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
    Really? that's the best you can do ?

    I have stated I think that brendan is innocent, that I believe there is high probability of planting of evidence, and that I would vote not guilty for Avery if a juror, and I get that ?
     


  2. CoolJ

    CoolJ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,239
    Likes Received:
    2,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, its frustrating. A man is behind bars for the rest of his life for something he clearly didn't do, due to high level corruption. The only folks I see not defending him are Ken Kratz and his ilk.

    Plus, I am not entirely convinced you are not him or one of his Kronies.

    Lets not forget they somehow got to Dassey's attorney and his sidekick investigator. I wont put it past this Cabal to continue to try and control the narrative for years to come.

    That is my opinion and I will not rebut.
     
  3. justanother

    justanother Member

    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I have been here, there and down all kinds of wavy, confusing roads reading about this case today!
     
  4. stephsb

    stephsb Member

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Actually according to Dassey the stabbed her AND cut her throat, and her hair, and choked her, and punched her, and shot her 1, 2, 5, or 10 times (varies based on investigators questioning) I completely agree there is no way the cut her throat and left no blood evidence. It's ludicrous. I still cannot believe they convicted Dassey, I'd love to hear their reasoning on that one


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  5. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First that's not true, Avery was voted guilty, no doubt due to many things I find unfair.

    My observation is that Wisconsin residents are most likely to think he's guilty and documentary watchers are most likely to think Avery is innocent. Both seemingly often resistent to consider the other side of the coin.

    Those who are weighing both sides with as much as we can find , I'd say most come to the conclusion I have so far which is that there is at minimum reasonable doubt, so he is not guilty. Almost everyone seems to believe Brendan is innocent.

    Some Wisconsin residents on this thread have noted they won't even watch the documentary, because their mind is made up already.

    I am not a Wisconsin resident or even someone with any kind of law knowledge beyond what I see on crime tv.

    But I can read and I can think about what I read. That's all I have done. I have even read false confession documents to better understand this case, and I agree that is what this case at its core is about, and that the documentary was pointing at systemic problems with our justice system that allow such tactics. I agree that it's unfair and I saw many things in the documentary and transcripts that I'd even suggest are criminal and people should go to jail for.

    I have also stated that it's likely that unless Avery is released, alternative suspects and investigation will never occur. It is overly obvious that the investigation was slanted by ignoring high probability leads. I think that should be something law enforcement could/should be held liable for.


    By the way, I'll say if you read the judges closing statement from the avery case, I'd say he shouldn't be a judge. I believe that he also made up his mind and let it influence his judgements on allowing alternative suspects that Avery's defense tried to include. If police fail to investigate solid leads, then what defense does the charged individual have ?

    Lastly, guys like Kachinsky belong in jail as well, because he not only didn't defend his client, he took steps to prove his guilt.

    I don't think it's enough to just remove him from a case. If a public defender doesn't do his job of defending, it should be criminal. The stakes are too high for his clients for him to be above it all.

    That is all.... resume paranoia if you must.
     
  6. Ringfinger

    Ringfinger New Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do we all agree that there is no evidence of a rape and murder in the trailer?
     
  7. joe jones

    joe jones Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I watched both Avery and Dassey trial, there was more evidence against Avery than documentary revealed but I still doubt I could have convicted him BRD, Dassey was just a mess from start to finish, his first atty Lens may have well have been payed by the state as he was certainly not working in his clients best interest, his second lead atty who defended him at trial was only defending his second homicide case in court, Dassey should have been provided with much better counsel considering the charges and his age and comprehension of what was going on, his only piece of luck was who his mother is as she at least tried to help her son,

    I think their should be an immediate investigation in to the investigation,
     
  8. nomoresorrow

    nomoresorrow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,558
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    RE: Bold Above

    Kayla recants her claim in court - under oath...

    KA's Testimony Transcript:

