|
 WATCH THE FIRST EPISODE HERE IF YOU LACK NETFLIX Making a Murderer is a documentary series (now streaming in full on Netflix) that was 10 years in the making, and focuses on what has happened primarily in the life of a man, Steven Avery. It all begins when he was convicted of the savage rape and assault of a woman in 1985 in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, and was imprisoned for a sentence of 38 years (I believe). There was a fair amount of fishiness that occurred in both the investigation and the trial, but the details are a bit murky from 1985. But in 2003, through new DNA evidence, Steven Avery (who maintained his innocence the entire 18 years he was in prison, at the expense of being eligible for parole) was proved unequivocally innocent while the correct suspect was simultaneously implicated. So in 2003 he was triumphantly freed from prison, and was held up as a tragic victim of the flaws of the justice system. This is just the start - what I described above is covered mostly in the first episode. Things get interesting when, in 2005, while Steven Avery is bringing a $36,000,000 civil suit against Manitowoc county (where he still resides) he apparently becomes the only suspect in the disappearance and murder of a young woman, Teresa Halbach. He is then once more investigated and arrested for this - by many of the same policemen who got it wrong the first time, and who were going to be involved in the civil trial that Steven was bringing against Manitowoc County. I know I sound a bit  here, and I'm not doing a fantastic job of explaining things because I'm a bit overwhelmed by the depth and scope of the 10-hour documentary. There is just so much that I don't have the time to go into.This series is very much a continuation of the "True Crime" angle we've been seeing a lot of this year, like The Jinx and Sarah Koenig's Serial podcasts. This was made on a shoestring budget by two women starting in 2005, who were film students at the time, and what they've put together is exhaustive and exhausting at times, but it's also utterly engrossing and fascinating. It does have its biases and I am still not entirely sure where I stand on certain issues, but this would be true of any documentary. It's also incredibly infuriating and rage-inducing, and if you're like me you will wind up too furious to continue watching at times, and feeling real anger at certain individuals in this documentary - specifically two lawyers, DA Ken Kratz (whom I am sure we will all have a great deal to say about later) and also Len Kachinsky, who came across as a special kind of repulsive and corrupt, which is saying a lot in this documentary. But I don't think anyone really compares to Ken Kratz. I don't want to get into spoilers so I'll leave it at that. Anyway. I'm not really very good at OPs or used to writing them - I was surprised to see there wasn't an OP for this yet, I searched back several pages, hopefully I didn't miss it. So, I'll just say that this is very much worth watching and discussing, and I'll be curious to see what sorts of thoughts people have on the whole drat thing. edit: change.org petition because it's good to feel like you're doing something after watching something like this and feeling really powerless: https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-free-steven-avery?recruiter=438194618&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink kaworu fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Dec 28, 2015 |
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Yeah, there are probably just going to have to be spoilers in the discussion, so be prepared for that, but I imagine most people watching this knew the outcome anyway (I did). I just didn't want to put any spoilery past episode 1 in the OP. Really though, I don't know who to despise the most, to be honest. The top 5 definitely include James Lenk and Andrew Colburn - the two obviously crooked cops who planted evidence and had the gall to get up there on the witness stand, smirking their asses off, and spin bald-faced lies. Or it could be Wiegert and Fassbender, the two unbelievably unethical investigators who painstakingly coerced an investigation by practically feeding the 'witness', a learning-disabled 16-year-old boy with an IQ of 70, information bit by bit that made him implicate himself without even knowing it. My god, the videos of those confessions are just beyond heartbreaking to watch. This kid thinks he's going to make it back to school in time for sixth period and the cops do not even explain 'Well, you just confessed to a murder' and he doesn't even *get it*. And then Kratz on top of those 4 guys makes 5 pretty evil-seeming and corrupt individuals. Kratz just... He was the head DA, he was in charge of the show, and he just disgusts more than words can express. The fact that grandstands to the jury pointing at Steven Avery saying "One man and one man alone is responsible for this heinous act" and then a month later is prosecuting Brendan Dassey for the same murder. The cognitive dissonance is beyond astounding. And the things he said, and the way he said them, just... *shudder* But again, it's very difficult to... entirely know what's what, obviously. And I'm willing to entertain theories that Steven Avery *may have* committed this murder. But even regardless of that, Brendan Dassey at the very least has no business being in prison. edit: Something that REALLY got to me was seeing Andrew loving Colburn being the cop who is physically escorting Dassey to his sentencing. I mean seriously, what the *gently caress*. kaworu fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
