Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Kingp35 wrote: »

Quite easily tbh. There have been countless studies on the validity of forensic "science" in criminal trials and just how unscientific a lot of it is. Working backwards it not scientific, it's pure guesswork. You are taking a conclusion and then guessing as to how that conclusion was reached when in reality there could be thousands of possibilities.

In the case of Stephen Avery, I understand there is no other way of really doing it but the amount of people in this thread taking the testing done by Zellner as "fact" and "proof" of Avery's innocence is a bit mad.

A lot of this is dependent on the type of test being done. In the case where they are comparing different DNA samples with that of the hood latch it is a straight up analysis done using the same detection limits as the state evidence, this will provide a side by side comparison per the documentary, repeating the experiment is done per protocol to ensure the reproducibility of the test being conducted.

Something like the blood spatter is a lot more contentious as it certainly is looking at the result or desired outcome and working backwards. Zellner's team did a good job in presenting a scenario that would account for the blood spatter and also showed that the actions the state presented during the trial could never have resulted in the spatter as presented. Just because they presented a scenario does not mean other scenarios are not possible, their presented scenario is more scientifically sound than the state's assumptions and fit's their narrative but is not definitely what happened. A very good alternative example of how blood spatter results can be manipulated by working backwards is presented in the Staircase, also on Netflix.

As for the bullet, once again they have done a good job of disproving the scenario presented by the state but Zellner's conclusions could probably be picked apart by a state expert in a retrial scenario, once again they looked at what was on the bullet and worked backwards.

Kingp35 wrote: »

Quite easily tbh. There have been countless studies on the validity of forensic "science" in criminal trials and just how unscientific a lot of it is. Working backwards it not scientific, it's pure guesswork. You are taking a conclusion and then guessing as to how that conclusion was reached when in reality there could be thousands of possibilities.

In the case of Stephen Avery, I understand there is no other way of really doing it but the amount of people in this thread taking the testing done by Zellner as "fact" and "proof" of Avery's innocence is a bit mad.

And if it wasn't clear in my other response, I agree with you

Mam of 4

I love reading people's different opinions on MaM . The pros/cons , for and against .

I've never said I thought SA was innocent entirely , but I'm as sure as hell convinced that it didn't happen the way the Prosecution said it did , and also that neither SA nor BD got a fair trail , far from it .

TomOnBoard

Mam of 4 wrote: »

I love reading people's different opinions on MaM . The pros/cons , for and against .

I've never said I thought SA was innocent entirely , but I'm as sure as hell convinced that it didn't happen the way the Prosecution said it did , and also that neither SA nor BD got a fair trail , far from it .

I'd say that more or less summarises how most ppl who have bothered to study the case feel about it.

Mam of 4

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'd say that more or less summarises how most ppl who have bothered to study the case feel about it.

I'm not the most articulate person , but it bugs me that if you question the evidence(or lack there of ) , or how corrupt the police , the Prosecution team were , you're automatically labelled as a SA Is Innocent fan club member .

There are no winners in this case , just too many unanswered questions , where it looks like the jigsaw pieces were made to fit in , just to finish the puzzle , rightly or wrongly .

Mountainsandh

Kingp35 wrote: »

Quite easily tbh. There have been countless studies on the validity of forensic "science" in criminal trials and just how unscientific a lot of it is. Working backwards it not scientific, it's pure guesswork. You are taking a conclusion and then guessing as to how that conclusion was reached when in reality there could be thousands of possibilities.

In the case of Stephen Avery, I understand there is no other way of really doing it but the amount of people in this thread taking the testing done by Zellner as "fact" and "proof" of Avery's innocence is a bit mad.

I agree on some points, but like you said there is no other way.

If you present KZ's scenario on the blood spatter as "junk science", then so is the prosecution's analysis.

It's clear that some methods are not as reliable/proven as just analyzing DNA for example, and yet they are commonly used for both defense and prosecution.

If the prosecution are allowed to present their findings to the jury, then so should Zellner be.

The analysis of the lead on the bullet makes a lot of sense, and if I were a jury this would sway me. It seems obvious that if the lead is picking up fragments of wood, it should also pick up fragments of whatever else it hits/passes through.

Could you reasonably explain that a bullet like the one used could hit someone's skull and NOT pick up any traces of bones, BUT instead pick up wood ? oh, and pick up some unknown source of DNA on the way (ie not blood).

The experiment with the key, held by Steven for 12 minutes, is also convincing and again were I a jury in such a case, would sway me.

What's being argued here ? he put the key in his mouth ? rubbed it under his armpits or his groin ? shoved it into his non-existent underwear ?
Same with the hoodlatch ?

