Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[Dr Who]

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.

Brendans comments regarding the stabbing in the jeep could have been born from the media coverage following its discovery. Im sure his classmates, family, even strangers were coming up with opinions and gossip.

 

[Dr Who]

Something to keep an eye on-
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y4cj8/i_know_a_new_technique_that_could_test_the/

 

[MaxManning]

I forgot to include the link lol. Information overload, sorry. Here is the link.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...11_the_excused_just_posted_this_on_fb_to_the/

Yes , i think yesterday we were going over this post that i think maybe brightbird posted. I think the jury is what it is. Most of us agreed that the deputy's father was not a good jury choice for that case for obvious reasons. We discussed 'strikes' that prosecution and defense have to get rid of jurors they don't think will be favorable. Trying to understand why he was not struck out Would be good to hear from lawyers on that one.

But unfortunately, as i also noted earlier, juror 11 doesn't go into any detail about what the sticking points were for jurors who weren't convinced one way or the other. Or what were the defining pieces of evidence for those who say him as not guilty. My reason for wanting to know this is that we don't have a trial transcript and we saw an article stating 80% or more of the evidence from the trial , isn't even in the documentary. I hope we can all agree that's quite a bit. So I don't see how ANYONE can say they know he's innocent or guilty to a higher degree of confidence that someone who saw all the evidence in the trial.

We do however have the advantage of seeing the evidence that wasn't in the trial, like the shady characters around the junkyard. So I can see how anyone can have reasonable doubt with that knowledge.


I just want to see the trial transcript so I can see what the jury actually saw. Maybe it's not so crazy that they said guilty given what they knew. The defense had the ability to argue the evidence was planted. So how did the defense rebut that ? I'm more than confident that we didn't see all the explanations the prosecution might have given the jury.

So I really want to see the transcript, just so I know the full picture.

 

[MaxManning]

Something to keep an eye on-
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y4cj8/i_know_a_new_technique_that_could_test_the/

Amazing that this exists.

I was thinking about that earlier today in terms of if over time there is a biological difference in the blood, since it's not in the body. Sounds like that is exactly what this is!

The other thing I wondered is if there was any kind of protocol for measurement of blood in terms of volume. For example when a sample is taken do they note the amount of blood taken ? if so to what level of precision.

Likewise when the remove blood from the vial to be tested, is there a standard amount that would get logged and how precise might that be.

Reason being, if you know how much blood SHOULD be in the vial, then you could prove that some is missing in a case like this.

 

[Ringfinger]

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.

I don't think there was a person shot in that garage at all. But I also don't think this clears anyone, I just think it shows that LE made their case based on a false idea of what happened.

 

[MaxManning]

From my research as a writer, I could not find anything that would say that gasoline or Paint thinner would destroy DNA. The ingredients/chemicals would not get rid of it but could slow down the process of identifying the DNA as it would have to be extracted. Now I could be wrong but that the info I found researching for a book I am writing.

I did find this site's thread it talks about what destroys dna and has an expert answering questions. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-destroys-dna.45471/

I also found this document helpful in my research, for DNA information start at page 32 http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/Phys_Evid_Manual_OR.pdf

This one talks about what evidence fire can and can not destroy http://www.northjersey.com/story-ar...rder-scenes-can-t-destroy-all-clues-1.1225824

Here is another link I have from my research as a writer http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/things-writers-should-know-about-dna/

I hope this helps, I will see if I can find some more information after Christmas.

Have been reading over these and it seems that there is a distinction in that chlorine bleach can potentially make the DNA unable to be tested for a match. So even if they were able to detect the presence of the blood , which luminol does, it might not be able to be used to get a match with someone's DNA.

Is that your understanding. I'll admit some of this was hard for me to understand as on the one thread some far smarter than I on the topic disagreed

I can't seem to find any evidence that luminol was used in the garage. Great example of how it could be a complete plant, if the prosecution can't even prove that the floor had blood on it or not. We are sure the bleach would have been chlorine, since brendan's pants were visually bleached. So a luminol test, should have shown the attempt to clean up blood - even if it wasn't testable for a DNA match.

So many odd questions in this case. Learning alot, but it's frustrating that so little is known about the trial itself, that is verifiable.

