Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Paully D

The whole thing is just depressing really, albeit fascinating.

A bloke who while no angel, was framed initially for a crime he didn't commit because he was an easy target because of who he was and the county wanted the case solved ASAP because of who the victim was. Then the "murder". :rolleyes: I won't even go into Dassey because it makes me physically angry. The only thing with Dassey is he will probably live a better life in prison than he would have outside it because he was in no way, shape or form equipped for the outside world and the people he had around him were clearly giving him no chance in life. At least he will have a bit of structure inside. The transformation in the poor guy (I'd imagine because of medication?) over the years has been insane however.

My opinion is that Avery was set up when it became clear that he was intent on bringing a big money case against those involved in the initial cover up, that the insurance wouldn't cover his potential (or virtually guaranteed) damages and that the individual officers/county/DA involved in the framing of Avery in the initial case would have been on the hook for ALL of the cash. $36m. Just think about that again for a second - the individual officers/county/DA involved in the cover up would have had to pay that money to Avery.

People who don't think high-level police officers would be willing to sacrifice someone like Halbach and/or just frame Avery to save their reputations and their financial livelihood along with that of their families need a reality check. The judge was clearly on the take too with some of his decisions throughout the trial, most blatantly the EDTA decision. The corruption is just disgusting.

Halbach's family, especially her brother. There's surely just no way you can sit through what we heard throughout the trial and think "yeah, it had to be have been Avery who killed Teresa". If that was you, you'd surely want the right person convicted and not just anyone and be thinking "hold on, there's something massively off here"? Though to be fair I've thankfully never been in that position and please God never will be so I accept that it's hard to read too much into that, but it's something that stood out to me.

As for the jury - at the very least there's reasonable doubt. 7 of the jurors thought "not guilty" when they sat down initially after the trial and gave their initial opinion. Then they find him guilty of the first count and not guilty of the second count. You really do have to wonder. I feel for the guy who had to leave because of the medical emergency. It's clearly eating away at him that he wasn't able to stay and give his vote to "not guilty".

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

You saw a TV show. You didn't see all the evidence presented. It looked dodgy to me too on the tv show. But that was the aim of the show. Not to show an unbiased look at a trial. To push the conspiracy angle. And it did that by selectively showing the evidence and opinions.

Where was all this extra evidence? The really hard hitting evidence that was not shown?

I saw enough to make me question the credibility of the prosecutors. Should that be considered null and void because I did not see the trial in its entirety?

I saw enough. I saw the way Avery was going down for it irrespective of no incriminating evidence that could legitimately be said was not possibly planted by people that should never have been near that crime scene.

marklazarcovic

also remember the call which would have been in the middle of when this poor woman was being killed (their time frame) from averys fiancé from the prison ,he was in no way rushed,hurried,panicked,...he was totally normal and sounded like he would have spoken to her all night..

nothing like a fella that had a body to dismember and burn before people came looking for her ,waaayy to many inconsistencies to jail the man for life, lenk,her brother,dasseys brother and step dad, out hunting in the woods ..


katz telling the jury if you dont convict avery then what you are saying is its the police that murdered her and cut her up and burned her to frame him, from the start it was bully boy tactics from law enforcement,and they won.

Sunflower 27

Paully D wrote: »

The whole thing is just depressing really, albeit fascinating.

A bloke who while no angel, was framed initially for a crime he didn't commit because he was an easy target because of who he was and the county wanted the case solved ASAP because of who the victim was. Then the "murder". :rolleyes: I won't even go into Dassey because it makes me physically angry. The only thing with Dassey is he will probably live a better life in prison than he would have outside it because he was in no way, shape or form equipped for the outside world and the people he had around him were clearly giving him no chance in life. At least he will have a bit of structure inside. The transformation in the poor guy (I'd imagine because of medication?) over the years has been insane however.

My opinion is that Avery was set up when it became clear that he was intent on bringing a big money case against those involved in the initial cover up, that the insurance wouldn't cover his potential (or virtually guaranteed) damages and that the individual officers/county/DA involved in the framing of Avery in the initial case would have been on the hook for ALL of the cash. $36m. Just think about that again for a second - the individual officers/county/DA involved in the cover up would have had to pay that money to Avery.

