What about the fact that he admitted that he admitted that he killed her to his mother.

Source?

Why didn't her male room mate report her missing for four days?
Why did he give the woman that eventually found the Rav4 a camera for the search?
Why did he and her ex boyfriend erase voice mails from her phone remotely?

Avery or Dassey?

Totally concur that the cops in the initial case were dirty and unlawfully sent him to prison. Exculpatory evidence obviously existed which wasn't turned over. First case aside, his guilt in the second is pretty damning. I'm going to finish the remainder this week but with the information left out I already posted I don't see my viewpoint changing

Yeah, no.

I'm honestly surprised not many have talked about the Syed case, but I've been following that one a LOT because my fiancee' started following it.  However, I'm not 100% convinced he did it.  Like the Avery case, the Syed case is FULL of unfollowed leads, shitty corrupt investigating, plus a prosecutor that needs to be disbarred yesterday, and a defense attorney that was a shitty defense attorney.

True, but there doesn't seem to be planted evidence as with the Avery case...

OP...

Stop posting.....

Watch the rest....

You have no clue whats coming......

You will learn some very unpleasant things about some of the folks involved in the first fucked up "investigation" including their role in the second one...

He's an excerpt from my post in a different thread.....   These are some of the things you're in store for....  


*They tied Halbeck to the bed and repeatedly raped her. But there was no semen or vag secretions or blood on the sheets or mattress. There was none of Halbeck's DNA anywhere to be found.

*They accused Avery and his nephew of slashing Halbeck's throat, or having shot her in the head, as she was tied to the bed. But there was no blood anywhere in the bedroom. No arterial spray on the bed or walls. No blood on the sheets or soaked into the mattress. There was no blood on the carpet or surrounding items in the room. There was not one drop of blood found in that room.

*They found a smudge and a couple drops of Avery's blood in Halbeck's car. But didn't find one single finger print of Avery's in the car.

*The Manitowoc Police denied as "laughable" that they had access to any of Avery's blood, to be able to plant at the scene. But then the Defense found an old Avery blood sample that had been in evidence, but the seal had been broken, and a needle hole was seen in the rubber cap of the vial.

The nephew stated that he had cut her hair off with a knife. None of her hairs were found.

*They searched Avery's house on numerous occasions. But never saw the Toyota key sitting on the floor in the open.

*The key was found by Detective Lenk - the same person Avery was suing. Lenk discovered the key, sitting on the floor in the open on Day 4 of the search. The home had already been searched previously several times by professionals and criminalists. Yet we're supposed to believe that all these people missed seeing the key, which was laying in the open, on the floor?

*They found Avery's DNA on the Toyota key. But there was NONE of Halbach's DNA on the key. No skin oils, no skin cells - nothing in the creases or crevices of the key - despite her handling the key on a daily basis for a period of years.

*They located Halbeck's Toyota on the back side of Avery's lot. The Avery's had a car crusher on premises which would have made identifying the car virtually impossible. But it wasn't used. They also had car covers on premises - but chose instead to lean a couple boards, along with several bare, leafless branches up against the car to "hide" it? If there was time to get boards and cut down little trees, he could have crushed the car.

Understand... The insurance companies would have protected the Manitowoc Police from accidental wrong doing, and would have paid. However, they looked at the Wisconsin AG's report, and ruled that they would not cover the Cops involved in the Avery case. They'll usually only do this if they see intentional wrongdoing. The Cops and DA could have been personally liable.

There's more subtle things that indicate that the had it in for Avery.

**The initial call in the early hours after Halbeck's disappearence - you heard the Sheriff on the radio asking "Do they have him in custody yet?" They didn't even have a body yet!

**The Manitowoc Sheriffs turned the case over to Calumet County to keep things above board. Except the Manitowoc Sheriff is constantly with the Calumet County investigators - even discovering evidence (the key).

**The harassment of Avery's girlfriend.

**The change in the original bail provision which had originally allowed his family to put up their property, and then increasing the bail amount.

