Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tawny

Bye
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
5,576
Reaction score
64
I wonder if Brendan has knowledge that his brother and step-dad were involved instead... just speculation, nothing to back it up.
 

Tawny

Bye
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
5,576
Reaction score
64
TBH Steven and Brendan's low intelligence is what lends me to believe they couldn't have done it.

But Scott Tadych is clearly not from this family, and he has the shrewd look of a calculated planner, and Bobby came across as way more intelligent than any of the other family members. JMO, subject to change.
 

NirvanaGirl

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
7
TBH Steven and Brendan's low intelligence is what lends me to believe they couldn't have done it.

But Scott Tadych is clearly not from this family, and he has the shrewd look of a calculated planner, and Bobby came across as way more intelligent than any of the other family members. JMO, subject to change.

I agree that I got a weird feeling about Bobby & Scott. Scott hasn't been without his problems either with violence against others allegedly.

I do believe it was Steven, but I admit to having brief moments of doubt where I believe it could have been Scott, Bobby, Earl or Chuck, or even the lot of them together!

I just wish they had tested the 8 fingerprints they apparently found in TH's jeep, or if they did as I thought I'd read on Reddit, that we knew what the results of those tests were.
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
Respectively, ringing a doorbell is not nearly as negative behavior as killing a cat on purpose. And the link between animal cruelty as a youth and violence as an adult has been well documented. I'm not saying it should have been evidence in his trial by any means. One of the first times we hear Avery speak in the 10 part docu is him saying he threw that family cat in the fire. That's not childhood hooligan behavior like toilet papering a house or ding dong ditch. The two are not in the same class of behavior at all. moo

ETA And NO it does not mean he killed Teresa. I wondered about that cat , though. Did he try to throw the cat over the fire ? A lot of kids think ' cats land on their feet no matter what' and test that theory with some rather mean experiments. That is not ok but it's not the same as throwing the cat ' into the fire' to see if it got burned because of course anything you throw in a fire will get burned. I did wonder about that very thing.

I've wondered that as well, but the original AP article stated his actions as "pouring gasoline on a cat and throwing it in the fire" he was also 20 or 21 so not really a child anymore (not that this kind of behavior is acceptable for a child but I see where you are going) and the experimenting w. The cat landing on its feet doesn't explain the gasoline, which is also really disturbing. The charge was animal cruelty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Tawny

Bye
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
5,576
Reaction score
64
Why was the bed and mattress never taken into evidence or at least for testing?
 

SCHMAE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
13,143
Reaction score
2,883
I've wondered that as well, but the original AP article stated his actions as "pouring gasoline on a cat and throwing it in the fire" he was also 20 or 21 so not really a child anymore (not that this kind of behavior is acceptable for a child but I see where you are going) and the experimenting w. The cat landing on its feet doesn't explain the gasoline, which is also really disturbing. The charge was animal cruelty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did not see that AP article. I was merely going off of Steven's words at the beginning of the docu and he must have minimized it quite a bit. Ugh .......
 

NirvanaGirl

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
7
I've wondered that as well, but the original AP article stated his actions as "pouring gasoline on a cat and throwing it in the fire" he was also 20 or 21 so not really a child anymore (not that this kind of behavior is acceptable for a child but I see where you are going) and the experimenting w. The cat landing on its feet doesn't explain the gasoline, which is also really disturbing. The charge was animal cruelty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Steven absolutely minimised the cat incident in the documentary. All he said was that he was hanging around with the wrong people & that they were messing around with the cat, that it was the family cat & he picked it up & tossed it over the fire & it 'lit up'.

No mention of soaking it in gasoline & oil and throwing it IN the fire where it burned to death.

I absolutely agree with you that that kind of animal cruelty often leads to worse offences. It's not like it was an accident, he deliberately doused an animal in an accelerant & threw it into a bonfire. At the least it shows a complete disregard for the pain and suffering caused to a living creature.

