Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

Discussion in 'Netflix Series: Making A Murderer' started by CarmelEyesD, Dec 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for posting this, I am going to listen to brendan's interview to get an idea of when things got mentioned to him BEFORE he said them.

    Also, just wanted to float a potential theory as to why Avery might have went under hood, but am open to other suggestions as this is just throwing something out there, nothing I feel strongly about. Is it possible that Avery opened the hood to disconnect the battery ? Reason might be that you wouldn't want the car alarm to go off in the case that something bumped the car ? Or in case the vehicle had some kind of onStar gps tracking mechanism ? I don't know enough about that kind of thing to know if either makes sense just theorizing that something that required the battery would be the motivation for disconnecting it.

    Or might that be some kind of normal protocol in the junkyard for some reason ? Anyone know ?

    Another thought about this, is that it is also a reason why someone might take their gloves off. I myself have done this in the winter when opening the hood of a car/truck, to find that often hard to find lever that pops it up.
     


  2. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I understand why the defense would not want this person to testify. But why would the prosecution object ? Maybe the timeline ?

    It seems that the prosecution wanted the timeline to be earlier than what the bus driver was specifying she saw halbach taking pictures of the van. I am not clear on exactly why. But can anyone else think of any reason why the prosecution would not want this witness on the stand ? This, like the bus driver , are likely the most reliable witnesses you can have to create a timeline as their jobs are all about time. A dispatcher has to schedule time/people to get someone to a given location at a given time. Plus both of those witnesses are not someone on the property with a potential reason to be deceitful. Worth noting that the prosecution didn't call the bus driver, as mentioned in the documentary, the defense did.

    The defense of course didn't want dispatcher called because she could have mentioned unfavorable information about Avery including that he requested Halbach specifically.
     
  3. Tukker

    Tukker New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think any time you are taking the word of Brendan Dassey and using it to find evidence months/years after the fact you have a pretty compelling reason to believe that it might be planted. They lead that kid to say anything they wanted and then followed up with "magical" findings after he said what he was coerced into saying. Not saying Avery or Dassey are innocent - that might not be the case at all - but I am suggesting that anything Brendan Dassey says should be thrown out imo based on how those interviews were conducted and how often he contradicts the evidence and himself during multiple interviews. The information was not gathered in an ethical manner and the source is not a reliable source (multiple conflicting confessions of the incident that contradict evidence and previous interviews).
     
  4. nathansmart

    nathansmart New Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's my take exactly. I can't remember the documentary details enough to be sure, but it just seems like they created this theory, fed it to Dassey and then said, "See? We told you!" The restraints were an example of this for me. They found them and decided that Teresa was probably kept in them (did they find any of her DNA on them? or were they burned in the fire? I can't seem to remember much except Avery saying he bought them to try something new with his girlfriend) and then led Dassey to "confess" to that bit of detail.
     
  5. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agreed. Many of us agree with all you have said.

    But Barb Janda is the one that noted Brendan said she was helping Steve Avery clean his garage floor that night. That is really the only thing that Dassey said that I am taking as truth, because he said it to his mother, not police.

    But what some of us are at least entertaining, is the idea that even if police are corrupt and maybe planted evidence to fill in holes in their narrative, Avery could still be guilty. The two are not mutually exclusive. The crime doesn't have to happen the way dassey stated via coercion or police believe in order for Avery to be guilty.

    I am just unsure about certain details, and looking for clarification and understanding. We have already seen on this thread a pile of details not mentioned in documentary that make me question both the prosecution and the defense's narrative. Some things that I believe are more important than anything we saw in the documentary -- such as what barb janda said about brendan's pants and how they got bleached.
     
  6. Marah

    Marah Active Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Does anyone know the following things:

    When were the casings in the garage found?

    Which day were the bones found?

    Does the state have the jeans with bleach on them or a pic of them?

    Have any of the brothers or nephews been in trouble with the law since?
     
  7. Ringfinger

    Ringfinger New Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If two bones were found at a remote spot relatively far away (the quarry) is it possible her body was there first and moved to his pit to implicate him? It's particularly odd that there were pieces sort of sprinkled here and there in his yard.
     