On a positive note, I wanted to add that Dean Strang (one of Steve Avery's lawyers, the more sensitive and eloquent of the two with the dark hair) was one of the very, very few bright spots in this documentary. Not that Buting also didn't come across as competent, but he clearly wasn't as emotionally involved/invested in what was going on as Strang was, or as emotionally tuned into the case. Strang really functions as the audience's surrogate (or he did for me) in terms of very often voicing my thoughts/feelings aloud in the doc in some of his off the cuff interviews in the car, and also during the trial at times. He honestly comes across as the one lawyer who truly has his conscience and a strong moral compass guiding his actions and statements, and I am really not saying that just to... suck up to the fact that he was the lawyer for the defense and said a lot of things I agreed with. Again, not to slight Jerry Buting, but Strang was the one who seemed really talented and eloquent. If 7 of the Jurors voted Not Guilty at the start of deliberations, I'm sure it had entirely to do with the massive difference in presentation and demeanor and honesty between a guy like Strang and a guy like Kratz. I honestly found what that excused juror said really troubling and worrying - about how "tired and weak" a lot of the jurors were compared to the two stubborn ones who were set on voting guilty. In the context of deliberations going on for 4 days and there being a Not Guilty verdict on the lesser of the two major counts, well... It sounds kinda strongly like that could have easily wound up being a hung jury under different circumstances. But not in that county, and not for that case. I honestly would have been shocked if the officials there were going to let the jurors go home without a guilty verdict  What's also really sad is that if Dassey had the money to hire lawyers as good as Strang/Buting from the start instead of getting hosed in the rear end with corrupt or inexperienced public defender after public defender, his case would have gone a lot differently and could easily have had a better outcome. I can only imagine this was part of the rift that formed within the family and had to do with stuff like Brendan's apparent stepdad (Tadych I think?) testifying with Bobby Dassey I think it was about the hosed up timing, and acting as one another alibis. I wonder how he felt when Kratz, the same prosecutor he testified for in putting away Avery, turned around and put his son in prison for the same crime. Really, was anyone else so revolted by Ken Kratz that they had to mute the drat thing and put on captions when he spoke because his voice was so utterly repellent? Imagining that voice reading some of those texts he sent is fairly amusing, though. Perhaps I'll just refer to him as "THE PRIZE" from now on, the one that all hot young tall nymphs who were just victims of domestic abuse want to get with. kaworu fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
The Clap posted:I don't know about y'all but in my opinion the most awful person was Mike Halbech. That shifty motherfucker can't stop walking in front of the cameras and, smirk on his face the entire time, calling everyone liars and saying "We love the police." He feeds off the media attention and uses it to poo poo on the entire Avery family every single chance he gets. He pays exactly zero attention to the trial and the evidence that is available in favor of eating out of the cops' hands. That guy got a cushy job working in the video room for the Green Bay Packers right after all that, which I kinda doubt would have happened otherwise. In a profile I saw of him online he was talking about going through all this with the death of his sister as one of the things that made him perfect for the job.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Kal Torak posted:So if we all think Avery did not do this...or at least there is a really good chance he didn't....who did? This is the really and truly hosed thing, to me - by focusing the investigation almost entirely on Avery and nigh-refusing to follow up on any other real leads, as far as we can tell, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever know. The police dictate what they investigate and who they investigate, and as the lawyer said, they had extreme "tunnel-vision" on this case - at best. And as a result, regardless of all these questions and the eventual fates of Avery and Dassey, it is extremely unlikely we will ever get any sort of idea as to who the real killer was. Obviously, her roommate (who seemed to be an ex-boyfriend of some sort?) not calling her in as missing for 4 days was also fishy, while those phone records were being deleted. Wasn't it the roommate who admitted to guessing her password, or was that another acquaintance of hers?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
You know, I am keeping an open mind through this even after watching all 10 hours, and there is a part of me that does see that he could have done this - I am not denying the possibilities. Steven Avery was far from perfect, and there is some sketchy stuff concerning violence toward women in some of his letters, and in his background, to some degree. But that aside, I see no way that murder was committed in the manner described by the cops, and there is absolutely *no way* that Brendan Dassey was involved at all. Frankly, I see Dassey as the biggest victim in this entire vicious debacle. He was practically collateral damage. It's insane that case was even brought to trial. On another note, how distasteful and garish and over the top was that black and white striped prison jumpsuit and big black gloves they marched Steven into the court with every day? Good god, those people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
a worthy uhh posted:The most egregious rear end in a top hat was the keystone kop-cum-sketch artist for about 1,000 reasons, the most amazing being him insinuating that Avery was guilty of the rape despite the DNA exculpation. Did you notice that he had framed the sketch right next to the mug shot, and had it on the wall of his office as a TROPHY. That is so unbelievably sick. And to the above post, don't forget that the Sheriff's explanation for why they didn't frame Steven was "Well, if we wanted him out of the picture it would have just been easier to, you know, kill him." Unbelievable to hear statements like that being said.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