**I just don't see a motive for Avery to have done this. Dude had a girlfriend who he loved, was in touch with his kids and even had a grandchild. He was working in the yard, surrounded by family. (Jodi doesn't look like the kind who doesn't put out...)

**Watching the depositions of the Manitowoc Shefiffs Dept, all those fuckers were denying things they had just told the State a few months earlier. They were all nervous, fidgeting, eyes darting.. They all looked like Perps!! I have no problem with saying that they are liars. And with millions to lose? I don't put anything past them.

That being said, there are things I cannot explain, either. But with all these issues, I would have had reasonable doubt.

Imo.
The girl was killed and burned at the gravel pit.
Deputy that called in tag 2 days before officially finding the Rav4, actually found everything at the gravel pit.
Rav4 moved to the scrap yard.
Barrel from Avery property used to transport burned remains to Avery fire pit.
Barrel returned.
Later evidence placed during 8 day search and lock down of Avery property.

This would explain why the tag was called in before being found, why remains are found in barrel and at gravel pit also.


Who actually killed her? Avery? Another family member of Avery's? Random person?

Half?  They would let you get that far? I would hope they would have corrective behavior after a single incident.

I've watched/listened/read about this case a fair bit.

What strikes me about this whole thing is that the agenda of the documentary makers is clearly to get Avery off. The documentary is pretty much a one-sided version of the story, and doesn't present an unbiased representation of what happened, while piously saying that they're trying to be fair.

Given the history of the people making it, I'm rather suspicious of their motives and intent with this thing, and as such, I'm not taking the documentary at face value.

That said, I have no more idea what happened in this case than the next person who's following it does. From what I've seen of the evidence, I think Avery did it, or had something to do with it beyond being the innocent patsy blamed by the police for it that they're trying to say he is.

The biggest thing I'd like to point out, however, is the forensics: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, because they didn't find forensic trace evidence where you would expect it to be, that doesn't necessarily mean shit. Anyone with more than a smattering of knowledge about forensics could do a reasonably good job of destroying evidence, or setting the crime scene up to where there wouldn't be any in the first place.

Give me a couple of hours with the tools we use for maintaining a clean worksite, and I'm pretty sure I could do a pretty good job of walling off that bedroom with plastic sheeting to the point where any blood spatter would be contained within the plastic, which could then be destroyed, leaving a pristine scene for the evidence technicians to work on. The fictional Dexter supposedly does this with his crimes, and that show is not too far off being accurate, in forensic terms. The information is out there; a person of average intelligence can get access to it, and probably stand a good chance of being successful.

Forensics isn't the magical thing we see in movies and TV--If you plan carefully, you could conceivably have either prevented the deposition of evidence, or been able to destroy it before the evidence technician got a chance to fine or preserve it. Likely? I don't know, but it strikes me that this could be a case where someone's managed it.

You know what, I'm sick of this bullshit!!!!!!!

I don't know if Avery is guilty of this murder or not, but what I do know is that the evidence presented is tainted and full of holes. I'm also sick of hearing people say "I think he did it, even though the tainted evidence and coerced testimony seems like he's getting railroaded, I don't care he's guilty". FUCK YOU!!!

I look at this case as if I were being investigated, if I were in the middle of a $35million lawsuit against law enforcement that fingered me for a crime I didn't commit and I spent 18 years in prison. Why would I commit a murder on my property with all fingers pointing to me? Why????  If you've seen the whole series you should be completely pissed at how this trial has gone and based on the information (and yes I've "done my research" to that fucking guy that said I needed to) at the very least the main characters should be run over the coals to get comprehensive account of who/what and where they were during this investigation.

Many of you don't seem to know that the directors requested access to Ken Kratz, Manitoac Sheriffs, and others, but they all declined to be interviewed.  Seems to me they didn't really have much of a choice but to make it a one sided affair when one side doesn't care to present their story.

Please don't take this as me picking on you in particular Kirk, just wanted to point that out.