    Fallon: Good morning. How old are you, Kayla?
    Kayla: Fifteen.
    Fallon: And how are you related to Brendan?
    Kayla: We're first cousins. My dad is Barbara's brother, and Brendan's Barbara's son.
    Fallon: OK, very good. I want to direct your attention to a time in December of 2005. Did you have a conversation with Brendan about Teresa Halbach?
    Kayla: Kinda, yeah.
    Fallon: All right. Would you tell us about that conversation with Brendan?
    Kayla: Well, um... Well, not in December, in November.
    Fallon: OK. Tell us about it.
    Kayla: In November, um, we were having a birthday party. He was sitting in our hallway and, um, he was just sitting there. One of my friends looked out the door and seen him crying and then she came to me and then I went out there by him and I asked him what was wrong, and all he did is shrugged his shoulders.
    Fallon: OK. And then what did you ask?
    Kayla: And then I asked him if it was about the Steven thing. And then he just shrugged his shoulders and I was like... And then I was like, "You know you can talk to me," and then I just went back inside my room.
    Fallon: Tell us about the conversation you had with Brendan regarding Steven.
    Kayla: We didn't have a conversation about it.
    Fallon: Didn't you tell your counselors at school about a conversation you had with Brendan?
    Kayla: Yeah.
    Fallon: All right. And you told Officers Wiegert and Fassbender about that conversation as well, right? These two guys right here? You recognize those two guys?
    Kayla: Yeah? Yes.
    Fallon: That's... OK. You told them about a conversation you had with Brendan about that bonfire and what was in the bonfire. Tell us about that.
    Kayla: I really don't remember.
    Fallon: All right. Now Kayla, did you give the officers a statement?
    Kayla: Uh, yeah.
    Fallon: All right. Kayla, I'm showing you what has been marked for identification as this exhibit 163. Would you hold that for me, please?
    All right. I'm gonna take my seat here and ask you questions. And is that the statement that you gave to Officers Fassbender and Wiegert?
    Kayla: Yes.
    Fallon: All right. Does reviewing that statement help you remember?
    Kayla: Yes.
    Fallon: All right. What did Brendan tell you about the fire? You'll have to pull the microphone a little closer so we can hear you.
    Kayla: He didn't tell me anything. I... I kind of made up the statement and I'm sorry.
    Fallon: All right. What did you make up? Tell us what you're saying you made up.
    Kayla: That he'd seen body parts in there. I didn't... He didn't see... I didn't... He didn't tell me anything like that or he didn't see Teresa's body or anything like that.
    Fallon: And you also told the officers in a separate conversation that day that Brendan had seen Teresa alive in Steven's trailer and that she was pinned up in a chair. Kayla: Yes, but that's not true.
    Fallon: All right. So you're telling us you made something up to get Brendan into trouble?
    Kayla: Not really. I was just really confused about everything.
    Fallon: No further questions for this witness.
     
  9. nomoresorrow

    nomoresorrow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,558
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48

    In all seriousness, I'd love to discuss this in further detail. What incriminating evidence exactly are you referring to that was presented in court but was not revealed in the documentary? Thank you!
     
  10. CoolJ

    CoolJ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,239
    Likes Received:
    2,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You believe all that, yet you still believe Avery to be guilty? As i said earlier, I started reading transcripts and documents and watching and listening to interrogations etc.. but realized it was a fruitless endeavor. How do you sort the truth from the lies? We have a corrupt LE department, corrupt prosecution, corrupt DEFENSE attorney for prosecution star witness, yet some choose to believe the narrative with this bill of sale garbage(just to pin point ONE false narrative)??? It doesnt matter, its all lies. We cant even know if a bill of sale existed. We had very influential people out to take down Steve Avery and that is exactly what they did. And yet, some people still believe them.

    All this documentary did was put the whole story together so rational thinking folks could see how ridiculous it is.
     
  11. Ringfinger

    Ringfinger New Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To start, I don't remember the documentary mentioning SA's DNA being on the front latch of the hood of the RAV4. That's a red flag for me.
     
  12. justanother

    justanother Member

    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    http://archive.postcrescent.com/assets/pdf/U0166482115.PDF

    There was no evidence adduced at trial that anyone saw or heard from Ms. Halbach after Bobby Dassey saw her walking towards Avery’s trailer.

    Blaine Dassey testified that when he arrived home from school that day around 3:50 p.m., he saw Avery putting a plastic bag into an actively burning burn barrel (316:66-68). Blaine left home to go trick-or-treating around 5:30 p.m. (316:64). When he returned home around 11:00 p.m., he saw Avery watching a bonfire that was burning behind Avery’s garage (316:70-75).

    No mention of Brendan? Surely if he's guilty of murder then he saw her before she died....?
     
  13. justanother

    justanother Member

    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It's in the documents. Interestingly, there is mention that the defense thought the DNA for the key may have been taken from Avery's toothbrush. So convenient that that DNA is under the hood but not on the battery etc!
     
  14. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I said I would vote not guilty -- I've said this multiple times now and why.


    What you are not getting is that I am willing to evaluate evidence that doesn't fit my beliefs. I am willing to share things that I don't even believe are true, and get ideas about whether they are truthful or not.

    Me sharing how I felt about the dassey interviews is what led to someone passing me information on false confessions and why it was pertinent to this case.

    I think in the process, many people have thought that I had my mind made up. But go check all my posts, I continually say I am troubled by any number of details and looking for explanations. I found alot of very reasonable explanations. I fully believe that brendan was coerced into a false confession.

    But if I just accepted that without understanding what a false confession was and what actually got said in the transcripts , keeping in mind wha I read about false confessions -- would I really be objective ?