People who don't think high-level police officers would be willing to sacrifice someone like Halbach and/or just frame Avery to save their reputations and their financial livelihood along with that of their families need a reality check. The judge was clearly on the take too with some of his decisions throughout the trial, most blatantly the EDTA decision. The corruption is just disgusting.

Halbach's family, especially her brother. There's surely just no way you can sit through what we heard throughout the trial and think "yeah, it had to be have been Avery who killed Teresa". If that was you, you'd surely want the right person convicted and not just anyone and be thinking "hold on, there's something massively off here"? Though to be fair I've thankfully never been in that position and please God never will be so I accept that it's hard to read too much into that, but it's something that stood out to me.

As for the jury - at the very least there's reasonable doubt. 7 of the jurors thought "not guilty" when they sat down initially after the trial and gave their initial opinion. Then they find him guilty of the first count and not guilty of the second count. You really do have to wonder. I feel for the guy who had to leave because of the medical emergency. It's clearly eating away at him that he wasn't able to stay and give his vote to "not guilty".

Judge was very much on the side with the cronies. Some serious wtf moments there. And the bullet that had his dna but was inconclusive. Why was that even allowed? It was quite clear that woman found what she was instructed to find.

And the aunt who found the car and said she saw a ridge and 'just had to search that area'. What was that about? That car yard was huge. Part of me wonders if the jury were a little thick and didn't understand parts that were clearly dodgy because SA's attorney's couldn't say 'hang on, that makes no sense'.

It wasn't always clear and explained easily as there was so much jargon.

PressRun

Thepoet85 wrote: »

It was the job of the prosecution to prove the guilt of Avery, and for me they didn't achieve that. I'm not saying he was innocent, I really don't know if he is or not, but it wasn't the job of the defence to prove him innocent, merely not guilty. And there's a difference between the two.

This is where I stand too. Like I said, if there's some clear cut evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Avery did it, then let's hear it. I haven't heard anything that does that and despite Kratz's complaints that the documentary doesn't show all the evidence, he is yet to provide anything compelling to prove it.

amdublin

Midway through ep 5 here


Bloody hell I'm emotionally drained.

Sunflower 27

Was there a scene at the start when Steven's property was being searched and he was sitting with two others, very relaxed? He didn't look concerned at all.

And as for those suggesting he told Teresa's boss 'send the woman you sent before' (or words to that effect). Are these the comments of a man wanting to murder her and then get away with it (by burning her behind his trailor).

Or maybe he thought she was pleasant, easy to deal with, thought she was professional and didn't judge him after all he had gone through. Maybe that us why he insisted she come (if in fact he did).

Sunflower 27

amdublin wrote: »

Midway through ep 5 here


Bloody hell I'm emotionally drained.

Wait till the last two....

Wompa1

I'm very cynical. I can't get behind Steven Avery being innocent at all. I did do a bit of research afterwards because you have to be weary. The makers of the show want to tell a compelling story, so you can't take it all and not question it.

Avery's prior history, before 1985 was much, much worse than the show depicted. If you read the grissly details of what he had previously done, you get a better picture of his character.

But there's no way there was justice in this case. In my opinion, Brendan needs to be released and Steven needs a new trial outside of Wisconsin.

Sunflower 27

Wompa1 wrote: »

I'm very cynical. I can't get behind Steven Avery being innocent at all. I did do a bit of research afterwards because you have to be weary. The makers of the show want to tell a compelling story, so you can't take it all and not question it.

Avery's prior history, before 1985 was much, much worse than the show depicted. If you read the grissly details of what he had previously done, you get a better picture of his character.

But there's no way there was justice in this case. In my opinion, Brendan needs to be released and Steven needs a new trial outside of Wisconsin.

The trial was not about his past, but whether he committed this horrible crime. I don't think there was remotely enough evidence he did. I totally agree he needs a new trial away from that place.

I wonder if people were jealous he was to make so much money. It doesn't seem like the place where people that are successful financially live. Maybe I'm wrong, but there may have been resentment.