  8. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is a high level timeline for Avery, including prior conviction and things leading up to the murder.

    http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2015/12/22/steven-avery-case-timeline/77742664/

    This probable cause doc has details about when things were found - http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/courtdocs/complaint-02Mar2006.pdf

    Transcripts to the documentary episodes if you want to search for information based on keywords - http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewforum.php?f=524

    Bones were found on 11/5/2005, by Avery's trailer and then more bones found on 11/8/2005 at a fire pit 20 yards south of avery's trailer. I believe that was near the Janda residence.(not sure)

    On 3/2/2006 the bullet with DNA and some casings were found. This information I get from the documentary and was testimony at the trial. Doesn't specify how many casings were found at that time.

    It also notes in that probable cause document that 11 casings were also found on 11/6/2005.

    The state confiscated the jeans with bleach on them on 3/1/2006 - from the probable cause document. My question is how many times could they have been washed in 5 months ?? shoddy work by police as they could have asked Barb Janda the question back in 11/2005 and obtained possibly unwashed jeans. We know this because the day avery was arrested, Tadych told co-worker that one of his sons had blood on jeans that got mixed in with his laundry. -- That is in this Avery appeal doc on page 24 - http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

    I have looked for avery family/relatives with crimes since , but wasn't able to find anything.

    If you haven't read the appeal docs, you should. They have quite a bit of interesting information about the sketchy people on that property. It's not just Avery's theories, it's actual police information collected via interviews of people in the area.

    http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery documents 1-22.pdf
    http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf
     
  9. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep, it's very possible. It would be a theory that would implicate tadych ,Bobby, earl, or chuck. Read those appeal docs and you'll see they are all very sketchy characters who would all understand that the police would love to convict avery. All seemingly having bad things to say about avery.

    The Dassey confessions had police trying to explain this by Avery telling dassey he was going to or had buried bones in different locations on the property. When I watch the full confession, I'll know better if that was something he mentioned or if police fed that information to him. I do think the bones being in multiple locations is a very important detail.

    The shame about the trial is that the defense was not able to question tadych or bobby or earl or chuck about that burn barrel and introduce them as suspects. They could introduce who lived where as a means of identifying the area, but they couldn't come out and say -- "Hey, do you have any idea how those bones got in the fire pit outside your residence ?" Which I think is really unfair. The judge/prosecution were not going to let the defense pose the idea of other people as suspects. The only thing the defense seemed to be able to do, is to expose jury to details about scott/bobby in regards to timeline etc and hope the jury goes.... "wait a minute".

    Which likely happened since anyone watching the documentary likely was curious about why some bone fragments were there and who lived there - and that information was available, just not someone telling them a theory about it that would directly link them.
     
  10. Juan23

    Juan23 Member

    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    In the last episode Steven Avery's mom is driving around a golf cart. Not sure if it the same one though.
     
  11. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you read those appeal docs, it describes the cart being used by earl often. However anyone on that property could have used it. In brendan interviews, he says him and avery were driving around picking up garbage for the fire. Whether that was police trying to establish avery used the golf cart via brendans confession, i don't know. But the appeal doc clearly states that earl and robert fabian were riding around the property on that golf cart the day of the murder.

    I am going to assume that anyone could have used it. I also would assume that it wouldn't be unlikely that there is DNA from all of them on that cart if it was often used. The cadaver dog hit, could mean either that the body or cremains were moved with that cart, or it could mean that anyone's blood was on that cart. It didn't have to be halbach's blood/cremains.

    I think it's most likely that if the cadaver hit was in respect to halbach, it was her cremains that were being moved, not her body. Just my opinion as we know that it's likely bone fragments were moved, so that would be a convenient vehicle to do something of that nature. Maybe even put a barrel on it ?
     
  12. nathansmart

    nathansmart New Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did a quick look up for cadaver dogs and it just took me to the police dog page on Wikipedia. Are cadaver dogs a special kind of K-9 that can sniff dead bodies? If it was just sniffing for Teresa, isn't it possible that she had ridden with Avery plenty of times while taking photos of different cars?

    I am just really reaching here because I don't remember much about the cadaver dog info.
     
  13. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Watching the first confession video - 2/27/06

    [video=youtube;drwb15E_taM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drwb15E_taM[/video]

    Does anyone know if they talked to Brendan before this ? Because clearly he is giving details that weren't fed to him at this point, at least not in this video.

    He talks about seeing body parts in the fire and he is talking far more clearly than in the videos I saw in the documentary that were AFTER this video in early march of 2006.

    So at the moment, I can't really say that he was fed details at all. The audio on this video is cutting out, but it doesn't seem to be possible that they could be giving him details in those dead spots because the conversation seems normal.

    Starting to get the feeling that we were fed parts of the tape where they tried to get Brendan to be more specific about how the murder happened.