It wouldn't surprise me at all. I think it's more likely than Avery committing the murder - absolutely. That doesn't mean that it absolutely wasn't Steven Avery, because I still consider him as a suspect - I sort of have to, because I truly don't know what happened and I'm trying to remain impartial through this. But he had no real motive, while the policemen being charged did. As you say, their livelihood, their reputations, and their financial security and future were going to be at stake as a result of that civil suit. And those depositions really had to have hammered that point home to each and every one of them. Also, did anyone else notice that they actually had Andrew Colburn be the cop who physically took both Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey and escorted them to sentencing? My god, that sickened me more than I can say. Beyond reprehensible. This was so, so obviously personal for Colburn/Lenk and obviously the whole upper echelon of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's office. And it's so hosed up, because after he was arrested Steven was forced to take a lowball settlement in that civil suit just to pay for his lawyers, as the $400,000 the state had been intending to pay him for his wrongful improvement was withdrawn when he was accused. And as such, NOTHING about that 1985 case gently caress-up (and thus nothing about the depositions) could be discussed or used in this case  They really hosed him good.edit: Am I the only one who feels legitimately... affected by this? I'm not even quite sure why. It's the combination of the blatant injustice of what's going on, and just how... intellectually ill-equipped these people were to deal with the situations they found themselves in. Particularly Dassey. The phone conversation between him and his mother, where neither of them knew what "inconsistent" meant? That just utterly broke my heart completely. These people (pretty much the entire Avery family, not just those two but obviously Barb's Husband and Bobby Dassey who testified against Steven) simply did NOT have the mental equipment to deal with reasonably intelligent, malicious people looking to take advantage of them and pull their their strings like puppets. Which guys like Wiegert, Kachinsky, Kratz, etc did to GREAT effect. Also, going back and watching the first episode again after finishing is a really a rough experience - seeing him released from prison after 18 years with tears in his eyes gently saying he felt free and wasn't angry, forgiving and hugging his accuser... I am truly sorry, I have such a hard time as seeing this man as a cold-blooded murderer and rapist. I really, truly do. He may not be that smart, he probably never smelled very good, and I probably wouldn't want to be his friend in real life, to be absolutely frank. But goddammit. So much of this boils down to issues of class and prejudice, really. The Averys are, to put it bluntly, "poor white trash", and were apparently prominently known as such within the community. kaworu fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Try to find some tapes of police interrogations. This was especially bad, but there's a reason that the best advice is to never, ever talk to cops under any circumstances. The police can be coercive as gently caress as a matter of regular, day to day business. There is an enormous difference between using investigators using coercive tactics to get a confession out of someone of reasonable intelligence, and using coercive tactics against a mentally disabled child with an IQ of 70, though. I think it just goes a little beyond normal coercive techniques - remember that point when Wiegert breaks in frustration and straight-up tells the kid that Teresa was shot in the head before he came up with it? It was so clear that he didn't have a clue what was going. That was not a normal interrogation by any means. He thought he was gonna go back for sixth period and hand in his project, then go home and watch Wrestlemania and see John Cena and the Undertaker beat the crap out of some guys, and was just blankly trying to do what they wanted so they would go away. kaworu fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I want a movie of this where Len Kachinsky is played by William H.Macy I thought he was like a dead ringer for Martin Freeman c. Fargo season 1. But interestingly, those are two variations on the same character more or less that we were reminded of.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29326359.html According to the Juror who was excused, there were two jurors who "were not participating at all" and which he indicated had already intended on voting guilty from the start. Not that it's those two necessarily, but..
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
The suspicious thing about that was that it was a freaking *enormous* junkyard and this woman (who used to be a private investigator, I might add!) made a beeline straight to the car, practically. Her excuse for this was that they were "guided by God". Seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I hope Ken Kratz drowns in a pool of his own diarrhea. The rage that I felt at Ken Kratz is like... I have never felt that pissed off towards any written villain in a TV show, I thought he was THAT reprehensible and awful. Just an unethical, immoral, unprincipled man. I'm going to paraphrase a review I read of the final episodes: "When Judge Fox is talking about the most evil man to ever step foot in that courtroom, he should *certainly* be talking about Ken Kratz, not Steven Avery." And yeah, that's pretty much how I feel. And the scariest thing about Ken Kratz is that he is real. He is still practicing law! I googled his name and there was the website for his own law firm, right there. It was incredibly disturbing because... This man is right there, out in the open, advertising himself. And after seeing what I saw in this documentary that is just beyond upsetting.. Something the documentary didn't mention about Ken Kratz that I turned up, read this poo poo and I will quote what I found to be the pertinent part, bolding the hosed up poo poo that this article loving glosses over: http://www.superiortelegram.com/news/douglas-county/3641659-suspended-former-da-sets-practice-superior quote:The court suspended Kratz in June after review of a complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. Kratz was found to have sent inappropriate text messages to a domestic abuse victim while prosecuting her case. Kratz says he knows what he did was improper and a violation of trust. So not only was this guy found out as a creep and doing innappropriate 'sexting' to domestic abuse victims, but he was a loving drug addict who was stoned on vicodin and xanax throughout that whole trial. Jesus loving christ. I honestly didn't think I could loving hate Ken Kratz more, but holy loving wow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