PressRun

Wompa1 wrote: »

Avery's prior history, before 1985 was much, much worse than the show depicted. If you read the grissly details of what he had previously done, you get a better picture of his character.

But there's no way there was justice in this case. In my opinion, Brendan needs to be released and Steven needs a new trial outside of Wisconsin.

You can't convict someone on prior history though. I don't find Steven Avery an overly nice guy or anything and as I said before I'm not 100% sure either way on his guilt or innocence, but he still shouldn't have been convicted on the strength of what we know given there seemed to be fair amount of reasonable doubt. The police interactions with the media prior to the trial also seriously compromised his right to a fair trial, in my opinion. According to the juror who was excused during deliberations, there were a couple of jurors who had their minds made up and refused to participate in deliberations. I wouldn't besurprised in the least if that had something to do with how the case was handled in the media.

PressRun

8-10 wrote: »

I really don't understand why he would have cleaned the garage so meticulously as to not leave any blood DNA yet fail to even wipe the blood from the inside of the car. Why clean the murder scene so carefully and then not clean the place where the body was put right after?

I don't buy the garage theory.

I don't buy anything about the prosecution's version of events. I definitely think it's possible that he killed her, but this thing of holding her captive and raping her with his idiot nephew before stabbing her and shooting her is bs. It's like some cliche hillbilly horror tale and there's no way Avery is sophisticated enough to clean up a crime that messy and leave not a speck of DNA, but still be dumb enough to leave her car on his property to be found when law enforcement inevitably come knocking. If he did kill her, my guess would be that he shot her somewhere on his property and attempted to dispose of the body rather clumsily. The version of events he and his nephew were actually convicted on is bull****.

adox

I'm baffled that people can make absolute decisions based on a few hours of coverage from a clearly one sided documentary.

Wompa1

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

The trial was not about his past, but whether he committed this horrible crime. I don't think there was remotely enough evidence he did. I totally agree he needs a new trial away from that place.

I wonder if people were jealous he was to make so much money. It doesn't seem like the place where people that are successful financially live. Maybe I'm wrong, but there may have been resentment.

PressRun wrote: »

You can't convict someone on prior history though. I don't find Steven Avery an overly nice guy or anything and as I said before I'm not 100% sure either way on his guilt or innocence, but he still shouldn't have been convicted on the strength of what we know given there seemed to be fair amount of reasonable doubt. The police interactions with the media prior to the trial also seriously compromised his right to a fair trial, in my opinion. According to the juror who was excused during deliberations, there were a couple of jurors who had their minds made up and refused to participate in deliberations. I wouldn't besurprised in the least if that had something to do with how the case was handled in the media.

I didn't say he was guilty. I also said he deserves a new trial outside of the state. It should have been a mistrial in the first place.

There was a lot of evidence against him, it's just that the evidence was expertly brought into question by his defense. For me, the biggest piece of evidence that should have lead to a mistrial was the key being in his trailer and only being found days later and with the local force there.

What was really messed up is the fact they went with the timeline from Brendans story in the initial statement. They stuck with it for part of the trial too but then realized they didn't have any physical evidence to support that timeline and story, they changed it. Yet, Brendan is in prison and has been denied on all of his appeals, despite the fact there's zero physical evidence to connect him to the murders and the fact that Steven was prosecuted with a different story to the one he's in prison for.

The whole thing stinks.

Also when his mother didn't know what inconsistencies meant, I wanted to slap her. An idiot in the corner of an idiot.

marklazarcovic

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Was there a scene at the start when Steven's property was being searched and he was sitting with two others, very relaxed? He didn't look concerned at all.

And as for those suggesting he told Teresa's boss 'send the woman you sent before' (or words to that effect). Are these the comments of a man wanting to murder her and then get away with it (by burning her behind his trailor).

