Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

Potential Underachiever

Stigura, It seems like you've come on here to gloat that you're far too intelligent to be sucked in by a tv programme. You will not join the flock of sheep that have been gripped by this case, you have no interest in it, yet here you are on a thread posting about it.

Where is the eastenders thread? I saw an episode of it the other night, it was horrifically bad, I don't know how anyone can watch such garbage, I want to go and tell the folk who watch it that they're a load of feckin eejits.

deco nate

Stigura wrote: »

This is why I gave up after the first episode of the subject programme.

Don't highlight a single sentence out of, potentially, a thick wad of typed material. Expecting me to accept your slant on the whole.

I've probably said, " I'd kill him. " at some point in the last month. Now type up every word I've uttered, in the past month. High light that, without any context. I'm homicidal. Bollocks.

These programmes show us what the makers want us to see / hear. They simply ,omit what doesn't fit their agenda.

Oh; And I have Avery blood. Still can't be arsed to watch it.

So why post here if that is the case? You watched only one episode. And that is all you're post consist of.?

I don't get your post.

Anyway for those that have watched it all, yes it may seem one sided. But it goes further than that by showing how the police have messed up this case.
Maybe because they would have to pay out 38 million dollars.

Too many burn sites, no blood in his bedroom. But they said he slit her throat, a car found days after a cop called in the plates. Family and ex boyfriend that hacked her phone and deleted voice mail from her phone... Yea boring stuff,(to you, maybe)
yet stuff that could point out what really happened.

Noo

Wasnt the point of the documentry to show Averys side, not to prove innocence or guilt but to highlight the shambles of an investigation. AFAIK the police department refused to interview for the documentry so for that reason yes its all one sided. When the case first came out all the people on the streets were screaming guilty guilty guilty as all they had was the polices media statements, which less face it only fed them one thing. The documentry clearly shows reasonable doubt and i just dont know how anyone can argue otherwise.

J Mysterio

Stigura wrote: »

This is why I gave up after the first episode of the subject programme.

Don't highlight a single sentence out of, potentially, a thick wad of typed material. Expecting me to accept your slant on the whole.

I've probably said, " I'd kill him. " at some point in the last month. Now type up every word I've uttered, in the past month. High light that, without any context. I'm homicidal. Bollocks.

These programmes show us what the makers want us to see / hear. They simply ,omit what doesn't fit their agenda.

Oh; And I have Avery blood. Still can't be arsed to watch it.

Wha? :pac:

Azalea

Noo wrote: »

Wasnt the point of the documentry to show Averys side, not to prove innocence or guilt but to highlight the shambles of an investigation. AFAIK the police department refused to interview for the documentry so for that reason yes its all one sided. When the case first came out all the people on the streets were screaming guilty guilty guilty as all they had was the polices media statements, which less face it only fed them one thing. The documentry clearly shows reasonable doubt and i just dont know how anyone can argue otherwise.

Teresa Halbach's family were also invited to take part in the documentary but declined.

Akrasia

J Mysterio wrote: »

Wha? :pac:

He got it from the evidence locker...

Ya heard it here first folks

ScumLord

Stigura wrote: »

I tend to grow disinterested the moment productions feed us sound bites out what would clearly be Lots of material.

I'm not going to trawl the court records of every case out there.

So how do you like to digest your information? If it's condensed into a TV show, there's not enough information. But the alternative has too much information. If you have to wait for your information to enter a goldilocks zone before you'll pay attention, it must make learning difficult.

BizzyC

I dunno, without an alternative suspect I don't think I'll every fully believe his innocence.

The show does demonstrate though that the case the proceedings of the case were a complete shambles and probably not sufficient to find him guilty.

8-10

BizzyC wrote: »

The show does demonstrate though that the case the proceedings of the case were a complete shambles and probably not sufficient to find him guilty.

I think this is the point, rather than being a whodunnit

A couple of things about the investigation and trial just looked wrong, and there is definitely some believability that class came into the way some of it was handled.