 

[stephsb]

I am getting through the last document, where he actually gives them the confession they want, and there are so many problems w. it I don't even know where to start. I still have about another 70 pages to go so god knows what else i'll find. I'll post when I'm done. At this point, I would say virtually everything in that confession is useless, there is so much coercion (they're promising a deal right off the bat, which they can't give...something obviously Brendan wouldn't know) and fishing for the answers they want. If he tells them an answer they don't want, they just use leading questions until they get one that they do.

A common question in an interrogation shouldn't be "Did you kill her" at least not right away, as it will obviously be denied. It also then makes it very clear you're a suspect, which you don't necessarily want, since it can lead to evasiveness or, in an intelligent person, "I need a lawyer" They should at that point not be suggesting if she was yelling, or if there was a struggle, or was Steven injured, it suggests those things happen. They should be asking "Tell us what Steven told you happened, in his words." From there, let him talk, and continue along with "And then what?" Or "Can you clarify that for us" or "What happened then" and so on and so forth. You want to let the person talk. The more the person talks, the better chance they'll say something incriminating. Coercion all depends on the context. It's not illegal for them to use leading questions, but it isn't good practice on getting the truth since it leads the person to the answer. Hence, why they are not able to be used on direct examination in a trial.

 

[canadianwhitedove]

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.

Hi Max I thought you find this document interesting. It is written by the Dr Richard Leo. He testified at Brendan's trial or appeal about false confessions. It very interesting to read and gives you some ideas of what he had to say. It not from Brendan's trial but it based on the same precepts.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...fidavit_concering_soffars_falseconfession.pdf

 

[MaxManning]

I found the last 2 videos in particular to be what I would deem borderline abusive.

But I still am not seeing the huge flaws in the 2/27 and even the beginning of the 3/1 interviews. I do see the leading you suggest in several areas and would definitely appreciate your opinion on what you found as coercive.

My uneducated impression of the first interview at the school on 2/27 was that Brendan was very cautious and unsure if he should say anything. In hindsight, that might arguably have been his best option!

But, my impression was that the investigators were trying to create a relationship and that could only be done by creating conversations, as in most cases he wasn't even answering. About midway through, you start to notice that brendan is getting comfortable. He is starting to believe that he can trust these guys and say things and not get in trouble. For sure, his fear was that something he said about what he knew might get him in trouble. Is that fair to say ?

Imagine for a moment that this was a case was involving someone who it was completely clear they were innocent, but they had information that you needed. I would think that you need to create that relationship whereby the person feels comfortable talking. That might include using words and making comments that are to the level of the content. Such that the person feels comfortable that they can talk about such things in a casual way. Does that make sense ?


Rather than speed ahead to how I see it proceeding from there, I'd like to hear what you (stephsb or anyone else) think about what I've just said. I am open to being completely wrong on this, but I felt as if much of that first interview was all about that. I didn't feel at that point as if he wanted to even give them what they wanted, but rather was feeling out whether he could trust them. I'd imagine having police asking him questions was quite intimidating. You also have to think about the fact that his uncle had gone to prison for 18 years for something he didn't do. These were the guys that did that.

So, in a case where the police weren't corrupt/biased -- which I will fully agree was the case here -- what would be the right way to approach that situation. I kind of feel how they approached the first half of the interview on 2/27 was effective. By the 2nd interview on 2/27, dare I say that brendan even seem relieved ? That's kind of what I was sensing.


Ok, i'll hang up and listen to your answer

 

[MaxManning]

Hi Max I thought you find this document interesting. It is written by the Dr Richard Leo. He testified at Brendan's trial or appeal about false confessions. It very interesting to read and gives you some ideas of what he had to say. It not from Brendan's trial but it based on the same precepts. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...fidavit_concering_soffars_falseconfession.pdf

thanks, gonna read this now. Thanks for helping me understand this aspect of the case, I admit I am not educated in this area at all.

 

[canadianwhitedove]

Have been reading over these and it seems that there is a distinction in that chlorine bleach can potentially make the DNA unable to be tested for a match. So even if they were able to detect the presence of the blood , which luminol does, it might not be able to be used to get a match with someone's DNA.

Is that your understanding. I'll admit some of this was hard for me to understand as on the one thread some far smarter than I on the topic disagreed

I can't seem to find any evidence that luminol was used in the garage. Great example of how it could be a complete plant, if the prosecution can't even prove that the floor had blood on it or not. We are sure the bleach would have been chlorine, since brendan's pants were visually bleached. So a luminol test, should have shown the attempt to clean up blood - even if it wasn't testable for a DNA match.