Or maybe he thought she was pleasant, easy to deal with, thought she was professional and didn't judge him after all he had gone through. Maybe that us why he insisted she come (if in fact he did).

and they kept them out of the properties for 8 days solid.


it also could easily have been he asked for her because she had been there before and knew exactly how to get there and would therefore be on time,hassle free etc

Thelomen Toblackai

marklazarcovic wrote: »

and they kept them out of the properties for 8 days solid.


it also could easily have been he asked for her because she had been there before and knew exactly how to get there and would therefore be on time,hassle free etc

Again it's one piece that on its own doesn't mean much but when put with the rest adds to the story.

There's a lot of effort here to try play off all this stuff as coincidence while discounting the rest as a conspiracy.

If you put the same effort into looking at the case on its merits in am unbiased way there's a hell of a lot of things pointing to Stephen Avery as the killer.

And there's really not much to suggest it's a conspiracy. Only that it was mishandled by the police.

Wompa1

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

If you put the same effort into looking at the case on its merits in am unbiased way there's a hell of a lot of things pointing to Stephen Avery as the killer.

And there's really not much to suggest it's a conspiracy. Only that it was mishandled by the police.

In fairness there's a lot to suggest that the investigator conspired against Avery. The fact they asked if Steven Avery was in custody when the RAV was found. The blood sample from 1985 being tampered with and the lab contracted by the department claiming they would never do such a thing. The key showing up days later when the Lenk was on the property. The leading questions put to Brendan and that being put out into the media before a trial was even set.

The forensic evidence that suggests bones were moved from the quarry to the fire pit. The fact they coerced an un-true account from Brendan and didn't find fault with the fact he didn't comprehend the severity of what he was saying (e.g. he asked if he'd be back in class by 1:30pm. He was hoping to get out on time to watch Wrestlemania!)

The public defender for Brendan was working with the prosecution for Steven. Alternate suspects could not be put forward during the trial.

The whole thing stinks of a conspiracy in the true definition of the word. They conspired against Avery. They didn't like anybody else for the crime, they didn't investigate anybody else. They put all of their time and resources into ensuring a conviction against Avery. That was their prerogative.

Sunflower 27

Wompa1 wrote: »

I didn't say he was guilty. I also said he deserves a new trial outside of the state. It should have been a mistrial in the first place.

There was a lot of evidence against him, it's just that the evidence was expertly brought into question by his defense. For me, the biggest piece of evidence that should have lead to a mistrial was the key being in his trailer and only being found days later and with the local force there.

What was really messed up is the fact they went with the timeline from Brendans story in the initial statement. They stuck with it for part of the trial too but then realized they didn't have any physical evidence to support that timeline and story, they changed it. Yet, Brendan is in prison and has been denied on all of his appeals, despite the fact there's zero physical evidence to connect him to the murders and the fact that Steven was prosecuted with a different story to the one he's in prison for.

The whole thing stinks.

Also when his mother didn't know what inconsistencies meant, I wanted to slap her. An idiot in the corner of an idiot.

What is the 'lot of evidence against him'? Because her bones were on his premises? The key and blood were very dodgy.

No fingerprints but blood in the car. And the key was found after was it 4 searches? I don't think it was 4 days into the search. I'd need to clarify that though, but I think it was a long time after the first search.

Thelomen Toblackai

Interesting post on Reddit. Some additional details and clarifications in the thread too. The show glosses over a lot of details that would paint Avery in a different light.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ytjy8/does_anyone_else_think_the_documentary_film/

PressRun

Wompa1 wrote: »

Also when his mother didn't know what inconsistencies meant, I wanted to slap her. An idiot in the corner of an idiot.

To be fair, I think a big point the documentary was making was the position of lower class, poorly educated people in a system that is rigged against them. The people involved barely have the vocabulary to properly defend themselves, nevermind being well-educated enough to understand how the legal system works.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Interesting post on Reddit. Some additional details and clarifications in the thread too. The show glosses over a lot of details that would paint Avery in a different light.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ytjy8/does_anyone_else_think_the_documentary_film/

Nothing there at all that links him to Teresa's death. It's like 'if he could do that he could murder someone'. OK. I can see why it wasn't allowed in court.

