Netflix show Making a Murderer - Steven Avery case, etc

One thing I've thought about: Does the doc explain where the police is supposed to have gotten the key from? That is the one thing where the prosecution is sorta right, I think: If you believe the evidence to have been planted, you have to believe the police were involved in something way more shady. Not killing her, but finding the scene of the crime, and changing it completely, with all that that entails.

Before the car is even found he says he's in 'the grieving process'

my wife's started watching this and she nearly fell out of her chair when teresa's brother said that. she's looking at him with extreme suspicion every time he appears on screen

Easiest way to square that circle is that the family and/or police could've found the vehicle on the Avery property as part of an illegal search (when Colbourne called in the plate and asked "99 Toyota?", IIRC that was the day before the RAV4 was officially found).

Not wanting to have it excluded as evidence, they could've arranged a legal search (IIRC, Steven was away at the cabin and they got permission from someone else in the family) and then staged "discovering" it there -- the one searcher gets a camera, a direct phone line to the sheriff, etc. By that point, the family would've known the bad news that they couldn't reveal directly.

The defense mentions at one point that Steven could've crushed the vehicle instead of hiding it on the property, but I don't think that's quite as easy as it sounds -- likely need to remove parts of it (engine, wheels) before crushing, and then still hide/dispose them, and a crushed car isn't exactly invisible or untraceable anyway.

The key is still fishy, in part because (I've read elsewhere, don't think this is mentioned in the doc) it was a spare ("valet") key. Seems really unlikely that Teresa would be carrying her extra key on the day she got killed. More likely to me that the killer (Steven or whoever) hid (buried?) her usual set of keys, and the family/friends supplied the spare key for the police, who planted it as evidence. All in the service of framing a guy they believed was guilty.

And who may well be, anyway.

lots of points leading to them wanting to make an airtight case without being competent enough to know how to do so

yeah it starts from the view of "we need to get this guy" and seems like anything goes after that.

and the civil suit means that for some, the need is exacerbated beyond simply a belief in his guilt, as genuine as that belief may have been.

It was a SPARE key?? Hell

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXal-oPUEAARZZn.png

I read somewhere it was the valet key, and it looks like it. Would a young woman carry a car key around on that kind of strap/clip? Where are the rest of her keys? If Steven or (if not him) the murderer hid/disposed of them, why leave the car key anywhere it could be found, let alone in his bedroom? Meanwhile the family and friends might well have had access to the spare car key (I know where my wife keeps hers). If the police told them they needed it to make sure her killer was brought to justice, I could see them handing it over, and keeping quiet about it, just as easily as they could have played along with a "search" where they always knew what they were going to find.

The appearance of that key, on that strap, on Steven's bedroom floor all by itself is almost as incongruous as the spots of blood on the car interior, which look very much like they dripped from a syringe, trickled down a little and dried, unlike any bleeding I've ever seen from a hand wound (which is always going to smear).

It being the valet key would also explain the lack of Teresa's DNA on it. Most people hardly touch the spare key. So the police (or whoever) wouldn't have to clean it, just put it in contact with something of Steven's where they could get sweat (really skin cells, I think) DNA before planting it. Rubbing some dirty laundry on it might do it.

http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-believes-he-deserves-a-new-trial

Yeah now I look at it there are no buttons.

Omg from CAs post:

"We were contacted by one of the jurors who sat through Steven Avery's trial and shared what us their thoughts and they told us that they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty, they believe that Steven was framed by law enforcement,"

did they think that at the time, though, or after watching the show?

i read last night they said this before the show.

Strang interview video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9h5C901lGE

The interviewer brings up the *67 calls to Strang and he moreorless swats away the question, claiming that Avery was very careful about his privacy, which kinda makes sense.

My partner, who's from a very Maintowoc-ish town, says most small town men are ornery loners and *67-ing calls isn't that unusual.

This was really engrossing and compelling but I can't handle the general internet response to it. People can't seem to step back and realize that their exposure to the case has been through a heavily mediated narrative and that these are real people and it's not some shitty Whodunnit for you and your Sherlock Reddit buddies to solve.

Grossed out by the way the Halbach brother is being treated. Doc did him no favors and he's obviously an inarticulate maybe thick dude and he's being made a villain.

Shit's obviously complicated. Steve Avery seems blatantly guilty, just a tapestry of incriminating evidence, but I won't deny that there might be tampered evidence to beef up the case against him.