So many odd questions in this case. Learning alot, but it's frustrating that so little is known about the trial itself, that is verifiable.

Yes that is my understanding with the notion that blood and DNA get stuck in nooks and crannies that most people would not think of so it hard to clean up everything.

Now my problem is where the bullet was found, if they were able to clean everything but missed the bullet underneath the compressor then there should of been some trace DNA evidence around where the bullet was found under the compressor somewhere. For example the bullet would have either blood and/or brain matter maybe even bone fragments when it landed on the floor underneath the compressor. This should of transferred trace DNA on the floor or where ever the bullet landed/found.
Mind you I am no expert but just a writer that is doing research and find this topic very interesting.

Here link about transfer DNA I thought you might find interesting http://www.lawofficer.com/articles/2009/01/transfer-theory-forensic-dna-a.html

 

[MaxManning]

Hi Max I thought you find this document interesting. It is written by the Dr Richard Leo. He testified at Brendan's trial or appeal about false confessions. It very interesting to read and gives you some ideas of what he had to say. It not from Brendan's trial but it based on the same precepts. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...fidavit_concering_soffars_falseconfession.pdf

I read this statement early on and nod my head knowingly --- > "The subject of police interrogation and false confessions is beyond common knowledge and something about which the public has misconceptions. "

 

[canadianwhitedove]

thanks, gonna read this now. Thanks for helping me understand this aspect of the case, I admit I am not educated in this area at all.

You are very welcome. I am trying to do research for several characters for my book so this is a win win situation for me.

I am trying to find more information on gudjonsson suggestibility test that Brandon took.
From my understanding of Gudjonsson research is this

"In order to assess a criminal suspect's ability to make a reliable statement, performance on three measures—interrogative suggestibility, confabulation and acquiescence—may be used. This paper presents preliminary data on these measures for people with mild learning disabilities (Full Scale IQ [FSIQ]: 57–75). It was found that they were more suggestible than their average ability counterparts (FSIQ: 83–111) because they were much more susceptible to ‘leading questions’. They also confabulated more and were more acquiescent. Overall, the data emphasized their potential vulnerability to giving erroneous testimony during interrogations."
"

 

[stephsb]

The first link for the 3/1 interview wasn't concerning. The second link to the 3/1 interview (the one that is 155 pgs) is beyond problematic. This is the one where they get Brenden to "confess" to the crime" and give them what they want. There are numerous passages (and I'm only half thru) where he gives them info to an open-ended question, and they then use leading questions to get them to the answer they want, all the while saying "be honest, we know the truth, we know what happened" Some of the things Brendan is confessing to are down right laughable, they make no sense, he is guessing for what they want.

There's nothing wrong with building a relationship with someone, but that isn't what they were doing. Shortly after being given his Miranda rights in the 3/1 transcript, they tell give him a lecture on the truth and mention something about "the person who helps is the one who gets the deal" their intentions are obvious, why would Brendan need a deal if he wasn't charged with a crime? He wasn't an innocent person they were trying to get key info from, he was the person they were going to get to confess to helping Steven so they could use him to testify against him, and they lead him along until they had the story they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maxine2U]

I was very put off by the prosecutor, Kratz. He just seemed like a real jerk. I kept trying to remind myself that the whole documentary was biased and maybe I wasn't getting the whole picture of him. But he just gave me the creeps. And then I found this, date June 2014:

http://fox11online.com/news/local/39034

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the law license of former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz for four months, it announced Friday.Kratz was serving as Calumet County's district attorney in 2010 when he tried to spark a relationship with a 25-year-old woman through a barrage of racy text messages in 2009 while he was prosecuting her ex-boyfriend for domestic abuse. "

 

[MaxManning]

Hi Max I thought you find this document interesting. It is written by the Dr Richard Leo. He testified at Brendan's trial or appeal about false confessions. It very interesting to read and gives you some ideas of what he had to say. It not from Brendan's trial but it based on the same precepts. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...fidavit_concering_soffars_falseconfession.pdf

very interesting document, and this is part seems to be the test for a false confession :


" If the suspect cannot provide police with the actual details of the crime, fails to accurately describe the crime scene facts, 8 cannot lead the police to new or derivative crime evidence, and/or provides an account that is full of gross errors and disconfirmed by the independent case evidence, then the suspect's post-admission narrative demonstrates that he fails to possess the actual knowledge that would be known only by the true perpetrator. This lack of knowledge is therefore strongly consistent with a judgment of innocence."