Sunflower 27

PressRun wrote: »

To be fair, I think a big point the documentary was making was the position of lower class, poorly educated people in a system that is rigged against them. The people involved barely have the vocabulary to properly defend themselves, nevermind being well-educated enough to understand how the legal system works.

I agree. You could see Brendan was afraid of those in senior positions. He was so intimidated he allowed them to get into his head. Most of us would not allow that to happen, but they knew what they were doing.

The clip of his attorney, the one that looks like the actor in Fargo, being questioned was classic. I had to rewind that a few times. He was chewing on his bottom lip he was so scared. He made a total fool of himself, same with O'Kelly and the sob, blue ribbon, sob. They were serious wtf moments for me.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Nothing there at all that links him to Teresa's death. It's like 'if he could do that he could murder someone'. OK. I can see why it wasn't allowed in court.

Did you read the title of the post ? You do realise this thread is about the show ? Not everything has to be he's guilty or innocent.

It's a post highlighting the degree with which the show excluded details which portrayed him in a negative light. All the while doing the exact opposite when talking about the police.

The show itself isn't anything close to a realistic and unbiased story of what happened. Seems to have influenced a hell of a lot of people into believing he's the victim all the same.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Did you read the title of the post ? You do realise this thread is about the show ? Not everything has to be he's guilty or innocent.

It's a post highlighting the degree with which the show excluded details which portrayed him in a negative light. All the while doing the exact opposite when talking about the police.

The show itself isn't anything close to a realistic and unbiased story of what happened. Seems to have influenced a hell of a lot of people into believing he's the victim all the same.

You can post what you like, I merely pointed out it means nothing. That's allowed.

We all get that parts of the trial were excluded from the documentary. Of course there was information ommitted.

However, we saw all of those caught out in inconsistencies; failure to show every word does not discredit what we did see and hear. And it was very clear that there was a huge movement to frame this on Avery from the get go. That says a lot. The unethical actions of many is crystal clear. We don't need to have been at the trial to know that.

And the police portrayed themselves in a negative light. No help was needed there. Maybe if they had been above board they wouldn't be facing such a backlash.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

You can post what you like, I merely pointed out it means nothing. That's allowed.

We all get that parts of the trial were excluded from the documentary. Of course there was information ommitted.

However, we saw all of those caught out in inconsistencies; failure to show every word does not discredit what we did see and hear. And it was very clear that there was a huge movement to frame this on Avery from the get go. That says a lot. The unethical actions of many is crystal clear. We don't need to have been at the trial to know that.

You seen what the makers of the show wanted you to see. It was clear they were pushing the frame angle but it's not at all clear there was any framing.

gavmcg92

Absolutely loved the show. Didn't have the opportunity to binge watch like the rest of you as I would have been falling asleep in work for the week! Have also spent the last hour going through this and reading all of your comments. Definitely makes for a more interesting read that we have opinions on both sides of the aisle.

As far as I see it, it's hard to see how a jury member can without reasonable doubt, say that Avery killed her. Even when you take into consideration the information that some people say was missing from the doc.

One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion so far (as far as I can see) is an explanation for the blood in the back of her car that would be indicative of her body being transported. Why would Avery put her in the boot if she was burned a few feet from his house?

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

You seen what the makers of the show wanted you to see. It was clear they were pushing the frame angle but it's not at all clear there was any framing.

Correction, I heard the words that were spoken and the lies told. The documentary makers did not change spoken words.

Not clear there was framing? That was the one thing that was clear. Can you explain why colburn called in tbe licence plates days before the car was found? Or why it was Lenk that found the key after so many previous searches? Or that inconclusive dna on a bullet was allowed, or why Brendan had a confession taken without a lawyer present... There is so much there.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Correction, I heard the words that were spoken and the lies told. The documentary makers did not change spoken words.

Not clear there was framing? That was the one thing that was clear. Can you explain why colburn called in tbe licence plates days before the car was found? Or why it was Lenk that found the key after so many previous searches? Or that inconclusive dna on a bullet was allowed, or why Brendan had a confession taken without a lawyer present... There is so much there.