For instance there was definitely something shady in the way Kratz interviewed Bobby Dassey on the stand. Making it seem like his conversation with Mike happened on the 3rd and not the 10th, and Kratz being the one to suggest it happened that way and not the witness volunteering it that just looked very shady. I know the defense moved for a mistrial on the back of that but I think at the least the jury should have received instructions in retrospect on how to interpret Bobby's testimony.

smash

The sheriff knew that Avery's property wasn't Teresa Holbach's last stop. There's also a lot of other information exchanged between two of the detectives here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLPfZpP4Dpv_n0uIriIdu9h-dQQO7nevSk

MadDog76

Things are heating up with Avery's appeal .........

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/making-murderers-steven-avery-given-7429287

smash

So it appears that tomorrow is a big day. Steven's new lawyer Kathleen Zellner has had the case files ready for a while and the DA kept pushing it back. The DA's time extension runs out tomorrow!

Niemoj

They'd their own road and all!

Antar Bolaeisk

8-10 wrote: »

I think this is the point, rather than being a whodunnit

A couple of things about the investigation and trial just looked wrong, and there is definitely some believability that class came into the way some of it was handled.

For instance there was definitely something shady in the way Kratz interviewed Bobby Dassey on the stand. Making it seem like his conversation with Mike happened on the 3rd and not the 10th, and Kratz being the one to suggest it happened that way and not the witness volunteering it that just looked very shady. I know the defense moved for a mistrial on the back of that but I think at the least the jury should have received instructions in retrospect on how to interpret Bobby's testimony.

The EDTA test I think was the biggest thing that put a dent in their defence, it helped solidify the prosecution's version of events. The test however was completely flawed from the get go, why was there no control run to ensure accuracy of the results for a start? The defence probably made a big mistake trying to have such a thing tested.

Also, what was with the weird excused juror who just hung around the place afterwards!




How are they going to ensure an unbiased jury this time around, surely everyone in the world has heard about this case at this stage and a large number of people have watched the show.

MadDog76

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

How are they going to ensure an unbiased jury this time around, surely everyone in the world has heard about this case at this stage and a large number of people have watched the show.

They weren't worried about an unbiased Jury first time round anyway ........

ScumLord

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

How are they going to ensure an unbiased jury this time around, surely everyone in the world has heard about this case at this stage and a large number of people have watched the show.

I don't think it would be too difficult. It was a netflix show so it would have had a limited amount of people watching it. The rest would be getting their news from traditional news sources.

smash

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

How are they going to ensure an unbiased jury this time around, surely everyone in the world has heard about this case at this stage and a large number of people have watched the show.

His new attorney claims to have enough evidence to exonerate him outright without the need for a retrial. Tomorrow or Monday are earmarked as days to keep an eye on, but we'll see what happens.

ScumLord

smash wrote: »

His new attorney claims to have enough evidence to exonerate him outright without the need for a retrial. Tomorrow or Monday are earmarked as days to keep an eye on, but we'll see what happens.

I wonder will the news be using spoiler alerts? They could just end up ruining the end of making a murderer 2.

Boom_Bap

smash wrote: »

His new attorney claims to have enough evidence to exonerate him outright without the need for a retrial. Tomorrow or Monday are earmarked as days to keep an eye on, but we'll see what happens.

I've read that it's cell phone records.

In relation to the claims of the jury being unbias, the jury was local originally and it was all over the local news back then.
I think that there was a briefing before the trial for the jury not to pay attention to what they have heard in the media and to not pay attention to the media over the course of the trial.

Supernintento Chalmers

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-says-mobile-phone-records-provide-airtight-alibi-for-avery-34520477.html

Laois_Man

Kathleen Zellner also says someone using a fake name accessed the Avery property during the search.