Still reading, but I am assuming that since so much of the crime scene details had been known for months, things like bone fragments/body parts on the fire and shackles/cuffs etc are not things that could factor into this equation unless he didn't mention them and as the suspect he should know about them. But the fact that he mentioned bones/body parts on the fire wouldn't affect the test for false confession because it's not something that he would only know if guilty.



So what we should be looking for is what exactly he says that only someone there could know or to exclude him we should be looking for something he incorrectly reports that can be proved otherwise. Which I think is common sense to some degree and what we are all looking for.


What if there is a mix ? I'll have to read on about that. There is also a section on the cognitively slow, and I will agree that he fit the description as I have noted that he was trying to please the investigators during the 2/27 second interview :


"The mentally handicapped and cognitively impaired also tend to be highly submissive (especially eager to please authority figures), compliant, suggestible, and responsive to stress and pressure. "


I get this as well, and I also think that was why we felt so outraged watching the documentary. However it's particularly about midway through the 3/1 interview that I started to sense a swing from a "your my buddy and you need to get this out and everyone will be proud of you" to a more of a "If you aren't going to be honest with us, we aren't going to be able to protect you from the consequences any longer".


That kind of gets detailed in this document as a specific tactic.




Depending on whether you believe the police planted the bullet or not, he played a part in leading them to that bullet by specifying a shooting occurred in the garage. -- But I kind of don't believe that.


I will go through the transcripts a bit more with that in mind, but the issue is that because of a lack of investigation we aren't really sure if much of what he said early on is true or not. There is no way to prove it one way or the other. For example, if there was a way to prove she had rope around her upper body, that would indicate the truth. We just don't know that and likely never will. How could he even prove that ? since it would have burned in the fire ?


Another example is that she was stabbed. His statements on the 2/2 7 suggested he first saw her and she was stabbed in the stomach. There is no way to verify this. It could be true.


Another example is that he got the cut from teresa. How would that be proven right or wrong ? We do know he got that cut on the night of the supposed murder and probably everyone knew so assumed the same as he did. However if it was confirmed somehow that it happened in a struggle for her to escape, that would make it a true confession.


so, the absent of evidence that is impossible to recover , isn't evidence that he wasn't correct.


Which is why I go back to what Barb Janda said happend the night of the murder in regards to his pants being bleached from helping steve clean his garage floor, because I do believe it was true. He didn't even include that in his original 2/27 story. Yet, it was true imo. It's not something he told the police, he told his mom. Was she coercing him into a false confession ?


So during the 1st interview on 3/1 interview at the police department, now he brings it up. As I noted , it seemed as if he now trusted that this was the right thing to do. But he gave that piece of evidence that matched what his mom had said. Can I prove that they cleaned the floor ? haha, nope. But if he didnt, his mom lied for no reason and so did he.


The fact that everything including the victim was in the fire, would seem to most anything of that nature tough to prove. I notice they asked about her pubic hair, I should go back to that. But I'm not even sure we know if she shaved down there or not. sorry for being so crude, but it's in that doc. Maybe we can assume he was wrong because they didn't note he guessed right ? But if I remember correctly he was maybe unsure, which is reasonable that he might not want to look at her, as he portrayed it as he was being forced.


I'm going to go over these transcripts a bit more with all this in mind and focus in on things that can be proven that he was wrong about.


thanks again for this doc. I am still reading it by the way, it's a very interesting subject.

Edit - I am tired but I might have misstated when he admitted that he had been cleaning the garage with Steve. It might have been the 3/1 interview early on, I will check

 

[stephsb]

He didn't play a big part in leading them to the bullet, in the 3/1 interview he tells them Steven shot her once, then twice, then three times outside of the garage. After they tell him there were a bunch of shell casings found in the garage, he changes the number to 10 times shot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stephsb]

After reading through the entire 3/1 interview (all 155 pages, thank god I'm Christmas Break) I can't find anything useful in it. There is so much, coercion, so much leading, virtually no useful information is given by him w.o help first.