I think the lady who mentioned her son as an example is very sweet. I can understand how her son playing a prank on a neighbour and then being accused of knocking his mailbox down would upset her, that's because she is a decent, law abiding citizen. But really, knocking on a neighbours door & running away, and even knocking over a mailbox even if her son *had* done that, is a million miles away from deliberately torturing a cat.
 

stephsb

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
13
I'm not so sure that Brendan does believe his uncle is innocent though.

I think there was probably a shred of truth somewhere in Brendan's interviews. I think if someone had the time to read the transcripts from all his interviews and find the consistent responses then we will have the truth of his involvement, or indeed non involvement. The truth tends to be the only thing that stays the same across multiple interviews (just as with Jessie Miskelley in the West Memphis child murders)

I'm struggling with Brendan, I'm convinced of Averys guilt now but I'm still on the fence with Brendan & want desperately to believe he wasn't involved but the doubt in his complete innocence remains.

One thing I am 100% certain of is that he was railroaded. I'm not going to go as far as to say that he wouldn't be in prison if not for Avery as I don't think he stood much of a chance anyway at leading a good law abiding life, but I do think he was railroaded into confessing what various scenarios he did.

Two things about the interviews stick in my head, the whole "what happened to her head" where it was clear that he hadn't got a clue what it was they wanted him to say, and him asking if he would be back at school in time for 6th period so he could hand a project in, when he'd just confessed to rape & helping a murderer.

If you've read all of Brendan's statements, except of course the one that was lost because LE couldn't record it right, Brendan is consistent on almost nothing, and since almost all of it was done with leading statements, to find useful info look for info Brendan gives on his own. Brendan brings up Chuck and his probable knowledge (Brendan's words) on his own starting in the 2/27 interview. He later mentions a story, unprompted, of seeing Chuck and Steven in Stevens garage together the night after the murder. The investigators pretty much change the subject and tell him he's mistaken to get him to confess to their storyline. He continues to mention Chuck in later interviews. Obviously, everything Brendan says must be questioned, but I do think this was useful info worth looking into further, especially w. His past and alleged lack of alibi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NirvanaGirl

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
7
If you've read all of Brendan's statements, except of course the one that was lost because LE couldn't record it right, Brendan is consistent on almost nothing, and since almost all of it was done with leading statements, to find useful info look for info Brendan gives on his own. Brendan brings up Chuck and his probable knowledge (Brendan's words) on his own starting in the 2/27 interview. He later mentions a story, unprompted, of seeing Chuck and Steven in Stevens garage together the night after the murder. The investigators pretty much change the subject and tell him he's mistaken to get him to confess to their storyline. He continues to mention Chuck in later interviews. Obviously, everything Brendan says must be questioned, but I do think this was useful info worth looking into further, especially w. His past and alleged lack of alibi.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely! I have my doubts with regards to Earl despite his past offences because he agreed to let TH's aunt & cousin (could have been cousin & second cousin) look around the car yard. My thought is that if Earl knew the jeep was there he would have refused them entry & told them to come back with a policeman & a warrant & the jeep would have been moved in the meantime.
 

NirvanaGirl

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
7
One thing I'm not sure if anyone can help me with, in the documentary they say that Steven ended up receiving $400,000 as a settlement for the false conviction. Now, they also say that his legal costs for his trial were $140,000 I think...so what happened to the rest?

The Averys are requesting financial donations for Steven & Brendan's legal fund on Facebook etc, so that must mean the remaining cash has gone. I'd be interested to know which one(s) of the Averys received that if that's where it went.
 

Tawny

Bye
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
5,576
Reaction score
64
One thing I'm not sure if anyone can help me with, in the documentary they say that Steven ended up receiving $400,000 as a settlement for the false conviction. Now, they also say that his legal costs for his trial were $140,000 I think...so what happened to the rest?