    Starting to think that Brendan's first version of the story is the real story, because he mentions the body parts in the fire at steve's trailer.

    Going to continue watching, but unless there is an earlier video/interrogation where they feed him all this, I'm starting to feel like the documentary manipulated this aspect. I don't recall seeing this clip in the documentary, but I will check.

    Edit - He also says that steven noticed that brendan recognized the body parts and at that point told him not to tell anyone and that he threatened him. Audio cuts out at key moments of the video where he is answering about what Steven said. If there is not a version without these audio cutouts, I'd like to understand why ? Going to look for a transcript to this confession. The transcript I have is from an interview on 5/13/06 and there is blatant bullying of brendan imo.

    Brendan says he drove the body there to the pit - matching what I had theorized was plausible if the murder occurred in the garage where the vehicle was likely hidden at the time.

    It's very hard to make out what brendan is saying, a transcript is needed. But it sounds like he is talking about the murder taking place in a wooded area ?

    I want to note that this video is NOTHING like the other videos, as they are just letting him talk. They aren't suggesting anything that I can tell. Let me know what you think.

    Knowing if there is an earlier interview and it's contents is incredibly important now. Because my opinion is that he is NOT being coerced here.

    Ok at 3:34:50 they ask him for detail about a "sled" , which is what I couldn't understand/hear what brendan said earlier , but it did sound like he said sled - but I just haven't heard that mentioned before. So brendan is saying that the murder occurred in the woods - according to steve and that he brought her to the fire via the sled. So that would mean he potentially drove the Rav4 with her body to the place it was found, and at that point put her on a sled.

    It's obvious now why the police didn't like this explanation as it doesn't fit with garage being the murder location. So coercing brendan to say it happened in the trailer and/or garage would allow them to potentially plant evidence if you believe that theory.

    This explanation also doesn't rule out that brendan and steven used bleach to potentially clean the floor in his garage , maybe just minimal amounts of blood that might have been on a knife and dripped or from steven. -- just theorizing here, but it makes the cleanup a much smaller job if this was the way it happened.

    audio cuts out at a portion where they ask him why steven did this. All that we hear is that steven was angry. Brendan says he did not tell him why.

    Brendan says that they threw bloody clothes on the fire. he says a blue shirt and jeans. I have not heard them say anything about how she was dressed. Brendan could have known this from seeing her when he got home, but he is talking rather naturally here and says there was a hole in the shirt. It's unclear to me if the hole in the shirt was fed to him, because of the audio dropout when he first described the clothes. It would have made sense if he did say that detail, so I'd want to confirm that via transcript. If the transcript doesn't show he first mentioned it, then the hole in the shirt is the first thing I noticed that seemed to be fed to him.

    Next they ask him about how it has affected him. He clearly says that he has been sad for a few months, and that he couldn't believe steven had done it. I don't hear any coercion here.

    He states that he didn't help put the body on the fire or anything else.

    they ask for clarification on where he stabbed teresa and he said in the jeep.

    They ask him if he knows what sexual assault is, and he says yes. But he says that steven didn't say anything about that.

    They ask for more detail on the shirt. He say button up I think.

    I'm still not hearing any coercion. They are letting him talk.

    He says he didn't see camera or phone in the fire. So here's another detail that leads me to believe that they later wanted to have brendan say he saw the camera and phone in the burn barrel, likely where they were found. He doesn't mention that in this interview so far. So, I am prone to believe he didn't see those items in the burn barrel. The reason they'd want him to say he say them, is so they could put a timestamp on when the murder likely began. They want that to be as early as possible it seems. I don't recall when he says he is at the bonfire and sees these body parts, I will go back and check after I get through this. But I would imagine it is night time. So that means Brendan wouldn't have even known about the body until the evening. So using him for any of the murder timeline would be useless. That would be where the coercion would begin in future talks.

    Brendan states he was at the fire for about 2 hours. - i will have to go back and get an idea of the time he got there to nail the time frame down.

    They ask why he didn't tell anyone. He says he was scared that they might believe that he helped.

    Have to say all of this is very convincing, unlike the videos I saw in the documentary. He is not pausing for periods of time as if he is thinking about what to say, this feels far more natural as if he is just answering questions. I am not hearing coercion. He is doing a majority of the talking.

    He says that steven drove the truck past chuckies house, not sure exactly where that is. Also not clear if steven told him this or if brendan is just saying thats how it would have gotten from the pit to the place it was found.