The following is information police said the knew/statements the police gave to Brendan before he brought it up during the interview:
-There was cleaning in garage
-Fire was going
-There was an altercation w. Teresa
-The Monte was not in the garage
-Teresa's jeep was in garage
-Steven did not call Brendan's house
-Teresa was tied up
-Steven needed help to get rid of a body
-Steven came to door asking for help
-Steven opened the back of the jeep
-Brendan went to Steven's house
-Steven saw Brendan, that's why he asked for Brendan's help
-That Brendan went to Steven's and was asked to get his mail
-Brendan went inside Steven's
-Brendan knocked on Steven's door
-Steven asked Brendan something in kitchen
-Brendan was back in Steven's bedroom
-Teresa had no clothes on
-Brendan took his clothes off
-Brendan was there when Teresa died
-Brendan was w. Steven at that time
-Steven did more than stab Teresa
-Brendan helped tie her up
-Something happened to Teresa's head
-Steven made Brendan do something so he wouldn't feel bad about being the only one
-Teresa was alive when her throat was cut
-Teresa was shot in the head
-Teresa was naked outside
-Something happened in garage/jeep
-Teresa was shot in garage
-Shell casings were found in garage
-Brendan fired the gun
-Brendan and Steven put Teresa on creeper
-License plates were off car
-Steven took plates off and then did something else in car
-Steven looked at engine and raised the hood
-Steven did something under the hood
-Knife was not in jeep
-Jodi called
-The time Teresa got there
-Teresa was not outside when Brendan gets back from school
-Car is not sitting out front, no one else saw it
-Teresa had a purse
-Steven watched while Brendan raped Teresa
-Steven used a rifle
-When your throat is cut, there is a lot of blood
-Teresa bled a lot and it would be impossible for Brendan not to have blood on him
-Wires were hanging from rafter in garage
-Teresa had a tattoo on her stomach

 

[stephsb]

Continuing the post from above, even w. the police basically giving Brendan all the information he needed, he still could not answer the following until either led further by police, or at all:

-What time Steven came to his door
-What Teresa was wearing on porch
-Where her head was in the jeep
-Where blood dripped from
-How she got in the back of the jeep
-Why Steven was pissed at Teresa
-Color of Teresa's shirt
-What the creeper said on it
-If Teresa's hands were tied w. clothsline
-Where Steven raped her
-The color of handcuffs/leg irons
-Why Teresa didnt say anything if her mouth was uncovered
-What happened to her head
-If she was alive when shot
-If Steven shot her
-If creeper is still in garage
-If Chuck saw them
-What else Steven did in car
-What Steven did w. plates
-Where Steven put the plates after he put them in the house
-What Steven did under the hood
-Where her bra and panties were
-If garage door was open
-Where Teresa's purse is
-What happened to Teresa's possessions
-What Steven did w. her possessions
-Why Steven wanted him to cut her hair
-If the fire was burning when he got home from school
-If anyone came to talk to Steven
-What they did w. Teresa's body after it was burned
-If Steven called Chuck
-If Steven kept the hair
-Where Teresa's underwear are
-If Steve kept her underwear
-What shirt he was wearing(Brendan)
-If blood soaked through the mattress/mattress pad
-If Steven cleaned the house
-If Steven did the laundry or washed clothes
-If every shot hit her
-The direction of Steven's house from his
-Why Steven would shoot a dead body
-If Steven used a skidsteer to dig up fire pit
-Didn't remember Teresa's tattoo
-How Steven felt after

If anyone can still believe his confession is legit after reading all of those statements and all 155 pages, please let me know why you think that, I would love to know someone's reasoning for why that whole confession is not garbage. The fact that he still couldn't give a consistent or sensible story after police basically coached him through the whole thing is not only a testament to his story and backs up his claim that he was guessing like he did at school, it should be a huge red flag as to how he has absolutely zero idea what was going on. After reading this, I can't say for certain I believe he knows anything first hand. He is consistent on virtually nothing except what he did prior to going to Steven's. If I was prosecuting this case, there is no way I'd use anything from that confession unless it was corroborated by something solid, and even then I'd be reluctant. This should have never been used in court, and I think it's pretty clear why they didn't use it in Steven's trial and instead dropped charges. God only knows what Steven's attorneys would have done w. this garbage. What a joke.

 

[nathansmart]

Max, in regards to the "80%" comment - that was a quote from Kratz and I am hard-pressed to believe anything that guy says.