The experiments she has had conducted are not fanciful, they are reasonable attempts to duplicate the state's findings.

That they may not be as reliable as a science theory that has been worked and reworked from the start in a lab is evident, like I said, it goes with the territory.

youcancallmeal

Just finished watching season 2. I still think Steven Avery did it but perhaps evidence was embellished/planted by law enforcement to make sure a guilty verdict was returned. One thing I find fascinating is the American court system, in particular the en banc part of the 7th Circuit Court. Interesting how judges opinions wildly differ. And I can totally understand why the supreme court didn't want to take it

8-10

youcancallmeal wrote: »

Just finished watching season 2. I still think Steven Avery did it but perhaps evidence was embellished/planted by law enforcement to make sure a guilty verdict was returned.

There's no reason to me why Zellner's recreated theory of her driving off the property and being followed by Bobby around to Kuss Road to be bludgeoned at the back of the car and then burned in the quarry couldn't have as easily been done by Steven instead of Bobby. Maybe even more plausible that he followed her than Bobby because he is known to have had the interaction with her on the property. Could he have been pissed off at something or offended or scared her to drive off? And decided to follow her in a rage....like he's done before to his cousin from the first episode of MAM1?

Zellner looks at everything exclusively through the lens of her client being 100% innocent, but pretends she's trying to just get to the truth. I think if you have a theory of what happened, and I do think she has good reason to have a theory where she left the property and good reason to question the burn site, then you should apply that theory to all potential suspects including SA to see what makes the most sense.

Overall however, I just don't believe he did it the way the prosecution maintains that he did with Brendan. And the jury's opinion itself shows doubt with that.

Finished watching this last night. Great TV.

In my opinion BD was fed enough to void his confession. I'm amazed that more of the 7 judges in the appeal didn't see it that way. That said, I would like to see his unedited confession tape from start to finish. I wonder if he said anything (unfed) that could be verified. I doubt it though since they never found her body for sure, only some bones suspected to be hers, and thus they never verified that she was raped or how she was murdered.

On that, is it true to say that Brendan Dassey was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach by cutting her throat in the bedroom of Steven Avery's trailer and that Steven Avery was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach by gunshot to the head in a garage on his property. If so, how can two people be convicted of the murder of the same person, by different methods, at different locations, and presumably at different times? Was she murdered twice??!!

Whether Avery murdered her or not (and I'm not convinced he did), the investigation was corrupt. The coroner being warned away, cops who were told to stay off site finding evidence on site after the room had already been searched several times, evidence not disclosed to the defence, reports not being made, and so on. It all stinks.

Also, one thing that stuck with me from the first season was Kenneth Petersen (the sheriff from the wrongful conviction) giving evidence in the Teresa Halbach trial, said that he wasn't convinced that Avery was innocent of the rape charge even after he had been exonerated by DNA evidence. I just thought it showed the cops attitude towards SA in a very bad light.

Scotty # wrote: »

Finished watching this last night. Great TV.

In my opinion BD was fed enough to void his confession. I'm amazed that more of the 7 judges in the appeal didn't see it that way. That said, I would like to see his unedited confession tape from start to finish. I wonder if he said anything (unfed) that could be verified. I doubt it though since they never found her body for sure, only some bones suspected to be hers, and thus they never verified that she was raped or how she was murdered.

On that, is it true to say that Brendan Dassey was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach by cutting her throat in the bedroom of Steven Avery's trailer and that Steven Avery was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach by gunshot to the head in a garage on his property. If so, how can two people be convicted of the murder of the same person, by different methods, at different locations, and presumably at different times? Was she murdered twice??!!

Whether Avery murdered her or not (and I'm not convinced he did), the investigation was corrupt. The coroner being warned away, cops who were told to stay off site finding evidence on site after the room had already been searched several times, evidence not disclosed to the defence, reports not being made, and so on. It all stinks.

Also, one thing that stuck with me from the first season was Kenneth Petersen (the sheriff from the wrongful conviction) giving evidence in the Teresa Halbach trial, said that he wasn't convinced that Avery was innocent of the rape charge even after he had been exonerated by DNA evidence. I just thought it showed the cops attitude towards SA in a very bad light.

Good summary, you have nicely pointed out the flawed system in place. Although based on Kratz's behavior to date are you really surprised he convicted both for what are essentially separate murders of the same person?

I am really curious to see how all of the Brady violations will be addressed by the legal system but at this stage I would not be surprised if it was all swept under the carpet and dismissed. It really is incredible how these processes work (or do not work as the case may be).

