Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr Who

New Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I would like to see the tower ping data from Ms.Halbachs ex-boyfriend around the time of her disappearance. All cellphones are equipped with gps to aid rescue workers in the event that 911 is dialed on the phone. A phone can be hacked to reveal its gps location. Ryan Hillegas admits to hacking her phone, but he doesn't admit he accessed her gps data. Im convinced he knew her location that day. Two days later he directs the person that ultimately finds Ms.Halbachs suv, even making sure that she is supplied with a camera.


I cant substantiate the validity currently, but according to reports on reddit, Ryan Hillegas has been accused of stalking one of his co-workers at some point.
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
Evidence, as well as timeline. From what Im seeing, his first interrogation was 4 months after Mr.Avery was charged with Ms. Halbachs murder. Undoubtedly he was being fed ideas from media, and likely even family(possibly his brother, and step-dad?) for months before his confession. The documentary points out that the only detail that he couldn't have known was that Ms.Halbach was shot in the head. Then we get to witness him receiving that information for the first time from the officers that interrogated him. Of which he immediately admits to in order to please the interrogating officers.

I don't find him knowing about the head shot at all convincing. Because they asked him numerous times about the head and were fishing.

I myself have pointed details like this out. Also about the family possibly influencing him months before the confession - check my posts in the last few days if you don't believe me.

I am open to exploring it all. I find it odd that those who seemingly have their minds up in a case with a lack of investigation are suggesting I have jumped on a bandwagon. ironic.
 

dexter75

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
2,209
Reaction score
54
I get this, I'm open minded as well.;)
I always thought the Barb said they cleaned the garage floor was " hearsay" not evidence?
Well, that's part of the issue. I don't trust the prosecution's timeline. I don't even know for sure if Avery did it.

Chuck, Earl, Scott Tadych... all out there as potentially involved.

But have you watched these interviews in full ? I have, and you say there is no evidence, but there is.

Barb Janda said she saw bleach on his pants, asked him about it, and he said he was helping steve clean the garage floor that night. -- that's called evidence.

Kayla mentioned that Brendan had been crying, which he admits in the interviews. She mentions body parts. She recants at trial, but aren't recants kind of suspicious as well ? that's called evidence.

Tadych was noted by coworker that there was blood on one of his son's pants and got mixed in with his laundry. - that's evidence

All evidence not from police, but from his own family members. right ?

That's not fabrication.

What I ask from you, is to not jump on the other bandwagon and close your eyes to evidence that doesn't align with your viewpoint. I am doing that, and I encourage you to do the same and be objective.


Physical evidence. You are correct, nothing ties brandon to those bones or any murder. I get that. But if you think that no one has ever been convicted without phsyical evidence or no one has ever been guilty with a complete lack of physical evidence found - you'd better do some research and realize that's not at all the case.

You saying "Dassey confession is unarguably fabricated" means zero to me, and it should mean zero to someone with an open mind. Come back with some reasons as to why the confession is fabricated -- like what I am openly asking for when I say I am ignorant in regards to coercion tactics.

Again, not looking to argue here, I am open to it all. But what you said, means zero to me. It's nothing that I can even evaluate except that it's your opinion.

I say this all respectfully, not looking to argue, so lets not.
 

Dr Who

New Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Well, that's part of the issue. I don't trust the prosecution's timeline. I don't even know for sure if Avery did it.

Chuck, Earl, Scott Tadych... all out there as potentially involved.

But have you watched these interviews in full ? I have, and you say there is no evidence, but there is.

Barb Janda said she saw bleach on his pants, asked him about it, and he said he was helping steve clean the garage floor that night. -- that's called evidence.

Kayla mentioned that Brendan had been crying, which he admits in the interviews. She mentions body parts. She recants at trial, but aren't recants kind of suspicious as well ? that's called evidence.

Tadych was noted by coworker that there was blood on one of his son's pants and got mixed in with his laundry. - that's evidence

All evidence not from police, but from his own family members. right ?

That's not fabrication.

What I ask from you, is to not jump on the other bandwagon and close your eyes to evidence that doesn't align with your viewpoint. I am doing that, and I encourage you to do the same and be objective.


Physical evidence. You are correct, nothing ties brandon to those bones or any murder. I get that. But if you think that no one has ever been convicted without phsyical evidence or no one has ever been guilty with a complete lack of physical evidence found - you'd better do some research and realize that's not at all the case.

You saying "Dassey confession is unarguably fabricated" means zero to me, and it should mean zero to someone with an open mind. Come back with some reasons as to why the confession is fabricated -- like what I am openly asking for when I say I am ignorant in regards to coercion tactics.