MrCodeDude posted:Was this mentioned in the show? Not mentioned. Nice find. I think part of the issue was that the Defense wasn't allowed at all to bring up the 1985 case, and Manitowoc county's epic gently caress-up back then, because Steve had had to settle that Civil Case in order to pay for the lawyers to defend him in the Criminal Case - he wouldn't have had to do that (as my understanding goes) if the state had actually paid the $400,000 restitution, but they pulled that off the table when he was arrested for murder, I believe was what happened. Thus, Steve obviously couldn't turn around and accuse them of all the gently caress-ups from the 1985 case, having just received money for legally agreeing that both parties were moving on. I'm not entirely sure how settlements work in situations like this, but logically it makes sense that once you reach a settlement in a legal dispute you wouldn't be able to recycle those same accusations in a criminal case - though I think this might actually be subjective on some level, because I recall the judge did have to make a ruling on it in the preliminaries or pretrial motions, unless I am mistaken.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
I just want to remind people that the ONLY blood-oriented evidence that they found at all, whatsoever in this case was in the RAV4. And there was like MASSIVE amount of blood (and hair encrusted to the blood) that belonged to Teresa in the back of the RAV4, which seems utterly and completely inconsistent with the prosecution's contention that Teresa essentially went into Steve's trailer, never emerged alive, and was burned in the backyard. I don't see where or how that leaves room for Teresa's hair and blood to wind up in the back of her own truck (obvious transportation of the body). kaworu fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:So Ken Kratz is receiving death threats? I mean, doctors get murdered in this country for doing their actual job. What's the hold up? I have to admit, it is rather satisfying that when it was discovered that Ken Kratz was not only a total creep but a serial adulterer who sends scary texts and intimidates and manipulates domestic abuse victims into having sex with him - what the woman said was that she was terrified that if she didn't comply he wouldn't prosecute the case and might even find some way to go after her. Oh, and he was a Xanax/Vicodin addict using heavily the *entire* time the trial was going on and for years after and probably before. I know I mentioned that before but it just compounds it at all. That Kratz was stoned on Vicodin and Xanax every time we saw him in that documentary, most likely. And because of all this, in his words, he "lost his 25-year job and reputation as a prosector, lost his wife and children, lost his house, and lost most of his money"" or something to that effect. I gotta admit it is almost satisfying enough just to hear that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
You guys want to see something really sketchy as ALL hell? Go to Episode 2 and fast-forward to about 45:20 (45 minutes 20 seconds) into that episode. That's approximately when there is an early interview with Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas (Teresa's ex-boyfriend). Watch this interview, and watch how they answer these questions. This interview took place I think after they had found the car on the Avery property and sometime early on in that 8-day search of the entire grounds. It is the WEIRDEST goddamn interview, and the two of them are REALLY obviously lying -- badly -- and not prepared at all for the questions they are being asked. I'm just gonna transcribe this because frankly it's incredible: quote:Reporter: Did they find anything while you were out searching? These guys are stammering, giving each other significant looks, speaking in broken and incomplete sentences (a dead give-away) and weirdly contradicting themselves. Out of all the sketchy interviews I saw Mike Halbach (and the ex-boyfriend) give, this takes the cake. Maybe I am operating a bit on my intuition and instinct, but everything I know and have learned about human behavior tells me these guys are lying through their teeth.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Hoo boy. A huge amount of that "evidence" is circumstantial as hell like everything from the prosecution and doesn't tie directly to Avery very well, and he's speaking as if 100% certain that it was Avery who murdered her which doesn't do much for his credibility. Something that really doesn't make sense - if Teresa was so scared of Avery and he was this creep who used an alternate name to lure her there the second time, why was there that phone message on the documentary of Teresa calling up Avery, calling him by name, and in a friendly tone of voice making sure about their appointment, and confirming who she was by name. Unless the filmmakers took an earlier phone message from sometime before Oct 31 and misrepresented that? Because that makes no sense. I don't see how Steven's DNA on the hood of Teresa's car is anything beyond circumstantial - it could have gotten there during the appointment they had. Maybe his hand was resting there for a second. Jesus. Or how stuff like all this about Terea's remains in the pit/barrel weren't directly addressed by the documentary already. I wouldn't trust a single goddamn thing an inmate says because most will corroborate the location of Jimmy Hoffa's body for you if you offer them an incentive like an even slightly reduced sentence. Also, I didn't know ballistics was so advanced they could tell the exact date a bullet was fired months after finding it. They found the bullet MUCH later on in February or March, did they not? It certainly was not there in the initial 8-day search but turned up much later. Perhaps Mr. Kratz is confused. He was taking an awful lot of recreational drugs during that trial. kaworu fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