Brendan's case is heartbreaking though. No way around that one.

Steve Avery seems blatantly guilty

I mean, the reason you might be having a reaction that clashes with the rest of the internet is that this is preposterous.

I get the contrarian impulse to be grossed out by kneejerk internet tunnelvision justice, but if you're reading anything about this case outside of the documentary and you still think Avery seems "blatantly" guilty you're bananas.

Halfway through, and I'm not convinced of anything except that there's been gross misconduct and very likely criminal activity on the part of the police/sheriff's office.

yeah, there's no way steven or brendan is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt given the amount of weirdness around a lot of the evidence the prosecution did manage to dig up and/or plant

People can't seem to step back and realize that their exposure to the case has been through a heavily mediated narrative and that these are real people and it's not some shitty Whodunnit for you and your Sherlock Reddit buddies to solve.

agreed 100%, particuarly the "NO SPOILERS" crowd, as though this was a season of True Detective and not an actual murder case.

I get the contrarian impulse to be grossed out by kneejerk internet tunnelvision justice, but if you're reading anything about this case outside of the documentary and you still think Avery seems "blatantly" guilty you're bananas

I have yet to meet a single person from the Manitowoc area who seriously thinks Avery didn't do it. There WAS physical evidence linking him to it and as mistreated as Dassey was I find it hard to believe that he made up a story that just so happened to match most of the evidence the police already had. If your only source is the documentary and that's what has you convinced that the police fed Dassey to all the answers, READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPT

Nobody is saying Dassey made it up, and that it perfectly matches the police evidence - even the evidence that didn't hold up in court - is part of the problem.

I agree that none of Dassey's confession should have been admissable in court given how it was obtained, but given that it was it's easy to see why the jurors were convinced

I have no problem with the "local cops massively screwed this up and almost certainly did something illegal" narrative, rather the 300,000-strong opinion that Avery deserves a pardon and was most likely framed. If the police had done their damn jobs properly I think they would've gotten a guilty verdict anyway.

I happen to know that the Manitowoc County PD is recieving non-stop harrassment over this even though they had nothing to do with the case - it was the Sheriffs department all the way. The whole thing is just getting scary.

Is there ever a full account of which relatives live in that area next to the salvage yard? There's the trailer Steven was living in and a house next to it, but I never caught exactly who was living next door and who was visiting during the timeline.

I've read the full transcript now and remain completely convinced that Dassey had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of that woman. Also the physical evidence "linking" Avery is sketchy, straight up. My objection to the original post is the use of the words "blatantly guilty," which is absurd.

It's a shame that police department is getting harassed, but there was gross misconduct and negligence perpetuated by large swaths of the institutional authority in that county. People are pissed off. Knowing people there who think he's guilty doesn't actually introduce anything new into the conversation, you know?

his guilt or otherwise is basically irrelevant. this doc is about police misconduct.

More broadly, I'd say it's more about the consequences of institutional failure - judicial and legislative, as well as the role of the media in that.

xp - exactly. however, hundreds of thousands of people are not taking it that way. I'm not sure how you can even call this a "documentary" when it leaves out most of the prosecution's evidence. if anything it's more like a Michael Moore film. A good example is how it goes into pretty good detail of Kratz's creepy past (which ultimately has nothing to do with the case) but seemingly NONE of Avery's?

Also the physical evidence "linking" Avery is sketchy, straight up.

I would say it's less sketchy than the DNA evidence that exonerated Avery in the first place.

You're gonna need to unpack that last one for me.

pretty good detail of Kratz's creepy past (which ultimately has nothing to do with the case) but seemingly NONE of Avery's

tbf, it does include details of steven burning a cat, reportedly fucking on his front lawn, jerking off while his cousin drives by his house and running his cousin off the road and pointing a gun at her - it's not like the filmmakers are trying to make a saint out of him

there's also mention of alleged avery family incest and/or cousin-fucking in the final episode

frogbs have you even seen the show? And the argument that the doc 'leaves out most of the prosecution's evidence' is what Kratz said, it hasn't been corroborated by anybody else. Reddit dug up a lot of sketchy trash, but almost none of it was included in the prosecution.

Kratz' abuse of authority is absolutely relevant to the series.