Again, not looking to argue here, I am open to it all. But what you said, means zero to me. It's nothing that I can even evaluate except that it's your opinion.

I say this all respectfully, not looking to argue, so lets not.
Would it be possible for you to share proof of what you are posting? Im not looking to argue either. Im basing my comments on the information that I have.
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
I would like to see the tower ping data from Ms.Halbachs ex-boyfriend around the time of her disappearance. All cellphones are equipped with gps to aid rescue workers in the event that 911 is dialed on the phone. A phone can be hacked to reveal its gps location. Ryan Hillegas admits to hacking her phone, but he doesn't admit he accessed her gps data. Im convinced he knew her location that day. Two days later he directs the person that ultimately finds Ms.Halbachs suv, even making sure that she is supplied with a camera.


I cant substantiate the validity currently, but according to reports on reddit, Ryan Hillegas has been accused of stalking one of his co-workers at some point.

I agree. There are many people that needed to be investigated.

ex boyfriend
roommate who didn't report her missing till 4 days later
chuck and earl and scott and bobby who all had same access to property as steven. - some with motive and means to frame him, if we are honest.

none had alibis except scott and bobby who alibi'd each other.

Yes... I agree and have said more than a few times that it's absurd to think they were never properly investigated.

But again, I am pointing to Barb Janda , Kayla, Brendan and that whole situation with the bleached pants. Yes, it's suspicious. Doesn't mean brendan killed anyone, but somewhere between him being a rapist/murderer and him possibly helping clean up after a murder are potential things one investigating a crime should be evaluating - along with everything else.
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
Would it be possible for you to share proof of what you are posting? Im not looking to argue either. Im basing my comments on the information that I have.

Have you read the avery appeal doc ?

Have you read the probable cause doc for brendan's arrest ?

Have you read the transcripts for the interviews of brendan and watched the videos ?

They are all on this thread, and I can post them again if you want.

Also, several people on this thread have been discussing details like cadaver dogs, bleach, and other cursory topics.

I don't feel as if any of us are bandwagoning , but questioning everyone's actions/words etc. Yes, even avery and brendan.
 

Dr Who

New Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Well bleach will destroy DNA, but it will not destroy the iron found in blood. Luminal will detect the iron in blood found at a crime scene despite any bleaching. Ill have to look, but Im fairly certain there is a scene in the doc that shows the garage being applied with Luminal and examined under a black light.
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
Avery appeal docs :
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery documents 1-22.pdf
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

Dassey probable cause doc :
http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/courtdocs/complaint-02Mar2006.pdf

Dassey interview/confession transcripts :

http://docdro.id/2KmgtSR - 2/27/2006 at his school
http://docdro.id/80khPqQ - 2/27/2006 later at the police dept.
here are the later interviews - which I believe we saw mostly in the documentary :
March 1, 2006: http://docdro.id/nNl5HMA
March 1, 2006: http://docdro.id/ZSo3Oc1
May 13, 2006: http://docdro.id/rRe12qJ

Youtube videos of those interviews :
https://www.youtube.com/user/imAbNorMalsometime/videos

Transcripts to the Making a Murderer documentary :
http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewforum.php?f=524

Article about the avery case with some information like WHO let the ladies who found the halbach suv into the junkyard -- Earl!
http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/ (some other things in there like earl quoted as saying when he was 14 or 15 years old Steve Avery wanted him to have sex with his wife while he was in prison.)

These are mostly links from others on this thread, I cannot take credit for finding them, but am thankful that they did!




 

Dr Who

New Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Have you read the avery appeal doc ?

Have you read the probable cause doc for brendan's arrest ?

Have you read the transcripts for the interviews of brendan and watched the videos ?

They are all on this thread, and I can post them again if you want.

Also, several people on this thread have been discussing details like cadaver dogs, bleach, and other cursory topics.

I don't feel as if any of us are bandwagoning , but questioning everyone's actions/words etc. Yes, even avery and brendan.
Umm, from this source?
http://www.convolutedbrian.com/
 

Dr Who

New Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Avery appeal docs :
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery documents 1-22.pdf
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

Dassey probable cause doc :
http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/courtdocs/complaint-02Mar2006.pdf

Dassey interview/confession transcripts :

http://docdro.id/2KmgtSR - 2/27/2006 at his school
http://docdro.id/80khPqQ - 2/27/2006 later at the police dept.
here are the later interviews - which I believe we saw mostly in the documentary :
March 1, 2006: http://docdro.id/nNl5HMA
March 1, 2006: http://docdro.id/ZSo3Oc1
May 13, 2006: http://docdro.id/rRe12qJ

Youtube videos of those interviews :
https://www.youtube.com/user/imAbNorMalsometime/videos

Transcripts to the Making a Murderer documentary :
http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewforum.php?f=524

Article about the avery case with some information like WHO let the ladies who found the halbach suv into the junkyard -- Earl!
http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/ (some other things in there like earl quoted as saying when he was 14 or 15 years old Steve Avery wanted him to have sex with his wife while he was in prison.)