TL posted:I'm on episode 3 now, watching Brendan's interrogation is just about the most infuriating thing I've ever seen. Holy Christ I'm shaking I'm so angry right now. God, just wait 'till episode 4, you will be screaming at the TV. I can't believe how hosed up it was, the lawyers appointed to Brendan I had forgotten that his first public defender turned out to be second cousins with Teresa Halbach! I mean good loving god. He was the one who came before Len Kachinsky!  Also, petition: https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-free-steven-avery?recruiter=438194618&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink Don't know if it'll make any sort of a difference but they just hit the 20,000 mark and they had barely broken 3,000 when I signed it a few days ago. kaworu fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Frankly, I think the two Dassey-Centric episodes (episode 4, "Indefensible," Episode 9, "Lack of Humility,") were probably the two best episodes in the doc series arguably, though I'd rather judge at as a whole. But Avery's case is very muddled and I doubt we will ever get the facts straight or find out with any degree of certainty what transpired, while there really is not the same mystery where Dassey's case is concerned, at least I don't think so. It's absolutely... well, indefensible, inexcusable, any number of such words. I think when I lost it as when that investigator that Kachinsky had hired had spread all that poo poo in front of him and have him a form to fill out with two options: "I, _________, am either (sorry for what I did) or (not sorry for what I did). Check applicable box. If you ARE sorry, please explain why in the space below." I mean, good loving lord. And the poor kid is too dim to even realize what's going on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
You know, I have been going through and rewatching episodes, and I just... I have to laugh at times at how un-loving-believably absurd things would get. I was watching episode 10, and that absolute human pustule Michael O'Kelly who was Len Kachinsky's private investigator was testifying. He's the guy other than Wiegert/Fassbender who coerced a confession out of Brendan with the big setup of Teresa's pictures and whatnot and the form to fill out which was a really sad and pathetic variation of that old "Does your mom know you're gay?" joke where you're admitting to the accusation whether you say yes or no. Anyway it's like 2009 or 2010 and this sack of poo poo is testifying, and when they go over all the insanely coercive things on the table, they get to the blue ribbon and a picture of a blue ribbon tied to a tree. And O'Kelly offers up, "Yes, I believe that... *SNIFFLE SNIFFLE* I believe that was Teresa's church in the background... " *proceeds to fake cry* "I'm sorry, your honor, it's just... *SNIFFLE SNIFFLE SNIFFLE*" And this testimony is about how he committed some insanely unethical poo poo that is all on the record. He's reading an e-mail he wrote about how all of the Averys are "pure evil" and that "this is a one-branch family tree that should be cut off entirely" and all kinds of incredibly nasty poo poo he sent in an e-mail to Kachinsky. And while he is reading this e-mail he wrote where he condones the cold-blooded murder of all the Averys, he starts sniffling again and interrups with "I'm sorry, that Blue Ribbon in front of the church, I just can't get it out of my head..." And he pretends to dab his eyes. It's just SO transparent and SUCH a lie that... Words fail me. On a totally different note, I feel somewhat obliged to mention this, though I am NOT condoning it in any way. Most if not all the people in this documentary, their contact info isn't exactly difficult to get, and many got 'doxxed' or whatever, inundated with all sorts of crap from various Anonymous-type internet folk. I did look up Ken Kratz and found the site for his private law practise, but just seeing the reality of it freaked me out too much. The only thing I've done is google "Dean Strang e-mail" to find his e-mail address and send him something thanking him because I felt like he was the only sort of "representative" I had in the film who was reacting how I would react, was driven by empathy like I am, and felt like the lone voice of reason in the wilderness of this horror story. So I sent him a nice probably over-long e-mail thanking him for that and so on. A lot of less scrupulous individuals have probably been inundating all sorts of people with crap though, I am sure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The one person who could have potentially had a motive other than random bloodlust/sexual deviancy is the ex-boyfriend. He would have had all the info he'd need to commit the crime and police usually look at those type of relationships first for a reason. Those deleted voicemails may have pointed in his direction, possibly him making threats or at the very least showing that he was angry at her about something at the time. You know what really sticks out in my mind? That piece of testimony that Teresa had been getting repeated unwanted calls like, two weeks before the murder. If you recall, the defense called a co-worker (I believe) of hers or something, and he was talking about how she didn't answer several calls during a period of time she was with her, and would dump the call once she saw who it was. And he inquired about it, because it seemed troubling, but she said it wasn't a big deal - or something to that effect. I find it very difficult to believe there isn't a relationship between whomever was calling/harassing her and the subsequent murder. Seems like there's something to that. And I *highly* doubt that it was Steven Avery who was calling/harassing her (despite that sack of poo poo Kratz trying to argue that this was true to some extent) because there's no way in hell she would have been embarrassed about talking about that with anyone. If some weird-rear end client you barely know is calling you repeatedly over and over again you aren't exactly going to be reticent when asked about it by a co-worker. I don't know if this points to her ex, or the brother, or someone else, but I feel pretty solid in my belief that Teresa was murdered by someone she knew. One of the biggest things for me is motive; Steven Avery not only had 0 motive to kill Halbach, he had extremely good reasons NOT to. And this means a lot to a man who isn't too bright. It's like this: On top of having no motive, I don't think Steven Avery was anywhere near smart enough to pull off a murder like this and have the means and ability to properly clean up the way he did in the amount