How can you say it was clear? It was clear enough they were hell bent on convicting him and possibly interfered with the crime scene to do that but there's no evidence pointing to a frame. The dna on the bullet was Teresa's, call it what you like but at best it'd be a loophole. It's still a bullet from his gun with the victims dna on it. The blood in the van was his, consistent with a cut he had and effort to argue it was planted weren't successful. At best on that they had its not impossible it may have been planted if you ignore the results of the fbi test. Not rock solid evidence by any stretch. His dna was also on he hood latch.

So there's pretty good evidence that puts him in the victims car where her blood was also found. A bullet from his gun with her dna matching a bullet would to her skull. Her remains on his property.

If you're saying it was a frame what's your likely chain of events ? Who else can be linked to the victim, the car or the remains? Do the police kill her ? Do they burn her ? Move the remains to his property? Along with the car? Plant his blood in the car in line with a cut on his right hand, dna under the hood, the key with added dna and the bullet fired from his gun or similar with dna planted on it.

Thats an incredible amount if stuff to try explain with not much to even back up the story.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

How can you say it was clear? It was clear enough they were hell bent on convicting him and possibly interfered with the crime scene to do that but there's no evidence pointing to a frame. The dna on the bullet was Teresa's, call it what you like but at best it'd be a loophole. It's still a bullet from his gun with the victims dna on it. The blood in the van was his, consistent with a cut he had and effort to argue it was planted weren't successful. At best on that they had its not impossible it may have been planted if you ignore the results of the fbi test. Not rock solid evidence by any stretch. His dna was also on he hood latch.

So there's pretty good evidence that puts him in the victims car where her blood was also found. A bullet from his gun with her dna matching a bullet would to her skull. Her remains on his property.

If you're saying it was a frame what's your likely chain of events ? Who else can be linked to the victim, the car or the remains? Do the police kill her ? Do they burn her ? Move the remains to his property? Along with the car? Plant his blood in the car in line with a cut on his right hand, dna under the hood, the key with added dna and the bullet fired from his gun or similar with dna planted on it.

Thats an incredible amount if stuff to try explain with not much to even back up the story.

Would you not call interfering with a crime scene part of a plan to frame someone? Because that screams framing to me. Why else do it unless you had a target you wanted to pin the crime on.

You know, there is not much that backs up Steven killed Teresa. There is plenty that backs up the crooked cops throughout this entire thread.

I don't know how they did it, if I did for a fact I'd hardly be on boards with my information. There was so much under-hand carry-on. I wouldn't put anything past those cops. Surely you also saw them crumble time and time again on the stand. I only wish I knew the truth.

Oh, and tbe bullet dna was inconclusive, you forgot that.

Tbe blood in his car without a trace of fingerprints and knowing his blood was available to police.... And tbe container appeared to have been tampered with.

You seem to keep forgetting these oddities in your posts.

I'm heading out now so don't see my failure to respond further as ignoring you. Happy New Year!

Ageyev

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

.

From what I seen as one sided as it was I'd be surprised if Avery wasn't the killer. So the poor family not only has a bunch of idiots locking up their son for 18 years but then they have to go through it all again because he was actually a psycho but being innocent the first time people bought into his lies this time. That's the cruellest part of it, how he exploits all that to string his family along and ruins lives all over the place.

This is one aspect that disturbed me - either he was the dumbest criminal in the world by leaving so much evidence around or he was actually evil enough to think he could get away with it.

Mightydrumming wrote: »

You have to put your hands up to Steven's defence team, tremendous job considering the outcome. I still can't work out how the $400,000 lasted the duration!!

Steven didn't get all the $400k as some of it went towars legal costs for the civil suit. You can find Buting and Strang's websites. I assume that they arrange a flat fee upfront to cover all work up until sentencing.

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

.

Ultimately, I would echo Avery's lawyer. I just really hope they are both guilty and all this sympathy is unwarranted.

Dean Strang said that about Steven Avery not Brendan Dassey. Strang also said that he doesn't know if Steven is innocent but is also not convinced he is guilty.

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

And a lot of people seem to be glossing over the fact a poor girl was violently murdered. The police mangled the investigation but theres enough to know Avery more than likely killed her and ****ed up a lot of lives including his own.