These are mostly links from others on this thread, I cannot take credit for finding them, but am thankful that they did!




Thanks for posting. I haven't read these documents yet. You gave me something to do :happydance:
 

Dr Who

New Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Have you read the avery appeal doc ?

Have you read the probable cause doc for brendan's arrest ?

Have you read the transcripts for the interviews of brendan and watched the videos ?

They are all on this thread, and I can post them again if you want.

Also, several people on this thread have been discussing details like cadaver dogs, bleach, and other cursory topics.

I don't feel as if any of us are bandwagoning , but questioning everyone's actions/words etc. Yes, even avery and brendan.
You may have already seen this, but if not you might find it interesting.
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
Max- A leading question is one in which suggests the answer in the question. They usually involve "yes" or "no" answers and can only be asked in court during cross-examination. During the direct examination, they are objected to. Leading questions are discouraged in interviewing and investigation because they are more likely to lead the suspect to give false information or the answer they believe the investigator is looking for, especially in someone like Dassey.

For example, immediately proceeding the question "Did you see her body in the fire" they state "We believe Teresa's body was burned in that fire", which leads one to believe a body was burned in the fire, is the answer they were looking for.

In the second transcript, notice that he never mentions the body in the fire until they suggest it. He mentions the cabinet (which he mentioned earlier) but won't mention the body until they ask about it specifically. When they ask him specifically to describe what parts he saw, he states the stomach, and when asks how he knew that, he says "it looked flat" but then later mentions Steven told him he stabbed Teresa in the stomach. If he had actually seen her stomach, it would be assumed he'd mention that there were stab wounds in it, or it was cut, or injured. But that isn't said. He's describing what he thinks a stomach look likes, not what he saw. When actually trying to describe what he saw, his answers are vague and somewhat confusing, like he's trying to describe what he thinks he should have saw, not what he actually saw.
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
Well bleach will destroy DNA, but it will not destroy the iron found in blood. Luminal will detect the iron in blood found at a crime scene despite any bleaching. Ill have to look, but Im fairly certain there is a scene in the doc that shows the garage being applied with Luminal and examined under a black light.

canadianwhitedove posted some great information on this thread about bleach explaining that there are two types of bleach. The kind we have to assume was on brendan's pants, was not the kind that destroys all evidence as it dyed his pants. Search for that post for more information.

The documentary transcripts have no mention of luminol. I also thought that it was checked like you did. Maybe there is an image, but no mention ? The topic is discussed in episode 6 and really doesn't even discuss much about the topic at all, but here is the pertinent info from the trial :

Law enforcement actually took a jack hammer and tore up concrete chunks, right?
That was my understanding.
Buting: And they did that because they thought, "Well, if the victim had been killed here, perhaps her blood would've soaked into those cracks," right?
I assume so.
Did you find Teresa Halbach's DNA on any of those swabs?
No, I did not.
If somebody had cleaned that garage floor with bleach before the police came, you would not expect to find any DNA, would you?
Culhane: No, I wouldn't.
Buting: But in this case, you did find DNA. You found Mr. Avery's own DNA.
That's correct.
Baetz: She was shot a number of times.
There would be massive pools of blood. It wasn't there.
Steven, I don't believe, is capable of sanitizing that house.
Very few evidence technicians would be capable of fully sanitizing an area like that.


But as I brought up, first I'm not even sure that she was killed in the garage or even shot in the garage. I like most, am open to the idea that evidence could have been planted.

But I have also said that I don't think the police being corrupt means anyone is innocent.

Defense will always frame things to convince you a given way as will prosecution.

I made the point that just because avery blood was found and not halbach, doesn't neccessariliy mean anything except that his blood wasn't cleaned up. If there was a pool of blood in one spot, that is what he would have cleaned, not the whole garage. right ?

Also, in terms of splatter, I am not even convinced she was shot in the garage. And if she was, putting a pillow or clothes over the head when shooting it, would result in zero blood splatter. But again, defense and prosecution frame things to fit a narrative. My suggestions fits neither, but yet... is plausible.

