key was found, and it was Colborn that searched the book shelf. That says it all.

ETA: Colborn was suppose to be supervised at all times during the search, another officer testified that Colborn wasn't being watched during that time.

 

[stephsb]

Hi!
So I've been watching this too, I'm on episode 4. Some things really stand out to me about the corruption theory.
The Dassey interrogation was very hard to watch. I think they really did some leading to get him to agree to some of the things they believed happened. I know the body was found burned in a pit used for a bon fire. But could they tell she was shot in the head, her throat cut and sexually assaulted from the ME report? I mean did they go in there knowing her cause of death before Dassey agreed with the injuries? I'm trying to figure out if he actually gave any new information as opposed to just agreeing with the LE officers. Also, the bon fire the night of her disappearance. Any one who was involved in a conspiracy to frame SA must have known about that fire pit and its use. So someone who resides on the property sure would know but.. was SA under surveilience by LE? That could go a long way towards knowing what were the comings and goings on of the Avery family. Lastly the delay in finding the key with his dna on it really gets under my skin. The Dassey confession there was a point made about how SA was very sweaty when he answered the door (sweat was found on the key, to sort of drive that point home).

Also just wanted to add how they got to Dassey to bring up the sexual assault, throat being slit, and her being shot. They did know that a gun was the likely murder weapon, this interview w. Brendan happened months later. The gun and sexual assault are brought up by them first in the 2/27 interview at Mishicot:

pg 458-459
F: I can't believe that he wouldn't have told you how it happened and how did he kill her
(pause)
W: How do you know that?
B: Because....
W: I also heard that he told you how he did it, that's true isn't it?
B: Yeah
W: Tell me what he told you
B: ....car...the...jeep
W: What did he tell you he did in the jeep?
B: That he tied her up and stabbed her
W: Did he say anything about shooting her. Tell me again how he said he killed her
B: He said he tied her up and stabbed her

pg 461
F: Did he try to have sex w. her or anything and she said no
(pause)
W: Did he ever tell you that, it's very important, OK, cuz we had heard that he might have told you that
(pause)
W: No? Yes or no?
B: No

Here is where Brendan brings up the throat slitting in the 3/1 interview (clearly not the direction cops wanted him to go):

pg 585-587
F: What else was done to her head?
B: That he punched her
W: What else?
(pause)
W: What else?
F: He made you do something to her, didn't he? So he would feel better about not being the only person, right? Yeah.
F: What did he make you do to her?
(pause)
W: What did he make you do Brendan? It's OK, what did he make you do?
B: Cut her
W: Cut her where?
B: On her throat
W: Cut her throat, when did that happen?

F: Are you sure about that?
W: So Steven stabs her first and then you cut her neck? What else happens to her in her head?
F: It's extremely, extremely important you tell us this, for us to believe you
W: Come on Brendan, what else?
(pause)
F: We know, we just need you to tell us
B: That's all I can remember
W: All right, I'm just gonna come out and ask you. Who shot her in the head?
B: He did
F: Then why didn't you tell us that?
B: Cuz I couldn't think of it

Clearly apparent what they were trying to get when asking Brendan what happened to her in her head, but since Brendan had no idea, he had to guess a bunch of things until they finally told him the right answer. They get him to retract the throat cutting and punching in the 5/13 confession (because it didn't fit their story)

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Was this after TH's disappearance? If I were in SA's shoes, I'd be worried about a frame job too, considering he'd just gotten out from under the previous one.

I hear a lot of people thinking along the same lines as you -- like maybe he thought he was untouchable or should get a freebie. Of course that's possible, but I don't see the evidence for it in Avery's actions or demeanor. He seemed elated when he was let out of jail and even talked a lot about forgiving those responsible for putting him away. He seemed sincere to me.

Personally I think SA has the traits of a psychopath. Psychopaths will do whatever they feel entitled to do to get even when they feel they have been wronged. Many psychopaths are behavior deceivers because they are devoid of real emotions inside. They can pretend to be whatever they need to be at the time.

I think he did believe he was 10 feet tall and bullet proof after being exonerated and the lawsuit.

But I also think he seethed both in prison and out for being locked away for 18 years. He thought he was entitled to rape a young woman since he already served time for it. I also think he felt the police would be too fearful to arrest him again after what happened previously.

Once he had raped TH he knew he had to murder her in order to keep her mouth shut and that way he could say he was framed/innocent and the young woman he raped and murdered wouldn't ever be able to tell a soul what he did to her.

IMO

 

[stephsb]

Its very convincing to me. He is the one who told them about Avery lifting the hood of TH's vehicle to take the cable off. That is why they checked under the hood of her car for any of his DNA, imo.

The interview with Brendan seems typical. I don't see them leading him in his answers.

To me Brendan is not smart enough to make all of this up and then the evidence matches what he said.

I also read today that Brendan also confessed to his own mother about what happened. He said Avery made him do what he did. He acted like he was very afraid of SA. Also when talking with his mom she mentioned Avery was always making Brendan doing things. She didn't elaborate but it made me feel like it was things he really didn't want to do.

He also mentioned to her about Avery touching him inappropriately and she tells him if he had told her about it she would have made SA leave before all of this happened.

Has anyone put up that part of this conversation between him and his mom since it was word for word on the site I read it on.

It may have already been put up here but I am just starting to read today's post.

IMO

They would have already known about the DNA on the hood as Brendan was interviewed months after they found the vehicle and checked it for evidence. Brendan does not bring up the car hood on his own. It is introduced by investigators in the 3/1 interview:

pg 603
F: Go back, I wanna back ya up just a bit, you're down at the car, and you're hiding the car, right? Do you recall him taking the plates off?
B: Yeah
F: Ok, what else did he do, he did something else, you need to tell us what he did, after the car is parked there. It's extremely important
(pause)
F: Before you guys leave that car
B: That he left the gun in the car
F: That's not what I'm thinking about. He did something to that car. He took the plates and he, I believe he did something else in that car.
(pause)
B: I don't know
F: OK. Did he, did he go back and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to that car?
B: Yeah
F: What was that?
(pause)
W: What did he do Brendan?
W: It's ok, what did he do?
F: What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did?
(pause)
B: I don't know what he did, but I know he went under
F: He did raise the hood? You remember that?
B: Yeah

You're right, Brendan clearly wasn't smart enough to make up this story by himself, that's why the investigators did it for him, as shown above. Brendan is not only a juvenile, but a juvenile w. a low IQ- two of the populations most susceptible to giving false confession. If investigators wanted to do this correctly, and get actual information from him, they should have been careful not to hint at the answers they want. Not only do they hint, they blatantly tell him when he gives them information that they don't like, and push until they get what they want. They did the same thing when getting him to confess that the .22 was used. They ask him multiple times in both 2/27 interviews, was Teresa shot, did he mention a gun, and Brendan answers no. So in the 3/1 interview, they push harder. They ask what happened to Teresa's head- Brendan tries his hardest to give them the answer they want, saying that she was stabbed, choked, her hair was cut, punched, throat slit, and finally Wiegert just comes out and tells him she was shot, and surprise- he remembers now that that is what happened! This interviews would be laughable if they didnt result in a 16 year old learning disabled child going to prison for a first degree murder he knew nothing about.

 

[rocket_girl]

Yes I would believe the BD testimony more if it had been earlier in the investigation.

i assume all of the evidence used in SA Criminal complaint would have been in the media. Therefore I could see kids at school asking BD "Did you see her burn, we know you were at the fire" etc... He also would have been exposed to countless other rumours, theories, and questions from family/friends over the months prior to his confession. Then his own attorney's investogator "prepares" him before the final most detailed "confession."