    He again answers that the steven stabbed her in the jeep. so he is consistent on everything to this point, I have not heard him say anything inconsistent to this point. I am assuming that is what they are doing now, is asking him the same questions to test if he is consistent as well as see if it brings out new details. -- but I don't hear any feeding of details. It's all coming from brendan

    they again ask how he got her from the jeep to fire pit - again brendan says the sled. consistent again.

    They ask if steven mentioned the path he took to get her from the jeep to the firepit. He says no.

    They ask him if there is any doubt in his mind that what he saw in the fire was her body. Audio cuts out and he talks softly, but based on them not questioning further I am assuming he said he is sure. Will have to check transcript, but seems likely he just agreed.

    They ask about if steve said anything to him since then, he seems to say no - audio cutout.

    Brendan says he doesn't know who's knife it was and wasn't told.

    Investigators leave the room and to this point as I said, they have been very nice to him and i don't notice any coercion whatsoever.

    Brendan says he helped steve put a silver/grey suziki in the garage. Haven't heard this vehicle mentioned before. Anyone ?

    They ask him about steven's girlfriend jodi and if steven mentioned anything about her related to this. He says no.

    something I can understand is asked about the golf cart, and brendan just says that it's his mother's golf cart. (barb janda)

    Now they go to clarify how he got her from the pit to the fire. and audio cuts out, can't hear the response.

    They ask about where steven got the rope that he tied her up with, and he says he doesn't. He says he didn't see rope on her in the fire or where the rope came from. I can't say I heard brendan ever mention anything about rope, so this is them giving him that detail. But he says he didn't see it. It is possible that in the audio cutouts that he might have mentioned that steven said he had her tied up. Because he did say that Steven told him about her being killed in the Rav4 and having had her in the woods - might have said she was tied up? audio cutout (damn)

    They ask if he saw teresa wrapped up in anything at anytime. He says no. I think they were testing to see if he had seen her BEFORE he saw the body in the fire. So , I tend to believe what he said here and that he first sees her in that fire.

    Brendan says that he stayed at fire till 10:30 - so based on his 2 hour statement earlier - 8:30-10:30 was when he as there.

    He talks about steve saying he was going to continue burning and then fill it in and the create a new fire pit. Seems like he is saying that maybe that's what you do when you are done burning ? not sure. But I think they were asking to find out if steven told him about anything in regards to getting rid of any remaining bones.

    They ask if he thought chuckie might have saw something ? Brendan says probably because chuckie came down there or something and audio cuts out.

    Brendan says he did see chuckie and steven talk, i think by chuckies truck. But didn't know what they talked about. He never asked chuckie about the conversation and chuckie never told him anything about their conversation. He says he never told chuckie about any of this.

    They ask him about the next day and maybe that is when he saw chuckie and steven talking, not sure. But he says they were in the garage working on another car - Monte Carlo ? he says monty. Detectives question him about him saying it was the suzuki in there but he clarifies this was the next day and the suzuki was probably not in the garage at that time.

    They ask about the any cuts he noticed on steve. He says a cut on the left arm that steven told him came from glass somewhere in the yard.

    They ask if steven had told him about being injured anywhere in the process of killing teresa. The audio cuts out, but you can see brendan motioning to his hand around the knuckles about where Steve had his cut on his hand. He says that the scratch came from teresa's fingernail. He is very clear that Steven told him that. they ask for clarification, audio cutout :/ but it appears he confirmed what he said based on body language.

    Now they ask about if steven said there was a struggle. He said, yes and that when steven was trying to tie her up that she struggled and that's when the scratch occurred. So it sounds like Brendan was aware of the rope. That likely got mentioned earlier in a audio cutout. Will check transcript, but it doesn't seem as if this is new territory that brendan knew there was rope.

    They ask again why he didn't go to police. He says again he was scared. And says something else I can't make out.

    They ask if Steven got out on bond tomorrow would he be scared ? he says yes. Because he would probably try to kill him or something.

    If you haven't watched this video, please watch. Because these guys are not coercing him, and suggesting things, brendan said that he was afraid steven would kill him. That wasn't a cop asking "Because he would kill you ?" -- that's very important detail imo.

    They ask why he would think that and he says because steven told him not to say anything.

    They ask if he has had trouble sleeping at night and he replies "sort of" and they ask why and he says because he's trying to figure out why steven would have done that.