True. I was reminding myself half way through that a woman was murdered in an appalling crime. That the investigation and prosecution was so bad is an insult and unjust. Dean Strang said that the documentary ought to encourage people to ask questions about the system and the workings of the State rather than focusing on Steven's guilt or innocence as public exposure and pressure is highly unlikely to help. But the Internet has lit up with amateur investigators and I've seen very little discussion focusing on the systemic aspects that Strang mentioned.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Would you not call interfering with a crime scene part of a plan to frame someone? Because that screams framing to me. Why else do it unless you had a target you wanted to pin the crime on.

The exact same reason they ignored evidence the first time. The thought they had their man. Only this time there was added incentive to see him convicted.

You know, there is not much that backs up Steven killed Teresa. There is plenty that backs up the crooked cops throughout this entire thread.

Not much that backs up Avery being the killer? Are you joking? ?

I don't know how they did it, if I did for a fact I'd hardly be on boards with my information. There was so much under-hand carry-on. I wouldn't put anything past those cops. Surely you also saw them crumble time and time again on the stand. I only wish I knew the truth.

No idea how they did it or what exactly happened but happy to proclaim Avery innocent and claim there's a state wide conspiracy to frame him ?

Oh, and tbe bullet dna was inconclusive, you forgot that.

Again a loophole based on protocol. It wasn't actually inconclusive. Teresa's dna was found on it and the lab happy to stand over the result.

Tbe blood in his car without a trace of fingerprints and knowing his blood was available to police.... And tbe container appeared to have been tampered with.

Lack of fingerprint proves nothing. The blood puts him in the car. The show made a big deal of the container being tampered with but most of that was nonsense. The hole in the tube wasnt anything out of the ordinary. The fbi tests couldn't find any indication it came from the tube. The defence had nothing other than an opened evidence box with blood they couldn't show was planted. The conspiracy goes up to the fbi right ? Simply because Avery claims he's innocent ?

You seem to keep forgetting these oddities in your posts.

I'm heading out now so don't see my failure to respond further as ignoring you. Happy New Year!

Sorry but you need more than a couple oddities to have enough to claim it's all a clear conspiracy to frame an innocent man.

Happy new year.

marklazarcovic

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jarettwieselman/making-a-murderer-burning-questions-answered#.veZGrzR0n

Thelomen Toblackai

Ageyev wrote: »

True. I was reminding myself half way through that a woman was murdered in an appalling crime. That the investigation and prosecution was so bad is an insult and unjust. Dean Strang said that the documentary ought to encourage people to ask questions about the system and the workings of the State rather than focusing on Steven's guilt or innocence as public exposure and pressure is highly unlikely to help. But the Internet has lit up with amateur investigators and I've seen very little discussion focusing on the systemic aspects that Strang mentioned.

It's a bit tragic all right that a show which was poised to highlight glaring failures in the system ended up a murder mystery.

Another horrible loss due to Avery's likely actions. Just as the scrapping of the bill that was to be introduced to address some of those failings.

gavmcg92

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Again a loophole based on protocol. It wasn't actually inconclusive. Teresa's dna was found on it and the lab happy to stand over the result.

Tbe blood in his car without a trace of fingerprints and knowing his blood was available to police.... And tbe container appeared to have been tampered with.

How do you explain that the bullet was found in a location that had no blood splatter what so ever. Especially with the amount of junk in that shed. There would have been no way for all of that to be cleaned to a level that no DNA would have been found.

The lack of blood is interesting across the board.
no blood in the room where she was apparently stabbed, no blood where she was apparently shot. There only place there was blood was in her boot. Why, of all places, would her blood be in the boot if she was burned a couple of feet from where she was apparently shot.

Also with respect to his blood in the jeep. It doesn't really put him in the jeep. With the location of the cut on his hand, the absence of finger prints is strange. Also, the lab who did the blood work confirmed that they do not poke holes in the purple caps.

Ageyev

gavmcg92 wrote: »

.
There only place there was blood was in her boot. Why, of all places, would her blood be in the boot if she was burned a couple of feet from where she was apparently shot.