I also suggest that if the avery was wearing cloth gloves, the blood likely gets absorbed into the glove and would likely drip far less than with no glove. Yet.. if he touched something, like a part of the suv, the blood would transfer to the surface. It also explains why you would find no prints in the suv. -- so the idea that he left blood and yet there were no prints becomes rather plausible.

But that doesn't fit the narrative of the defense. I get it.

So, as i said, I'm not accepting what either side is saying, because they both have a job to do that isn't even likely possible without a real investigation.
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
Max- A leading question is one in which suggests the answer in the question. They usually involve "yes" or "no" answers and can only be asked in court during cross-examination. During the direct examination, they are objected to. Leading questions are discouraged in interviewing and investigation because they are more likely to lead the suspect to give false information or the answer they believe the investigator is looking for, especially in someone like Dassey.

For example, immediately proceeding the question "Did you see her body in the fire" they state "We believe Teresa's body was burned in that fire", which leads one to believe a body was burned in the fire, is the answer they were looking for.

In the second transcript, notice that he never mentions the body in the fire until they suggest it. He mentions the cabinet (which he mentioned earlier) but won't mention the body until they ask about it specifically. When they ask him specifically to describe what parts he saw, he states the stomach, and when asks how he knew that, he says "it looked flat" but then later mentions Steven told him he stabbed Teresa in the stomach. If he had actually seen her stomach, it would be assumed he'd mention that there were stab wounds in it, or it was cut, or injured. But that isn't said. He's describing what he thinks a stomach look likes, not what he saw. When actually trying to describe what he saw, his answers are vague and somewhat confusing, like he's trying to describe what he thinks he should have saw, not what he actually saw.

thanks for this. I am going over the transcripts tonight, and I will take all of this into account. I see the logic of the leading questions a bit better now, thanks.

I guess for me, it's the amount of things he said that came seemingly out of nowhere - when he gets to talking about hearing screams. They don't suggest that. But I think when I go over it with all this in mind I will skim back to see if there is anything said that would lead him to say a given detail.

Thanks again. I do agree that as the interview goes on he becomes seemingly more interested in just giving them something. But there is a stretch where he is on a bit of a roll and they aren't saying much. So my dilemna is -- is all of it complete horseshit ? or is there a certain amount of truth ?

I am open to the only truth being that he went over there for a bonfire and helped gather junk for that. But cleaning the floor, is kind of where I am still not sure I can accept is not true. It's something that came from Barb Janda's conversation with him the night of the murder. It's not something the police made up or suggested. His pants had bleach on them and he told her that he was cleaning steve's garage floor. I have a hard time believing that is not true. Whether it was blood or not, that's another level to the discussion.
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
I have read a number of articles on there, as well as the alternative suspect that I just don't even know if it's reality. I don't know where he got that information, but would be interested in knowing, if anyone knows.

I will have to admit that finding trial transcripts is what I'd like the most! :)

I personally am not trusting anything beyond usage for theorizing if that information is even plausible. Statements like the one from Barb Janda, I have not seen even being refuted. I believe it to be true, because it's the reason police wanted to talk to Brendan again after 2/27. They were unaware that brendan had bleach on his pants that night. I also doubt Barb would have said anything to bring brendan into scrutinization purposefully, so I believe she was telling the truth. She likely didn't understand the significance at the time.
 

Dr Who

New Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
canadianwhitedove posted some great information on this thread about bleach explaining that there are two types of bleach. The kind we have to assume was on brendan's pants, was not the kind that destroys all evidence as it dyed his pants. Search for that post for more information.

The documentary transcripts have no mention of luminol. I also thought that it was checked like you did. Maybe there is an image, but no mention ? The topic is discussed in episode 6 and really doesn't even discuss much about the topic at all, but here is the pertinent info from the trial :

Law enforcement actually took a jack hammer and tore up concrete chunks, right?
That was my understanding.
Buting: And they did that because they thought, "Well, if the victim had been killed here, perhaps her blood would've soaked into those cracks," right?
I assume so.
Did you find Teresa Halbach's DNA on any of those swabs?
No, I did not.
If somebody had cleaned that garage floor with bleach before the police came, you would not expect to find any DNA, would you?
Culhane: No, I wouldn't.
Buting: But in this case, you did find DNA. You found Mr. Avery's own DNA.
That's correct.
Baetz: She was shot a number of times.
There would be massive pools of blood. It wasn't there.
Steven, I don't believe, is capable of sanitizing that house.
Very few evidence technicians would be capable of fully sanitizing an area like that.


But as I brought up, first I'm not even sure that she was killed in the garage or even shot in the garage. I like most, am open to the idea that evidence could have been planted.

But I have also said that I don't think the police being corrupt means anyone is innocent.

Defense will always frame things to convince you a given way as will prosecution.

I made the point that just because avery blood was found and not halbach, doesn't neccessariliy mean anything except that his blood wasn't cleaned up. If there was a pool of blood in one spot, that is what he would have cleaned, not the whole garage. right ?

Also, in terms of splatter, I am not even convinced she was shot in the garage. And if she was, putting a pillow or clothes over the head when shooting it, would result in zero blood splatter. But again, defense and prosecution frame things to fit a narrative. My suggestions fits neither, but yet... is plausible.

I also suggest that if the avery was wearing cloth gloves, the blood likely gets absorbed into the glove and would likely drip far less than with no glove. Yet.. if he touched something, like a part of the suv, the blood would transfer to the surface. It also explains why you would find no prints in the suv. -- so the idea that he left blood and yet there were no prints becomes rather plausible.

But that doesn't fit the narrative of the defense. I get it.

So, as i said, I'm not accepting what either side is saying, because they both have a job to do that isn't even likely possible without a real investigation.
Ill check the doc regarding the Luminal scenes, and get back to you. Regarding the cloth glove theory, this is interesting, although Mr.Avery would have had to be bleeding profusely, it could still be possible.It didn't appear to be a superficial cut. Would definitely like to see some good pics of the blood evidence.
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
They do suggest the yelling and screaming, on page 508 of the second transcript, they ask "Did he say if she was yelling or screaming or anything" and he responds No. They also suggest a struggle, and he also says No. They also suggest Steven had been injured when they ask him "Did he tell you at any time that he had been injured when he killed Teresa" and he first says no, then says a scratch, and w. further prompting, says a scratch on his finger (already common knowledge by this point I assume)

He responds no to "did you directly stab her" and "did you put her in the fire" so he also has not given them enough to arrest him at this point, or implicated himself.

One piece of information that I believe was true, or he at least believed to be the truth, or Steven told him to be the truth was when he states Teresa was stabbed in the jeep. He is asked- where did he stab her? in the garage? in the house? but he answers none of the answers suggested and says "the jeep" which he brought up on his own.

Lastly, he states Steven called him on the house phone. This is easily corroborated, does anyone know if they corroborated it, or at least tried to corroborate it? As I've said earlier, a confession is useless unless corroborated.
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
Ill check the doc regarding the Luminal scenes, and get back to you. Regarding the cloth glove theory, this is interesting, although Mr.Avery would have had to be bleeding profusely, it could still be possible.It didn't appear to be a superficial cut. Would definitely like to see some good pics of the blood evidence.

Have you seen pictures of the wound other than from the documentary ?

The image from the documentary had to have been over a week old, if on his arrest date. I posted an article earlier today from that time period noting the huge bandage on his hand.

I think the fact that the blood evidence didn't have print detail to it, which I think happens in some cases, that might indicate gloves. -- or a swab from a police officer, i admit.
 

MaxManning

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
6
They do suggest the yelling and screaming, on page 508 of the second transcript, they ask "Did he say if she was yelling or screaming or anything" and he responds No. They also suggest a struggle, and he also says No. They also suggest Steven had been injured when they ask him "Did he tell you at any time that he had been injured when he killed Teresa" and he first says no, then says a scratch, and w. further prompting, says a scratch on his finger (already common knowledge by this point I assume)

He responds no to "did you directly stab her" and "did you put her in the fire" so he also has not given them enough to arrest him at this point, or implicated himself.

One piece of information that I believe was true, or he at least believed to be the truth, or Steven told him to be the truth was when he states Teresa was stabbed in the jeep. He is asked- where did he stab her? in the garage? in the house? but he answers none of the answers suggested and says "the jeep" which he brought up on his own.

Lastly, he states Steven called him on the house phone. This is easily corroborated, does anyone know if they corroborated it, or at least tried to corroborate it? As I've said earlier, a confession is useless unless corroborated.

Yeah, that conversation was in regards to when he said the killing occurred in the woods. I remember that. But isn't that a normal question to ask ? If they aren't able to ask even normal logical questions, then i don't understand how they can ask anything without ever leading.

So should they have asked instead "did steven say how she reacted?" - and let him say she screamed ?

I would imagine a common question in an interrogation would be - did you kill her ? Isn't that leading her as opposed to saying "what did you do next ?" until they get to that ?

Interesting topic. I've seen many crime shows and I'm pretty sure I've seen them come out and ask directly about lots of things. Is that considered coercion or just in the case of a low IQ suspect ?

The jeep answer is a good example of what I am saying, he seemed to be able to be specific about something alternative to the suggestions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top