of time he had. On the flip-side, I also think that even if he somehow *was* capable of murder, there is no way he would have jeopardized his current situation where he was about to make millions in a civil suit. A dim guy like him frankly has a very dogged but one-track mind, as we learned in the film, and it simply does not pass the straight face test. I think you need to be both intelligent, confident, and ballsy as hell to murder someone when you are in a situation like the one he was in, or you have to be insane. And he was neither. Does that make sense? Just based on what I learned about the man over those 10 hours and the research I've done, that's how it feels to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Anything could have happened when the two of them were alone on his part of the property. He may have touched her inappropriately and she fought back, she may have insulted him in some way that led to him committing the crime in anger(we know he has anger issues), who loving knows. It didn't have to be some cold-blooded, calculated plan to murder her from the beginning. Remember, its very possible he did it but under a different set of circumstances than what Brendan confessed to. This (and your other points) are very true. He did have anger issues, and there could have been escalating circumstances that led to her death. But like another poster said, if this were the case I sincerely feel like there would have been actual compelling evidence, rather than what the prosecution offered. Even Kratz' additional points that were 'left out of the documentary' aren't particularly compelling. There was no smoking gun here, there was no motive, there was so little actual investigatory work done that the sad thing is we'll never know. But again, the thing is, if it was something that got out of hand... Part of me thinks Steve would have owned up to it and plead guilty. Or that if he decided to cover it up, he'd have been smart enough to, you know, use that massive car crusher he owns instead of driving past it and parking Teresa's RAV4 in an obvious place and covering it with twigs and branches so it stands out. While being intelligent enough to perfectly clean his apartment and garage of all blood and DNA belonging to Halbach, but leaving several smears of both his and Halbach's blood that were incredibly visually obvious right in the car (which could have been cleaned up with a papertowel and some 409) even though he had the foresight to hide the car. It just doesn't pass the straight face test! But yes, I mean... It could have been him! In truth we don't know. The possibility does not seem, well, likely. kaworu fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Edit: Just as one example, Avery's low intelligence may have led him to believe that his scrapyard was a bottomless pit that nobody would be able to find anything in. He literally may not have beleived the police were persistent or capable enough to go through each and every car in order to find Theresa's. The boards and sticks could have just been a half-assed afterthought. My overall point is we really don't have the first clue what's going on inside Avery's head, but we do have a person who was known to have met with him before disappearing and who's burned remains were found on his property. Those are the facts. You sound a bit self righteous saying "those are the facts" because they're two facts taken entirely out of a much wider context. I obviously agree with you on principle, but I'm having trouble understanding your rationalizations. They seem unbelievably far-fetched to me. We don't know what's going on inside Avery's head, but we do have an idea of his character, and I don't think that's to be discounted. No matter how I look at, the "evidence" is incredibly inconsistent - with or without Brendan Dassey muddying up the waters. Again, I really am not saying "STEVE IS UNEQUIVOCALLY INNOCENT!!" here. There's just so much more going on than an epic failure in police incompetence - remember that e-mail that Michael O'Kelly reads in the last episode, about the Avery family. I honestly believe that a *lot* of people we saw in that documentary shared his opinion, and viewed *all* of the Averys as Evil People and saw *anything* they did to get Steven Avery (or Brendan Dassey, or anyone they could nail) behind bars for life as an entire righteous act that was absolutely the best thing for everyone. I'm sure the civil suit really compounded this into something much more dire. These are motivations that are documented in the film and do make a great deal of sense. There's nothing far-fetched or wacky about it, unlike a lot of the evidence against Avery. Honestly, if there was anything that sincerely convinced me - really and truly made me stop and think that there was a serious possibility that he could have done this - I would jump at it. Because frankly it really is better to think he's guilty of this crime, and I also don't exactly like people like Steven Avery anyway. But as it is, the possibility remains incredibly slim to me that he was guilty of this. I honestly think there was something not up-and-up with the Jury and that he very, very easily could have been been acquitted (and I think we can all agree at least that should have happened) but even that wouldn't diminish the possibility that he may have done this, however absurdly slim.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