That's probably pretty damn accurate.

You must be talking about the perv DA?

Only from the preying, leading cops...it is all on tape...without the 16 yo faked testimony...the prosecution would have jack and poop...

Do not even get me started on that short, red headed piece of shit of court appointed attorney that got a PI to "direct the 16 YO to support the prosecution's directive"

I watched all 10 (or so) episodes. The case for the police having Means, Opportunity, and Motive to conspire and frame Steve Avery are all there. But the same can be said for OJ Simpson too. But just because they could, does not prove they did. In Simpsons case (and mega $ spent), he walked; in Avery's case, he was convicted.

One thing that bothered me was that if one considered the documentary as the full case both for and against him, you would 100% have to aquit him on reasonable doubt; no other verdict is possible.

I suspect there must be additional and compelling testimony against him that was not shown in the documentary episodes. Otherwise the police (both local and the out of towners), crime lab, DA, testifying witnesses, AND the jurors all bought into a conviction by either a conspiracy, or just "not getting it right". Both of those, while indeed possible, are hard to accept.

Avery's attorneys were very, very good. OJ won with good attorneys, and Avery lost with good attorneys. There just has to be more to this case than what the documentory let us see and hear.

Moving on to the case against the nephew. The kid is a huge mental mess. And if you think Avery did do it, then the kid was probably present, and possibly involved in some way (either during or after the murder). Even so, I believe he is not accountable for anything he may have seen, and is minimally accountable for anything he may have particapated in with his favorite uncle. Fine; if Avery's guilty, the kid had some involvement, but in regards to his prison sentance, the judge and jury did get this one way wrong.

The public seems to be demanding a full review/appeal over this documentary, and I hope they get it. And although I don't know anymore than the rest of the people who viewed the episodes, I do believe that a review/appeal process makes this case get bigger and bigger, and as such it will be conducted in full view of the public well above either the implied prosecution conspiracy, or simply just "not getting it right".

The author of Innocent Killer was on the Roe Conn show today and he made similar points.   MoaM is selectively omitting substantial and significant  incuplatory evidence.

All around fucked up.  I think he did it.  I think the cops planted evidence.  Both parties should be in prison right now.

I'll give you that they do look like Wisconsin hilbilly's.  They talk with what is referred to as "Wisconsin-ease".  They are simple people running a business where they wear grubby clothes every day.  They are unsophisticated, and are either uneducated or people of limited intellect.  They have unkempt hair and beards.   They smoke.  They swear.  They live in mobile homes.  

I can say without hesitation that not one of them would be found in any of my social or business circles.  I live in an upscale Milwaukee suburb. However, I've met people like the Avery's up north in the taverns we visit during hunting season.    

However, I'm going to point out that mentally retarded people don't run a successful business for many years, making deals, buying and selling equipment and inventory, paying bills and taxes....  Junkyards and auto salvage businesses are dirty, greasy, filthy places.  But they are necessary to car repair, restoration, insurance, and recycling industries. And the Avery's interact with the people in these industries each day in the course of their business.  So cite, please.  There should be thousands of these criminal charges and restraining order interactions documented somewhere - of the owners of this business.  .  

You state: "they're all prone to impulsivity and aggression, and the males are sexually aggressive".  Please clarify...  Is that your opinion, or is it fact?  If fact, cite please.  I'd be happy to read it and say you're right.  If opinion though, just stfu.  

Anyhow...  I can point to people like the Avery's all over our great nation.  They are not unique.

Even if that's true.  It still doesn't address ANY of the evidence inconsistencies.  And there are a shit ton of them  (See my post earlier in this thread for a list.)

You're going to sit in your "upscale Milwaukee suburb" and give me the "noble working man" speech?  I bet black people love you too, and all Amish are pure as the driven snow.  My implication of that family has nothing to do with the fact that they're poor and everything to do with the how they behaved on screen and the allegations that surround their behavior prior to the Halbech murder.  The only one that doesn't seem to fit that mold is Chuck.  Because I've known people just like that, grown up around them, and I know it only takes 1 competent member in a den of shit to hold things together "for the family."  