8-10

Scotty # wrote: »

Also, one thing that stuck with me from the first season was Kenneth Petersen (the sheriff from the wrongful conviction) giving evidence in the Teresa Halbach trial, said that he wasn't convinced that Avery was innocent of the rape charge even after he had been exonerated by DNA evidence. I just thought it showed the cops attitude towards SA in a very bad light.

Was that the guy who clearly traced SA's photo into a sketch for the original case?

8-10 wrote: »

Was that the guy who clearly traced SA's photo into a sketch for the original case?

No, it was this guy...

237b0c27-5fbb-46d5-bbff-5fef38d1f868.jpg?w=970&h=582&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70

8-10

Scotty # wrote: »

No, it was this guy...

Ah yes I remember that chap. Are these full depositions available anywhere?

Anyone who doesn’t believe that a police force can be inherently corrupt should look a little closer to home and remember what some Gardai here did to Maurice Mc Cabe. Not comparing like with like, but it’s a sobering reminder that if police take a disliking to you and even more importantly, if they feel you have their number; there’s no telling what they could do. If that’s what can happen here on our own little island within the actual institution itself, I dread to think of the consequences when you are totally powerless to what is going on around you.

8-10 wrote: »

Ah yes I remember that chap. Are these full depositions available anywhere?

I had a quick look for them. They were actually never used as the case fell apart 3 weeks later when Avery was arrested for TH's murder. They were never entered into evidence and so are still owned by the company who recorded them, Magne-Script Video Court Reporting Service.

Interesting article regarding them here > https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/news/2016/03/03/why-we-obtained-avery-lawsuit-videos/81205228/

Mountainsandh

8-10 wrote: »

There's no reason to me why Zellner's recreated theory of her driving off the property and being followed by Bobby around to Kuss Road to be bludgeoned at the back of the car and then burned in the quarry couldn't have as easily been done by Steven instead of Bobby. Maybe even more plausible that he followed her than Bobby because he is known to have had the interaction with her on the property. Could he have been pissed off at something or offended or scared her to drive off? And decided to follow her in a rage....like he's done before to his cousin from the first episode of MAM1?

Zellner looks at everything exclusively through the lens of her client being 100% innocent, but pretends she's trying to just get to the truth. I think if you have a theory of what happened, and I do think she has good reason to have a theory where she left the property and good reason to question the burn site, then you should apply that theory to all potential suspects including SA to see what makes the most sense.

Overall however, I just don't believe he did it the way the prosecution maintains that he did with Brendan. And the jury's opinion itself shows doubt with that.

Yeah it did cross my mind that it could have been Steven too. That's where Bobby's computer history comes in though, and also the fact that he was around that evening to call Jodi's attorneys, etc...
A retrial would help with that.

Apparently some new info being revealed this evening, 6.30 our time.

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1063030739426512896

Don’t let me down Zellner!!!

Scotty # wrote: »

Apparently some new info being revealed this evening, 6.30 our time.

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1063030739426512896

Popular rumour is that they found sweaty Kratz's blood in the RAV 4..... Season 3, here we come.

Realistically though I am not expecting anything major but hope I am wrong.It cannot be a development in the case because the media would be all over it and if it is new evidence no doubt the state will have it dismissed on the grounds of being old evidence re-packaged or for being unfounded. There is a bit of a trend with their responses to the various motions and amendments.

retro:electro wrote: »

Don’t let me down Zellner!!!

The most recent thing that Zellner was doing (in the eyes of the public at least) was examining the Dassey computer. Could be the downfall of a non-tech-savy person as I can imagine most people in that family would think that deleting a file and emptying the recycle bin would be enough to hide information.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Letter-to-Judge-Sutkiewicz-re-Motion-to-Issue-Subpoena.pdf

the whole year inn

Scotty # wrote: »

Apparently some new info being revealed this evening, 6.30 our time.

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1063030739426512896

Surely this must be something ,hopefully it is.

nc6000

Wow, that's a lot of new information just tweeted by KZ!

Anyone care to give a break down?

Mam of 4

nc6000 wrote: »

Wow, that's a lot of new information just tweeted by KZ!

Could you tell us the gist of it please ?
Am not on Twitter , and can only see tweets from hours ago .

ETA,
Snap Retro

inforfun

After that it is a bit of Q&A that i cant be arsed to make screenshots of.

Hmm.. a lot of that was already covered in MAM2 no?

Drumpot

retro:electro wrote: »

Hmm.. a lot of that was already covered in MAM2 no?

That’s what I was thinking.... Nothing really new evidence wise, just a more refined narrative of what she thinks happened...

I’m still on the fence on who killed TH, not really sure what happened. But isn’t that all you have to do in court? Prove doubt!

She’s going hard after Other members of the family.

A documentary on their family Christmas dinner alone would be probably like a Jerry springer episode.....