It's funny, I think the juror angle is probably... under-discussed, if anything. I feel like given the split verdicts, the circumstances, the length of the deliberations, that this case probably should have ended in either a mistrial or a hung jury. Thinking about the fact that the jury had specifically asked for ALL of Bobby Dassey's testimony, and were told by the judge "We can't do that. Tell us specifically which part you want." Huh? Since when is a jury not legally entitled to have all the evidence/testimony at their disposal during deliberations? Why should the judge be involved at all at THAT point in deciding what evidence they can and cannot look at? It's a bit cliched, but I keep thinking to the '57 film 12 Angry Men which is sort of the definitive "jurors arguing over the nature of reasonable doubt" film. And I just wish to *hell* that a young, healthy, and living Henry Fonda had been on that jury. It sounds more or less like probably the two parties who were dead-set on his guilt (allegedly) more than likely wore everyone else down over the course of 4 days. Which probably isn't hard to do when you just want to get on with your life and go home and you feel exhausted and tired and it's been a 6-week trial.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Well, I'm an optimistic person by nature and like to believe in stuff like this, so it'd be awfully cool if this were true. I can only see it being really convincing if its like, audio of Lenk and Colborn openly discussing their conspiracy to inculpate (I like that word) Steven Avery. And I don't really see how such audio records of phone calls could exist and be recorded but, who knows... That call of Colborn calling dispatch about the plate existed and was accessible, though obviously that was pretty circumstantial. I'm not exactly holding my breath. But my ultimate hope is that someone(s) will step forward with new evidence, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
TheAbortionator posted:Man if I were a criminal defence lawyer I would be jumping for that this documentary was made. I have heard a million times from a million people that people that defend murderers for money are the scum of the earth. Its kinda nice to have a shining example that flies in the face of that retarded thinking. I thought what Strang said about this was really interesting and perceptive, that you have to be the sort of person who instinctively takes a devil's advocate position or backs the underdog simply by the nature of their personality, and has a real calling for that sort of thing. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - and that it takes a great deal of empathy to be able to be that sort of person at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:I'm seriously surprised at how many people's takeaway from the documentary is CONSPIRACY this, this is the greatest post yet
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
Yeah, I think it's important to remember that completely regardless of everything else going on, arguably the most despicable act committed towards the rights of Steven Avery by the state was when DA Kratz and Sherrif Pagel (I think it was) got on TV in early March and graphically told Brendan's testimony like the most gruesome horror story imaginable, even with the dramatic touch of telling children under 15 to leave the room. That press conference was really what sealed Steven Avery's fate, I think. Because after that the entire state was probably convinced he was guilty. I would have been convinced he was guilty, is the scary thing, because I wouldn't have seen what a travesty Brendan's "confession" really was. And that's what really scares me - how easily perception is manipulated by people in positions of authority who are nominally "respectable" like the Sheriff or the DA.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:You would have been convinced a guy who had his blood in the victim's car and the victim's charred remains on his property was guilty? How horrible an oversight that would have been. You're right, there's a real possibility they planted that evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:It was an incredibly idiotic thing to say in his position, but I think Kratz was on the money when he said it would have been a lot easier for whomever to kill Steven then kill someone else and frame him for the crime. Kratz didn't say that, the Sheriff of Manitowac County (Kenneth Peterson I believe?) said that. I'm told marijuana effects the short term memory, so perhaps you should put the bong down? In any case. I fully concede that some of my personal biases and feelings are the basis for some of my opinions. I lean towards wanting to defend the person in the most vulnerable position, and have a natural disgust towards police officers like Wiegert and Fassbender who are willing to openly lie and decive and - yes - coerce innocent people into making incriminating statements. That sort of thing doesn't sit well with me, and gives me a deep distrust of them. That press conference that I was talking about in the post you replied to - I'm speaking strictly about how releasing the (unverified and unreliable) information at that time severely damaged Avery's chances of any sort of impartial trial or presumption of innocence. You didn't really respond to that at all. I don't really know what to say except that we must have very different interpretations of the law system. Perhaps you should move to Cardassia Prime, the legal system may suit you better there. kaworu fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Those are interesting but I don't exactly find much of *anything* from those phone calls made between 5/10 and 5/13 particularly credible in conjunction with what I saw on the taped confession and what O'Kelly had put the boy through just prior. I think it's equally likely that Brendan is just trying to figure out if he can admit to *some* of this stuff (which never happened) if he can get a handle on how many years he would do for some of it. Or maybe he did clean up a bunch of reddish-black stuff in the garage, but if that's *true* I have a hard time believing he wouldn't have admitted to it while testifying. I honestly, strongly believe that he was speaking honestly when he was on the stand, and I also believe that he had been experiencing *tremendous* amounts of trauma that must have been at its worst from Feb 27 through May of that year, until Kachinsky was excused. It's very difficult for me to read into statements he was making, not knowing entirely what he was being put through but knowing it was more pressure than mentally cognizant adults can usually stand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:That's just more speculation, and it's worthless against physical evidence. If speculating and thinking about what physical evidence there is (and isn't) cannot lead to reasonable doubt, what can? Why is a conspiracy so implausible? We're only talking about two men working together to insure the man that they think is the murderer gets properly convicted for the crime. It's not an ignoble cause, necessarily. It need not even be a *conspiracy*, perhaps only one man was directly involved (Lenk or Colburn on their own perhaps). In that case there wouldn't a conspiracy, but there would be a theory. You know, it sorta reminds me of this early Christopher Nolan film - Insomnia. Where Al Pacino plays (essentially) a good but crooked cop who is about the exposed as such by his own partner in an Internal Affairs investigation. What stuck with me is a story he tells about planting blood to incriminate someone whom he *knows* is a pedophile who just killed a little boy, but has no physical evidence to prove. Was it a justified act? Yeah, I would think so, from Pacino's perspective. Was it a just act? Well, that depends on how you define justice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