I would like to tell you exactly what I think of your big city self importance and patronizing manner and where you could put it, but I value my membership enough to keep that to myself.  Perhaps you can sort it out without me explicitly stating it, in a similar fashion to how I formed my opinion of the Avery's.

Yeah FFDR!! Oh wait..

I knew in the first five minutes that mother fucker was guilty.

Yeah, but I can't really blame them. The incident is still pretty fresh. Nobody who had something like that happen to a loved one wants to relive that trauma, especially when it only happened a few years ago.

And for what? To "balance" a documentary? Fuck that. I wouldn't participate either.

I started the series thinking he was innocent.

Mid way through, I started to detect a bias or motive.

By the end, I didn't know what to believe one way or the other.

Afterwards, when I've read up on all the evidence that was left out (I purposely did NOT read anything about the case til I was done).....I think he's guilty. But would I have voted "guilty" on a jury? I'm not sure.


Either there was a fairly complicated conspiracy involving messing with blood, sweat, ballistic, bone, and other evidence, AND it's simply coincidence that Steve called this lady over to his house under a false name right when she disappeared, OR there was some evidence that was missed (either through the states inability to locate it or Stevens attempts to get rid of it). Occam's razor, as best I can tell, dictates that the latter is more likely.

But a fascinating case none the less.

I've watched the whole thing. SA prolly is guilty. Theres still issues here:

1. Brendan has to get another trial, the behavior of his own defense team was completely and ridiculously undermining his defense from day 1.

2. There's no way the murder happened in the trailer or garage. These two dimwits couldn't possibly clean up a crime scene well enough. Im willing to believe that he killed her, but not in the way the state alleges.

3. I love how the prosecution is like "there IS evidence suggesting that she went in the trailer...an autotrader and a bill of sale!!" ...as if a guy who works for the family auto wrecking biz wouldn't always have a flipping autotrader and bills of sale laying around!?!?!

4. It's pretty obvious that every COP in town thinks SA is a bad guy, OK that's fine, but they never even asked her ex-BF for an alibi? Really? Because ex BFs never do anything bad I guess!

5. Why in the HELL were cops with all kinds of conflicts of interest even allowed within 100 yards of this place once the assets of the other agency's brought in? It's BEGGING for controversy or shit being questioned in court. No sane police leadership would allow that shit.

Of course the real eye roller for me was ep 10, with his former lawyers lamentations about the injustice. Yeah, OK guys, you COULD be doing pro bono work for this guy ifb it really makes you "sick" what's happening to him. I half expected some Obama tears there for a minute. In reality, these guys probably had to be paid just to sit down for the 10 mins of chatting about the case for the director. By their actions I can tell that they are allllll broken up about steve Avery.

The seal being broken is one thing, but a needle hole in the rubber tube stopper is nothing...how else do you think the blood actually got into the tube originally?

Thanks, your expert opinion has been noted multiple times now.

Via the big hole when the stopper is removed?

Have you ever had your blood drawn? They don't dump it into the test tube and put the rubber stopper on, there's a needle that pops through the stopper. That doesn't mean someone couldn't have put a needle back through and sucked some out.

I'm 4 episodes in and not convinced either way. Those cops do seem shady as hell though.

I'm not sure what they could have added either.

The people that really needed to be on there were the prosecutors and investigators.

And....on top of that, With that much blood in the vial put in there by a needle where the tube is sealed by a rubber stopper and a perfect seal around the needle piercing the rubber, how would you fill a vial? You would quickly start compressing the air that was in the vial as you pressurize the air in the vial by forcibly adding the liquid, taking up room. You would eventually not be able to push the needle plunger down, the sample would have blown out back through the plunger seal or the vial would have blown the stopper off. I would think that they would have to , by physics alone, fill that vial with the stopper off. No need to pierce it, unless one wanted to extract it.
Unless there was a reason and a documented chain of custody report for handling that sample at any time between the 18 years he was in prison the first time and then the time of the murder, I would lean towards tampering.

I can't blame prosecutors and cops that refused to participate.  The "documentary" was obviously going to be slanted. Anything they said would be edited to make them look bad.  Any facts they presented might have ended up on the cutting room floor.  The filmmakers were inspired to make the doc after reading a NY Times article that painted Avery as an innocent person who was framed by the cops.  Why would anyone want to participate in that?





 

Obama invited the NRA to his town hall gun meeting.  They knew better..

And the one thing this documentary was good at...making everyone believe he is stupid and could never pull off this crime.....could never clean up the crime scene...

Funny how that works.  You just have to make folks think your stupid and there is no way you could be guilty...

CSI has made America a medical examiner.

The title of their series is "Making a Murder".

In the first three words the film makers are flatly stating that the police fabricated the case.

They set out to make a one-sided case.  This was never intended to be an objective look at things.

Consider an actual court case, and in particular, the closing arguments.  Before closing arguments, the judge will plainly state to the jury that what they are about to hear from the prosecution and defense is editorial, and not necessarily based on fact - judges will often even spell it out: telling the jurors that the closing attorneys are permitted to lie to them in their closing statements, and that instead of relying on these editorial remarks, the jurors should rely on the sworn testimony and the cross examination of that testimony.  

The documentary is little more than an uncontested closing argument - a tale spun to make their own case.

jfc these cops have got to be top 10 most inept and retarded cops of all time

what?

 

What????


Even if you believe the jerking off thing..


Charles Darwin married his cousin.


So did Albert Einstein.


Cousin may be a bit weird, but it's not incest.  And jerking off in your front lawn when someone drives by isn't rape, or sex.


He stole some beer and cheese sandwiches.  


If you've heard GD talk about cats and cat hate, 25% of the members here are 'animal abusers'.


Finally, there was some really whacked crap going on in trial.   What do you call a guilty man where the prosecutor can't meet the burden of proof?  Not Guilty.


I think there is a 50/50 chance he did the murder.  That doesn't matter, because our country is founded on a fair trial and the idea that it is better to let 10 guilty men free than lock up 1 innocent man.  And on the fair trial part we as a system failed.

No.

 

Picked up a cat and as a joke tried to toss it OVER a fire.  Failed.


Even if you disbelieve it was a joke, there was no 'dipping in oil'

aYou have a link to this website?

 

Website has links to actual documents?


Documents are actual proof and not simply statements by witnesses or those directly involved? (because you know, people lie)

Well Duh.  Say what you want about the cops, Avery still did it.  What no one understands is that this show is only from one side of it.  It is anything but independent.

Also, please don't put all of Wisconsin in the same boat at these people.

And that's a good point that ANYONE saying he is 100% innocent or 100% guilty needs to remember.

 

Hold back certain facts, overstress other facts and you can make a lot of cases look guilty or innocent.


What is undisputed is that the documentary is showing facts to put Avery in the best light.  What is also undisputed is that there was some real hinky shit going on by the part of the police department, to the extent that I wonder if they were holding back facts and possibly faking shit to bolster a case that they thought they had the right suspect on but wasn't iron clad.


Any true American would get just as upset over someone fucking with the fairness of a trial just as much as they should get upset over a rape or even murder.

If you believe they did it, and ignore all evidence presented by the defense because they are biased, then you are forced to conclude that they didn't drag her body 50 to 100 feet.

They loaded her up in her car and drive her 50 to 100 feet, since her blood was found in the back.

Then, instead of crushing or smelting the car, they parked it, covered it with bits of wood. But they only covered the front so it would hidden from the view on the property. They didn't cover the rear of vehicle so anyone standing behind it would clearly see the make model and tag.

You know this because you were there?

There are witness reports that the cat was intentionally dipped in flammable liquid and thrown at the fire.