I've read a few comments on threads by people who question the DNA evidence that exonerated Avery, but they have only said things like you've said - is there a link to something that explains why it could be called into question?

I mean, unless there's a glaring omission to the narrative as presented by the show, the DNA evidence that exonerated Avery seemed about as open and shut as it gets.

yeah i've read multiple articles/people saying that the doc never mentioned avery pointed a gun at someone, not true, it does mention it.

also wasn't there more than just dna evidence exonerating avery? like eg the cop phonecall in the 90s.

it leaves out most of the prosecution's evidence

it focuses on the evidence which appears to be fabricated. because again, it's not about his guilt or innocence, but how the police handled the case. and ribs otm about the media too.

I'm not saying the DNA evidence that exonerated Avery was wrong, I believe he was 100% innocent there - just this strange idea going around that sometimes DNA evidence counts, sometimes it doesn't. The fact that it was on the latch of the hood (which Dassey led them to) I would say is a pretty big piece of evidence and something I really, really doubt was planted

I have watched a lot of it. I admit that, mostly due to having a 1-year old, I've missed certain parts. Maybe some of those are the parts y'all are talking about. I did not catch that they included the incident with the gun. I did feel like they were trying to imply a lot of "they weren't very well-liked so who knows about some of this"

DNA evidence is rarely 100% certain, so of course it counts sometimes and sometimes doesn't. And it's much more certain when declaring innocence than guilt (because you rarely have a 100% sequence, and we all have a lot of DNA in common. Also, I'd be baffled and skeptical if they claimed to find perfect DNA on the hood, yet only after Dassey let them to it. Stuff degrades)

just this strange idea going around that sometimes DNA evidence counts, sometimes it doesn't

the issue with the dna in the car is that

- the fbi pulled a questionable methodology out of their asses at very short notice during the trial to examine the blood (on a case which wasn't a federal one!)
- they didn't test all the blood smears, only three iirc
- the defense's expert witness said that she thought the tests done on the blood for the traces of edta should have been ruled inconclusive at best

the case built by the prosecution around this crucial bit of evidence is deeply, deeply flawed

oh, and i don't think the prosecution managed to satisfactorily explain the vial of steven's blood which showed every sign of being tampered with

Dean Strang, bookwriter: https://newrepublic.com/article/126910/making-murderers-lawyer-hero

the main issue with dna evidence being used in cases is that the presence of dna is much less significant than the absence. the presence of an individual's dna might indicate they were in contact with an object or person, or that it transferred via proximity, or that a lab where that dna was present in some form was subject to contamination

the presence of dna that is not expected to be somewhere, like a rapist who was not even investigated but fit the profile, as in Avery's 80s case, is a more useful indicator that there's evidence worth pursuing

I have no idea how Avery's blood appeared in the vehicle. Outside of guilt or police misconduct, it could be an indicator he was in the vehicle. Even if that's the case, it's still part of a series of pieces of evidence -- he moved the vehicle, he was the last one to see Halbach, her remains were found in two places near his home. Those three things together might be enough to convict, but again, that is not the case the prosecution decided to rest on, and they walked all over the crime scene a half dozen times and an unknown number of third parties were there.

It's incredibly unlikely, but possible, that Halbach stopped by the main office for the salvage yard on the way out, tells the dad (or anyone else present that may have been there) that his son's a creep, dad kills her, disposes of her body, and several days later tells his son to move this vehicle to the salvage yard.

the defence wanted to introduce four other possible suspects who were on the property that day...

frogbs's contributions to this thread are bizarre to me. like, you realize the idea that the residents of manitowoc county have a blinkered POV due to general social perception plus being inundated by the media re: avery's guilt is a huge part of the doc right? being a joe schmo from manitowoc is kinda the opposite of having any authority on the case.

agreed that 'avery is definitely innocent' shouldn't be the main takeaway from the doc tho

I'm not trying to pretend I have any authority, just offering my thoughts here. The media here reported on a lot of the oddities of the case that people are just hearing about now and I think most of us knew the cops were really fucking it up. It was half "these guys are way too eager to nail him" and half "they really have no idea how to handle a murder investigation, do they?" Again, if everyone had done their jobs I think they could've gotten the guilty verdict anyway.

btw Avery's Boneyard is releasing a new CD this month, Kratz out of the Bag

lol nice

the jodi calls are compelling

& im hoping that is a track title btw