    Anyone who has seen the documentary, you need to watch this first video. Decide for yourself if you believe he was coerced. Even with the cutouts, I have to admit I have great sympathy for Brendan knowing what happened from here. But, if this is the first interview with brandon, I am going to say that I believe every word and that Avery is guilty.

    jmo

    I would also say that I think the police are scum for what happens from here. They all deserve to be put in a jail cell right besides avery. I feel so bad for this kid now.

    I will look for transcript and watch the other videos to see if my opinion changes, but right now... I don't buy that anything in this video was coerced. your thoughts ?

    Sorry for the long post, but I am sure many wouldn't enjoy going through and watching all that with the audio cutouts etc, and if we can't find a transcript this is at least a good summary of what was said, so you can refer to it to find info in the video.
     
  14. canadianwhitedove

    canadianwhitedove New Member

    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some info to help understand about DNA evidence left after cleaning up with Bleach.

    I have been doing some research for a book I am planning on writing (crime drama) and there are a few things I found out about bleach. First there are two kinds of bleaches that are found in homes. The most common one is Chlorine bleach while Oxygen bleach is becoming trendy.

    Chlorine bleaches are the most commonly found because it is cheaper thus purchased in larger quantities while Oxygen bleach is more expensive.
    While both are used to remove stains, Chlorine bleach leaves hemoglobin behind which will be shown present when Luminol or Phenophthalein is used to detect evidence of blood in a crime scene.

    Now Oxygen Bleach (hydrogen peroxide) will remove all traces of Hemoglobin and make it almost impossible to detect any blood traces unless splatter was missed.
    Now here the catch/ big difference between the two. Chlorine bleaches will remove dye from fabrics (leaving white blotches) while Oxygen bleach in 99% of the time will not remove any dye from fabric but many times there is still the original stain but faded depending on fabric types.

    So with this understanding if Chlorine bleach was used then Hemoglobin would certainly be found at a crime scene and fabric would be marred by the bleach but if Oxygen bleach was used there would be no blood evidence and most fabrics would be marred with a faded original stain.

    From my understanding, someone could use hydrogen peroxide to remove the hemoglobin then bleach out the stain or visa versa. Yet there are problems I see first, this bleach information not common knowledge and someone would have to research the details; Second it would be very expensive to use hydrogen peroxide type (oxygen) bleaches to clean large amounts of blood; Third it would be very time consuming to do both.

    I hope this helps and here is a link that may help explain it better. http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/detecting-evidence-after-bleaching.html
     
  15. canadianwhitedove

    canadianwhitedove New Member

    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    His first interrogation was at the School before this one. I read the transcript of that one and the investigators do suggest alot of things that he mimics back. I did not save it but I will try to find the link.
     
  16. canadianwhitedove

    canadianwhitedove New Member

    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. canadianwhitedove

    canadianwhitedove New Member

    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is very hard to clean up blood evidence. Chlorine Bleach does not get rid of Hemoglobin so there would still be DNA evidence that could be found. Where as Hydrogen peroxide cleaning products would get rid of Hemoglobin they do not get rid of blood stains but will fade the stains. http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/detecting-evidence-after-bleaching.html

    Plus blood splatter would be hard to clean all up.

    I am not saying he is innocent or guilty but I do not believe she was killed in the trailer or Garage it would be to hard to clean blood splatter and leave no DNA trace. Especially in the way he was not the best house cleaner and the trailer was not very clean when they investigated/searched as the police video shows. As well the garage was to clutter to get all blood splatter.
    JMHO
     
  18. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for this! Ok, so we can assume that if Barb's statement was true, then chlorine bleach was used.

    Now what about paint thinner and gasoline ? Those are mentioned as well. Brendan doesn't mention them, he just answers his mother's question in relation to the bleach stains on his pants.

    Would paint thinner or gasoline destroy DNA ?
     
  19. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks so much for these!

    I will check out the high school one, which was on the same day it seems ? So they likely talked to him at school then wen to the police department ?
     
  20. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I read through the first interview and I'll say that I need to think about it and read over it a few times to look for details.

    My first impression is that I can see why the detectives need to be assertive and talk about the subject in a casual way, so that brendan feels comfortable saying anything. Saying that they already know certain things didn't come across as a threat to me, but more as a means of making him comfortable.

    I can understand that any kid might be cautious about saying anything at all, if they knew something like this.

    There are a few things I want to read over again, but overall, I don't think they fed him anything to repeat. I think they did some borderline coercion at times, but I am weighing that with whether that was more about making him feel comfortable enough to feel he could say something. He wasn't coming out and saying "I didn't see anything" -that's important to note.

    How do you all feel about this ?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice