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. matou

    matou #los2188

    Messages:
    20,151
    Likes Received:
    2,493
    Trophy Points:
    113


  2. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We see a police interview of him talking I believe in the documenatry, I'll try and find it. It had him denying it, so maybe we can find a transcript for that. I have no doubt he lawyered up , but I do recall seeing an interview in the same room as brendan's interview at the police department in the documentary.

    I can accept that what you saying is true. There's more that can go wrong than right. But I'd hope they addressed these items by getting someone from auto trader and photographer to explain how they don't always do things the exact same way , and that frequent customers might be treated differently. That's why I am very interested in seeing the avery trial transcripts. If they didn't say anything, it's at minimum suspicious to me.
     
  3. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some seemed to suggest that he might have searched for crimes in the area involving fire and fabricated the story based on that, and therefore it had perceived evidence based in fact.

    I have no idea, but this is not like Mr. BoJangles who no one ever saw again. If we are to believe this, the guy exists out there and no one cares to find out. I get how that fits the narrative of the documentary, but why expose the story without citing police reports etc. They are public record right ?

    But if you have the court records, post them, I've not even seen those. I have seen pictures of a guy with a big scar on him, that comes from him burning himself supposedly. If you can post that, why not his name ? It's confusing.
     
  4. stephsb

    stephsb Member

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Even if you know a person is innocent, there is still no reason to put them on the stand. Just because the defense believes Avery is innocent, they knew from jury selection that almost everyone thought he was guilty. That's not someone you want on the stand. Public opinion was not in favor of the Avery's, and it's important that if you for some reason have to put the defendant on the stand, you better be sure they are going to look sympathetic. Avery didn't. Whether you believe he's guilty or not, he's kind of a brash person. Also, once the defendant takes the stand, they can be impeached if they have prior felonies, which he did.

    The defense is not required to explain anything. The burden of proof is on the State to prove all the elements of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Wisconsin jury instructions are written in a way that makes that clear. The charge is at the top, and each element explained below. Jurors are instructed to go through the charge element by element while making a decision. I just don't see a blank bill of sale being the deciding bit of evidence, there are so many more important pieces like the body, the car, the bullet, her blood, the phone calls, witnesses seeing her keep at his property, Avery telling people she had an appointment and showed up for it, etc. If she did or didn't fill out the bill of sale, I don't see why it matters. Avery said she was there.

    The defense's narrative is Avery was framed. They didn't need to put Avery on the stand to show that. The risks of putting him up there are too great for any potential benefit. If you truly believe the evidence shows that your client is innocent, there is even less reason, the evidence should be enough.

    Montana- My understanding is all 12 jurors in the Avery trial did not wish to speak about the verdict, at least after it was read. As far as I know they haven't spoken. I am not sure about the Dassey trial


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  5. stephsb

    stephsb Member

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Dassey's original police statements aren't released, nor are any of his brother's. Most are not, it's pretty rare to get as many of Dassey's statements as we already have. I'm sure all of the Avery clan was interviewed at some point, so the bulk of police interviews we don't have.

    I still am not understanding why the defense has to explain the bill of sales? What specifically about the State's case would you be using the testimony of Auto trader or a photographer to refute? Like I said, the jury is not looking at what the defense did or did not explain. They are looking ONLY at what the State proved or did not prove. The defense does not have to put up a single witness or present anything to the jury, and that cannot be used against them. If the jury did consider the defense's lack of explanation for something like the bill of sale to decide if he was guilty or not guilty, then Avery does deserve a new trial because they aren't supposed to be looking for what the defense DIDN'T explain, they are supposed to be looking for what the State DID prove.
     
  6. stephsb

    stephsb Member

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Didn't someone at the lab though say they had never seen a hole in a blood sample that was in evidence before? Maybe I misinterpreted what they were saying because I was laughing too hard at the person who tried to use Scotch tape on an evidence file and thought that wouldn't be noticed lol.

    If the hole in the tube was normal, what does that say about planting Avery's blood? That they didn't plant it? I really found the hole compelling, so I'm really glad this mentioned.
     
  7. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Extremely good point. What if teresa had car trouble, and he opened hood of her car at an earlier date ? We know she had been there several times, so not unreasonable to think the hood supposedly sweat dna could be there from before. Also, that type of DNA would be alot easier for someone to acquire and wouldn't have to come from a blood vial.


    On the topic of the potential planting of blood evidence of the Rav 4. If we assume that was the case, here are two proposed ways that avery's blood was planted :

    1. Lenk shows up with the blood on the day the car was found and via no evidence of him signing in, only out he takes that opportunity to plant the blood.
    2. They planted the vehicle there, so the blood was already planted in the car. This is a more elaborate framing for sure.

    #1 is impossible unless Lenk already had the key. So that forces us to assume that the vehicle was planted, and therefore why would he even need to attempt #1 ? Wouldn't #2 be a better plan? We have testimony that the car was locked, and I think suggesting that the women that found the car were lying about that, means they were involved or that a key might have been found by the car ? Also seems kind of unlikely for a killer to just lock the car and leave it where it can easily be found. -- but with a cadaver dog ? maybe so.

    #2 This entails police being the ones who found the car elsewhere and then bringing the car to the property with blood evidence already intact. This fits with the theory of the cars plates being run a few days earlier and possibly near the junkyard. They then assume it's Avery and feel the need to plant the car on the property to connect it to him directly. One reason this might be needed, is so they can get the search warrants and be able to have a reason for getting Avery's DNA.

    So here's my question. We know they have the blood, they had the key, and the car was found somewhere else then now a whole lot more of the police dept personnel needs to be involved. Someone found the car and likely called it in ? Do they really just contact Lenk or Colburn and say "here's our chance to get avery, I'm not gonna call this in" ? Now they need to plan how to get the car on the property and keep the car hidden a bit longer. That seems rather elaborate.

    If #1 was the case, then you gotta risk being seen planting that blood. I find it hard to believe everyone was aware of the framing.


    How do you all think this might have been done ? I think that if the planting is real, that it's the vehicle itself, not just blood. I admit that putting things on the vehicle halfheartedly seems suspicious. To me, it makes the car look even more suspicious. Chuck, Earl, Steve or anyone at the junkyard should have noticed that as being peculiar. no ?

    I want to hear more about chuck saying he saw someone there one night. Want to know what night he saw that person driving in. If it was the night of the 3rd/4th, that fits #2 as the car was found on November 5th.


    All just theorizing here and I know it's not anything not proposed yet, but even the documentary didn't show an elaborate narrative but more suggested both these possibilities. Maybe the avery trial did have more elaborate narratives.

    Will go back and see exactly what chuck says and if the avery appeal has any details on this. I know the Avery interview in the documentary mentions "Tammy" told him about the planting. Who is tammy ? is that a wife of chuck or earl ? How would she know ? chuck was in consistent contact with police during investigation according to avery appeal. Anyone know who tammy is ?
     
  8. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even in a recent statement by the PD, they claim that they removed themselves from the investigation.

    But it is impossible to deny that they found all the key evidence or had opportunity to plant it - key and bullet and blood in rav4. They clearly had access to the property.
     
  9. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep, that got discussed earlier on this thread and there is a reddit post that talks about this topic and this is so common that stoppers are made with the whole already punched,but with a thin layer of rubber still remaining to be punctured.

    As you said, this is how the blood gets INTO the vial. So the documentary clearly misrepresented this , although we don't know if intentionally. But seems like if this came up in court, surely the prosecution clarified this, right?

    But to the average person watching the documentary like myself, I bit on that hook line and sinker. Felt like I was manipulated by documentary when learning this information.
     
  10. Midge Montana

    Midge Montana Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    3,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I couldn't and still can't figure out what they were talking about when they said that the lab confirmed "they don't do that." Do what? I'm unclear on what they don't do. Those tubes are called Vacutainers. The career I retired from was a hospital materials mgmt position and I purchased those tubes weekly. Not to mention I've had my blood drawn a gazillion times. That IS how they draw the blood into the tube.
    Here's a video of a blood draw. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aouBFlB71Mg
     
  11. SophieRose

    SophieRose Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,638
    Likes Received:
    983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I found this article on an Avery juror who was attending BD's trial. Not much said though.

    http://archive.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0101/704170612/Trial-may-fill-gaps-Avery-jurors

    Dorn, of Kiel, said she was not aware of much of the evidence kept out of the trial, including that Avery had been convicted of other charges in the past, was the suspect in the sexual assault of a teenager and that other inmates who were in prison with him said he talked about raping and torturing a woman if he was out of prison.
     
  12. LemonMousse

    LemonMousse Former Member

    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have heard...hoping you can confirm or refute....that you can take blood out, but you actually have to open the lid.

    If this is so, then someone (Lenk) could still have helped themselves to a few drops of Steven's blood?
     
  13. LemonMousse

    LemonMousse Former Member

    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Regarding jurors....one of them was an "international recording artist" which made me very curious!
     
  14. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did say I see that point, and it makes sense. But if a narrative like the auto trader bill of sale makes logical sense and needs explaining, you need to find a way to do that.

    Yes, you have to prove the planting. But can we agree that we have proof that it's possible , but not proof that it happened ?

    By the way I think it's a shame that some higher authority didn't step in to investigate that outside the scope of this case. As I've said before there should be some mechanism by which that can be investigated , without hinderance from the accused.

    But since it's not PROVEN there was a planting you need to show that the prosecution's narrative is not possible by poking holes in it via providing reasonable explanations. I am going to say I believe when/if we see the avery trial tanscripts that there will be some attempt to explain it without avery's testimony. Maybe via cross examination ? Maybe via a witness in that line of work ? Maybe via a person who is a client of auto trader ?

    Again, a filled out bill of sale would make complete sense. She came, took pics, got paid, left a bill of sale and auto trader magazine and left.

    That's not what we have evidence of. You leave out the message on barb janda's message machine, saying she can't come if she doesn't make contact. Who did she make contact with ? Or who contacted her ?

    We know messages were missing from the phone. We know the killer would have had phone in their possession.

    It's not like definitive evidence, but if you are saying it makes sense... I'm not sure what to say. I find it suspicious. I'm fine with leaving it at that, because I do believe a jury would find it suspicious when given the full context of how her job works and the message (and it's content) due to Barb Janda's name being used to make the appointment.

    if you wouldn't want it explained logically and plausibly, I'm not sure what else to say than your opinion is puzzling. But we can leave it at that.
     
  15. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

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

    I believe both Chuck and Earl had sexual assault convictions. Earl i believe was with teenagers.

    I don't think what other inmates said could be taken too seriously without some kind of real connection to evidence. But I haven't even seen anything but a report saying that. No direct statements and a named person.


    You can look at the Avery appeal docs to get a better idea of who the many sordid characters roaming the junkyard were :

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

    I doubt I was the only one who read that who came away thinking any of them would be a possible prime suspect.
     
  16. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's juror 11 and you can find him on facebook, and he's the one dismissed and appears in the documentary.

    He is also the one who said the father of a county deputy was the strong willed one on the jury who wouldn't deliberate on evidence and had made his mind up.

    I am going to check to see if I can find him on youtube though! When I see him, he looks like the type that would make music that makes you feel like you have been rick roll'd.
     
  17. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd encourage anyone new here to sift back through the thread as there are alot of links to pdfs for avery appeal docs, brendan's interview transcripts, dassey trial transcripts etc.

    They include a ton of information not included in the documentary as well as expert explanations of things like blood/dna etc and cross examinations of those experts that can answer so many questions you will ask eventually.

    I am not a mod,but maybe a mod can somehow pin that list to the beginning of the thread. It was the kind of thing I wanted to find early on.
     
  18. Midge Montana

    Midge Montana Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    3,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to this. When it's time to actually test the contents of the tube I don't know if they draw out through the cap with a needle or just pop the cap off. I'll try to remember to give one of my friends from the lab a call tomorrow and ask them. :)
     
  19. stephsb

    stephsb Member

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You don't have to prove the planting. The defense doesn't need to prove anything. Like I said, they do not have the burden of proof. They do not need to present a single witness.The jury is NOT looking at the defense's case when beginning deliberation. They are looking at each element of the charges made by the State, and looking at the State's evidence to determine if they proved the element. If all the elements are proved, then the defendant is found guilty on the charge.

    I guess I'm still confused as to what your trying to say the bill of sale is evidence of and what you want explained about it. How do you think it helped the States case so much that it's suspicious if the defense says nothing?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  20. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

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