The Averys are requesting financial donations for Steven & Brendan's legal fund on Facebook etc, so that must mean the remaining cash has gone. I'd be interested to know which one(s) of the Averys received that if that's where it went.

IIRC, I think $160,000 went to attorneys fees to GET that settlement, so that left $240,000 for this trial. Not sure where the other $100k would've gone.
 

Soulmagent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,179
Reaction score
3,904
Steven absolutely minimised the cat incident in the documentary. All he said was that he was hanging around with the wrong people & that they were messing around with the cat, that it was the family cat & he picked it up & tossed it over the fire & it 'lit up'.

No mention of soaking it in gasoline & oil and throwing it IN the fire where it burned to death.

I absolutely agree with you that that kind of animal cruelty often leads to worse offences. It's not like it was an accident, he deliberately doused an animal in an accelerant & threw it into a bonfire. At the least it shows a complete disregard for the pain and suffering caused to a living creature.

I think the lady who mentioned her son as an example is very sweet. I can understand how her son playing a prank on a neighbour and then being accused of knocking his mailbox down would upset her, that's because she is a decent, law abiding citizen. But really, knocking on a neighbours door & running away, and even knocking over a mailbox even if her son *had* done that, is a million miles away from deliberately torturing a cat.

If the gas part came from media reports then I have hard time just believing the gas report ,as much of the stuff reported about in the murder case was untrue in the media reports as well.

Which is why I think all those reporters look completely shocked after court most days. Some of them even had a hard time knowing what kinda follow up to ask at the BS responses they were given.

Either way it is still cruel and he probably minimized . Anyone would have. He could have made it sound more accidental ,and he did admit it was the family cat , which showed he did feel bad at least on that aspect. It also made the event seem worse in a way.

I think he felt ashamed when he was talking about it.
 

chaleigh26

On Time Out
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
280
Reaction score
22
:facepalm:
Steven absolutely minimised the cat incident in the documentary. All he said was that he was hanging around with the wrong people & that they were messing around with the cat, that it was the family cat & he picked it up & tossed it over the fire & it 'lit up'.

No mention of soaking it in gasoline & oil and throwing it IN the fire where it burned to death.

I absolutely agree with you that that kind of animal cruelty often leads to worse offences. It's not like it was an accident, he deliberately doused an animal in an accelerant & threw it into a bonfire. At the least it shows a complete disregard for the pain and suffering caused to a living creature.

I think the lady who mentioned her son as an example is very sweet. I can understand how her son playing a prank on a neighbour and then being accused of knocking his mailbox down would upset her, that's because she is a decent, law abiding citizen. But really, knocking on a neighbours door & running away, and even knocking over a mailbox even if her son *had* done that, is a million miles away from deliberately torturing a cat.


She was making a point of her son being automatically blamed, not telling a sweet story.
 

steveml

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
31
Brendan was NOT the one who suggested sexual assault, the first people to bring it up and suggest it to Brendan were the investigators. Sexual assault was NOT something Brendan came up w. on his own.

Yes, I know it was fed to him by the investigators. My point is that there is no evidence to suggest a sexually motivated crime. The people who benefit from the inclusion of a sexually motivated charge are the prosecutors, as this reinforces public opinion to believe that Kratz and co. were right all along about Steven Avery.

I do believe sexual assault was the motive, as no one has provided me w. a better one. Police are not going to murder an innocent woman in the hopes of pinning it on Steven Avery. They've failed to prove robbery as motive, couldn't find anyone who held a grudge against Teresa, so why is she dead? For the record, Avery is not alone my prime suspect- I believe his two brothers, who were sex offenders, should have been looked into just as much as Steven. I am not saying that sexual assault HAS to be the motive, only that I think it is, and that I absolutely disagree w. the notion that Avery would not commit this crime because it was "motiveless". Just because we do not know the motive, does not mean there wasn't any. If Brendan would have given a better "confession" sexual assault would have been the motive, it WAS the motive they used against Brendan at his trial. I would also like to add that the sexual assault did not need to happen in Steven's trailer- it could have happened somewhere else, thus explaining the lack of evidence.