Also I see Avery's girlfriend at the time of the murder Jodi Stachowski gave an interview showing a completely different view point to what's shown in the documentary. She believes he's guilty

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/13/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-s-ex-fiancee-claims-behind-closed-doors-he-s-a-monster.html

Boom_Bap

Laois_Man wrote: »

Kathleen Zellner also says someone using a fake name accessed the Avery property during the search.


Also I see Avery's girlfriend at the time of the murder Jodi Stachowski gave an interview showing a completely different view point to what's shown in the documentary. She believes he's guilty

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/13/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-s-ex-fiancee-claims-behind-closed-doors-he-s-a-monster.html

Throughout the trial Jodi was standing firmly behind him. It was only later that she changed her mind and started making claims to press rather than to the cops.

The Raptor

Laois_Man wrote: »

Kathleen Zellner also says someone using a fake name accessed the Avery property during the search.


Also I see Avery's girlfriend at the time of the murder Jodi Stachowski gave an interview showing a completely different view point to what's shown in the documentary. She believes he's guilty

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/13/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-s-ex-fiancee-claims-behind-closed-doors-he-s-a-monster.html

I think she was paid to turn against him.

I think they were all paid in some way, each and every one of them. Except Brendan, he was an easy target.

Jodi had a chance to get away from him while he was in prison. But she stayed waiting for him in his trailer in the hope that he would be released. The cops intervened and told her to move.

But instead, she's coming out now saying that she tried suicide by eating rat poison. Things must have been very bad to eat rat poison. But then she had the chance to get away while he was in prison, so I don't get it.

nacho libre

So the new evidence is a prowler(?) unauthorised person had access to the crime scene and the phone masts proves she left his place, despite it being claimed previously that was the last place she had been? Why were her voice messages deleted and who did this? It seems to me the person who hacked her voicemail deleted them, but why?

cowboyBuilder

mad stuff Ted ...

smash

nacho libre wrote: »

So the new evidence is a prowler(?) unauthorised person had access to the crime scene and the phone masts proves she left his place, despite it being claimed previously that was the last place she had been? Why were her voice messages deleted and who did this? It seems to me the person who hacked her voicemail deleted them, but why?

This was only ever claimed by the police after they found her vehicle on Avery's property. Prior to this it was always believed that her last stop was George Zipperer, who's wife even testified that the victim was at their property some time between 12 and 3 and that she never saw Teresa leave. When the car was found at Avery's they immediately dismissed all other suspects. Andres Martinez was also on the Avery property the day the car was found. He had previous convictions and left the Avery property to go home and axe his girlfriend. He also made subsequent statements that Steven and Brendan are innocent... Google it, you couldn't make this stuff up.

An update on the case is that Avery's lawyer filed a motion on the 8th to request 21 days to review the prosecution records so nothing will be happening until some time in April.

Noo

smash wrote: »

This was only ever claimed by the police after they found her vehicle on Avery's property. Prior to this it was always believed that her last stop was George Zipperer, who's wife even testified that the victim was at their property some time between 12 and 3 and that she never saw Teresa leave. When the car was found at Avery's they immediately dismissed all other suspects. Andres Martinez was also on the Avery property the day the car was found. He had previous convictions and left the Avery property to go home and axe his girlfriend. He also made subsequent statements that Steven and Brendan are innocent... Google it, you couldn't make this stuff up.

Jesus christ it really is bang your head off the wall stuff! If sense finally prevails officers will have to be charged criminally.

smash

Good video in this article http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/the-woman-unmaking-americas-most-famous-murderer/

Sunflower 27

https://youtu.be/nIkGph9UCDU

Storytelling hour with Ken Kratz. Enjoy.

smash

May 31st is the deadline for Kathleen Zellner's brief to be submitted to court. https://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHistory.xsl;jsessionid=2D0B9943AF1266FA501512235342FF5B?caseNo=2015AP002489&cacheId=8600BA3B7F7342E65209A814D01D2D2F&recordCount=4&offset=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC

If she has the evidence she says she has then it's going to get very interesting!