I still have a very difficult time trusting the evidence in and of itself because of the inherent bias in the policemen who apparently were collecting it. "The evidence points to X" isn't a very convincing argument when the state has serious motive to commit a crime to frame/gently caress with Steven Avery, while Steven Avery had no discernible or rational motive (I know all about the supposed "stalking" and I don't believe it's remotely close to a motive) in killing Halbach that I can see. Not that motive is everything, but it's significant in how human beings process and understand things.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Sort of amazing how all the anti-Avery people are usually from Wisconsin or close by and experienced all the media coverage, and thus already had their minds made up about the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
TheAbortionator posted:Yeah he keeps mentioning his dependancy on prescription drugs when ever his sexting scandal is brought up (as if it absolves him of wrong doing), but ive never heard him say he was actually prescribed them (not that it would excuse his shitlordem). Even if he had a "legit script" I wouldn't believe it was a legit script. It would have been unbelievably easy for a person in Kratz's position to get whatever prescription he wants from one of the good ol' boy WI doctors, I imagine. That's just how this stuff works. Kratz didn't look like he had conquered his drug problem in that interview, either. He looked *awful*. Not that I blame him he's among the most universally despised human in pop culture right now. Lo, how The Prize has fallen.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Oh man, this article just got posted elsewhere, it's probably even worse than the Avery case That's an amazing case, first off. And secondly, the fact that we are lead to believe that police officers are universally of unimpeachable integrity is a serious flaw in the system, in my opinion. Juan Rivera's case, Avery's case, dozens of other cases prove this. And yet people continue to believe in the utter infallibility of the lawman (even police officers themselves appear to buy into this bullshit). It's really, truly disturbing. A criminal ack of humility is exactly what it is. I actually feel like the West Memphis Three are probably the best example of idiotic cops being utterly convinced of their infallibility. God, those documentaries were disturbing. Talk about looking evil right in the eye (and no, I am not talking about Damien Echols).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
The amazing thing about the bullet? There were shell casings all over the place including the garage in the initial search, because this was the drat Avery junkyard and people were sighting guns and shooting cans and rabbits and whatnot. You had best BELIEVE that with that many shell casings around, given what they knew, they would have torn apart that garage piece by piece by piece - and in fact THEY DID literally jackhammering sections of the floor away to look for way any blood may have seeped in (they didn't find anything of course). I find it... so far beyond implausible that after how thoroughly they searched that place, to the sheer absurd extent that they did, a bullet would just turn up in freaking March in the garage. Well after they quite literally tore the garage apart looking for any shred of evidence. Yet apparently they missed this single bullet. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Grem posted:Evidence tape is really flimsy and is easy to destroy accidentally. It was designed that way on purpose but ends up being a pretty unreliable marker for meaning there's a purposeful breach. But the styrofoam casing itself was stored inside a cardboard box, both were sealed with evidence tape, and both had been "damaged" or (in my opinion) very clearly slit open. It appeared to me that someone had clearly taken a knife and slit open the "evidence" tape that sealed the box the styrofoam kit was in, and then had slit open the styrofoam case itself in which the blood was contained. In both instances, the tape had been resealed with scotch tape. I would buy your "evidence tape is flimsy and east to destroy accidentally" if it were just the outer seal on the box that had been slit open or "damaged" and resealed with scotch tape, but it wasn't. The inside seal was also slit open or "damaged" and re-sealed with scotch tape. So that kinda discounts the whole "incidental damage" theory. kaworu fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Grem posted:The way evidence tape "rips" would look like a slit. It's very brittle stuff. A drop from a good height can definitely compromise tape on the inside and outside. Obviously it's reasonable to think it's been tampered with, I'm simply trying to explain that there's a reason why it wasn't a big smoking gun for the defense. I'm sorry - I do not see how a drop from a "good height" would coincidentally create perfect slits in the exact places where one would make a slit to open both the box, and in both cases an effort was made to make it appear as if there had been no tampering. And you know, I might buy this, even given that, if only the outer seal had been taped up again. That would make sense - the evidence box gets dropped, some copy sees that the seal got broken and tapes it up again, no big deal. But the inner seal was both broken and taped up too, and if it was simply a custodial issue where it had been dropped or manhandled, then I see no reason why the styrofoam case would *ever* be taken out of the box. Yet it was.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 19:26
|
|