    So, call me stubborn. Many in here were convinced far before me. I went back and forth. After documentary I believed he was innocent. Then reading full transcripts -- mistakenly I read 2/27 interview at the police department first - thinking it was the first. I was kind of amazed at how composed he was. Someone pointed me to the REAL first interview at his school and my opinion changed some. Then when reading the 3/1 interviews and watching the tapes and looking at what one poster detailed -- what they said before brendan, to suggest things -- and I was convinced. Admitted I changed my mind.

    Am I not allowed to go through a process of fully understanding what I am researching to determine if I believe it or not ? Allow myself to question my own beliefs ? Kudos to those posters that instead of insulting me, pointed me to things that could help me understand. Yes, I was ignorant about false confessions and the cognitively impaired.

    I personally see a different brendan in the 2/27 police department interview as very different than the guy in the other videos. I think at that point he felt he was pleasing these guys, and was convinced he was doing the right thing. It made him appear more confident. --- however at the time, I had no idea of the earlier interview where they gave him all those details. Honest mistake. but good example of why I should make myself aware of everything before deciding.


    I'm not going to argue the bill of sale again for the sake of all our sanity :) I still see it as one important aspect as to why in my mind I can't rule out Avery. More evidence might do that. I certainly believe that I could be wrong. As I said, I'm not 100% certain of anything in this case. I have much reasonable doubt. That's why I say not guilty.

    I'm ok with you not agreeing, and beyond some kind of further evidence that explains it, or a more plausible alternative. I don't think I'll change my mind. I've evaluated it sufficiently for myself.
     
  15. stephsb

    stephsb Member

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Totally agree that Dassey did not get great representation. Kachinsky was an absolute embarrassment to the legal system. He should have been disbarred for what he did to Dassey. And for him to suggest that there was nothing wrong w. what he did because he was available by telephone. What a joke. I'm sure those investigators were going to be super eager to get an attorney in to stop the great job they were doing of framing Dassey. They probably couldn't believe how lucky they got to be able to question Dassey w.o his attorney in the first place, why mess that up. And it's not like Dassey was going to stop the investigation, he thought it was the only way to help himself because they had all told him that no less than a thousand different times. So sad what how Barb saw exactly what was going on the entire time, and tried her best to get him the help he so desperately needed. Facing a charge for first degree murder is probably one of the worst situations a person can find themselves. When facing a charge of that nature, nothing is ever certain, except for your attorney's loyalty to you. No defendant should EVER question what side their attorney works for. The legal process is extremely difficult to navigate if you have no experience in it, and can be frightening and stressful for the accused. That's why they get an attorney in the first place. So sad what happened to him
     
  16. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep -- they didn't even do prints or dna tests on the battery or the cables. Harder for someone to plant dna on a battery and cables than a hood latch. Lenk easily could have put dna on the hood latch.

    After that, all they needed was someone to say they should test the hood latch, so they didn't have to be the ones who said to check there.
     
  17. joe jones

    joe jones Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    Trophy Points:
    113



    DNA of Avery found on hood latch not from blood, according to state they only processed the hood latch after Dassey told them Steven was the one who opened the hood, that was evidence presented at trial, it is inculpatory, I would still like to know who collected hood latch samples, what day/date were they collected,

    no definitive scientific tests or evidence to show EDTA was present or not so his blood could be fresh active bleeding blood or planted,
     
  18. nomoresorrow

    nomoresorrow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,558
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thank you for bringing that up Ringfinger. Now you see this as a "red flag" pointing toward guilt, whereas I see it as yet another indication of planting evidence...

    "According to trial testimony it was William Tyson, patrol sergeant with Calumet County Sheriff's Dept, who took the swab from the hood latch, with Deputy Jeremy Hawkins assisting. Tyson testified that "on April 3 we [Deputy Hawkins and myself] were requested to go to where we had stored Theresa's vehicle. nvestigator Wiegert and Agent Fassbender had requested that we do DNA swabs of both door handles, interior and exterior, as well as the hood latch to the vehicle, and the battery cables..."
    (SOURCE: Brendan Dassey's Trial, Day 2 - Pages 25, 125, 144)

    How does one find SA's DNA on an easily accessible exterior area, such as a hood latch, and yet not find his DNA on the battery cables? That makes no logical sense whatsoever - again. To argue that LE would not or could not have done this is fruitile for me because we have Teresa's RAV4 key that possessed NO other DNA except SA's. It didn't even have Teresa's own DNA on it! THAT is 100% proof in and of itself that LE did and is capable of planting DNA when and where they chose to in this case.
     
  19. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bobby and Tadych testified against Steve in the trials. I don't trust either of them. Both changed their statements to fit prosecution narrative. Don't believe them.
     
  20. joe jones

    joe jones Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    Trophy Points:
    113

    and interesting to note her DNA not in trailer and only on bullet that used all the sample in the one test that did find it the bullet from the garage -
     
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