I'm not really following your reasoning regarding lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is one of the most common reasons for acquittal. To explain away lack of evidence because 'it could have happened somewhere else' serves no purpose in determining guilt. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn't need to provide an alternate theory nor does he have to do the prosecutor's job.

If we remove the investigators suggestion of a sexual motive (latterly included in Brendan's confession) from Steven Avery's alleged crime, what we are left with is a murder of a female - there is nothing which suggest she was sexually assaulted at all. We can't just include that in there because it may have happened. Everything and anything may and could have happened, but that isn't what the jury is meant to deliberate. Even if the jury think he is capable of murder and/or sexual assault, that is not the question they are being asked to decide. They're being asked to decide, based on the evidence, whether certain events took place.
 

NirvanaGirl

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
7
:facepalm:


She was making a point of her son being automatically blamed, not telling a sweet story.

Yes thank you I am fully aware of that, so the face palm was unecessary

I thought it was sweet (sorry if that's a poor choice of word) that the poster placed the same level of importance on the incidences in her mind.

I can see why her son would be questioned though, just as I absolutely believe it was right and natural that Avery be questioned.
 

Zuri

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2013
Messages
8,782
Reaction score
107
Yes, I know it was fed to him by the investigators. My point is that there is no evidence to suggest a sexually motivated crime. The people who benefit from the inclusion of a sexually motivated charge are the prosecutors, as this reinforces public opinion to believe that Kratz and co. were right all along about Steven Avery.



I'm not really following your reasoning regarding lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is one of the most common reasons for acquittal. To explain away lack of evidence because 'it could have happened somewhere else' serves no purpose in determining guilt. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn't need to provide an alternate theory nor does he have to do the prosecutor's job.

If we remove the investigators suggestion of a sexual motive (latterly included in Brendan's confession) from Steven Avery's alleged crime, what we are left with is a murder of a female - there is nothing which suggest she was sexually assaulted at all. We can't just include that in there because it may have happened. Everything and anything may and could have happened, but that isn't what the jury is meant to deliberate. Even if the jury think he is capable of murder and/or sexual assault, that is not the question they are being asked to decide. They're being asked to decide, based on the evidence, whether certain events took place.

Excellent Post!
 

Zuri

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2013
Messages
8,782
Reaction score
107
The snarky comments need to cease please. This is an interesting thread and snark has no place here.
 

NirvanaGirl

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
7
IIRC, I think $160,000 went to attorneys fees to GET that settlement, so that left $240,000 for this trial. Not sure where the other $100k would've gone.

Ahh thank you for that. I think I must have missed hearing that (damn Christmas visitors demanding my attention :))

I suppose $100k will disappear rapidly amongst many family members, kids, ex wife etc

Although if the lawyers took that for getting him the settlement & then $240k went on trial representation fees that would have been the entire $400k

I happen to think his lawyers were worth every $ they cost him
 

NirvanaGirl

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
7
The snarky comments need to cease please. This is an interesting thread and snark has no place here.

If that is aimed at me then I apologise. I felt the 'face palm' was patronising & unecessary and thought I needed to say so, instead of just being too afraid to post anymore as I was for the last year or so due to snark.

I perhaps should have ignored it & I quite agree that this is an interesting thread. I may not agree with everyone who's posting but I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion and reading all the great posts from others.
 

chaleigh26

On Time Out
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
280
Reaction score
22
If that is aimed at me then I apologise. I felt the 'face palm' was patronising & unecessary and thought I needed to say so, instead of just being too afraid to post anymore as I was for the last year or so due to snark.

I perhaps should have ignored it & I quite agree that this is an interesting thread. I may not agree with everyone who's posting but I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion and reading all the great posts from others.

Sorry Nirvanagirl, I took your post as patronising
Let's move on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top