Also with respect to his blood in the jeep. It doesn't really put him in the jeep. With the location of the cut on his hand, the absence of finger prints is strange. Also, the lab who did the blood work confirmed that they do not poke holes in the purple caps.

Teresa's blood got in the boot ofmthe Rav4 because (according to Brendan) they put her in the Rav and were going to dump the body in a lake nearby but the lake was dry. Considering the very dodgy and clearly coerced confession - not to mention lack of blood evidence after the throat cutting - Brendan's version of events can't be taken seriously.

The prosecution went had two separate and opposing theories of the crime in both trials which ought to be considered unethical

gavmcg92

Ageyev wrote: »

gavmcg92 wrote: »

.
There only place there was blood was in her boot. Why, of all places, would her blood be in the boot if she was burned a couple of feet from where she was apparently shot.

Also with respect to his blood in the jeep. It doesn't really put him in the jeep. With the location of the cut on his hand, the absence of finger prints is strange. Also, the lab who did the blood work confirmed that they do not poke holes in the purple caps.

Teresa's blood got in the boot ofmthe Rav4 because (according to Brendan) they put her in the Rav and were going to dump the body in a lake nearby but the lake was dry. Considering the very dodgy and clearly coerced confession - not to mention lack of blood evidence after the throat cutting - Brendan's version of events can't be taken seriously.

The prosecution went had two separate and opposing theories of the crime in both trials which ought to be considered unethical

Add your reply here.

Was that disclosed in the final episode? Would probably explain it. Haven't seen the final episode yet.

Thelomen Toblackai

gavmcg92 wrote: »

How do you explain that the bullet was found in a location that had no blood splatter what so ever. Especially with the amount of junk in that shed. There would have been no way for all of that to be cleaned to a level that no DNA would have been found.

I'm not sure. If she was shot as ya say it would be incredibly hard to clean everything. But one of the things Brendan Dassey said was he helped Avery bleach the garage. And the clothes he was wearing that day had bleach stains on them. What actually happened I don't know.

The lack of blood is interesting across the board.
no blood in the room where she was apparently stabbed, no blood where she was apparently shot. There only place there was blood was in her boot. Why, of all places, would her blood be in the boot if she was burned a couple of feet from where she was apparently shot.

That's where I think Dasseys story falls apart. She can't have been stabbed and had her throat cut in the bedroom. Perhaps there's part of it true and she was stabbed/shot etc elsewhere or perhaps its all crap he came up with. I'm as confused as everyone else on how those confessions were used to convict him.

Also with respect to his blood in the jeep. It doesn't really put him in the jeep. With the location of the cut on his hand, the absence of finger prints is strange. Also, the lab who did the blood work confirmed that they do not poke holes in the purple caps.

If it's judged to be his blood (which it was) and not planted (which the defence didn't adequately argue imo) then it has to put him in the jeep. It's consistent with a cut on his right hand. The lack of fingerprints could mean he wiped the wheel and door handles and never realised he'd left blood. There was also DNA on the hood latch matching Avery.

It said in the show that the lab didn't poke holes but it was later established that the vial was exactly as it should have been. All those vials have the hole in them as that's how they are filled. The defence lawyers seemed to lose interest in the tampering I assume because that was established yet the makers of the show never mentioned it.

jcsoulinger

Did he do it or not? I'm split on this.

One thing is clear though and that is the prosecution, the local PD and Brendan's original lawyer acted appaulingly and will never be held to account.

On the bullet in the garage how would the whole place be cleaned up but that be left behind with only miniscule amounts if any of the victims dna, doesn't make any sense.

Also her key only had stevens DNA on, this was ridiculously suspicious.

The cops were tampering with evidence no doubt in my mind.

Ageyev

jcsoulinger wrote: »

Also her key only had stevens DNA on, this was ridiculously suspicious.

Also, the key was a spare key sometimes referred to as a "valet ket".







Teresa's DNA wasn't on the key. With some motors you could get a spare key with just the VIN.

Ageyev

The key looks very clean for a 6year old key. You could explain this away with various theories but remember, the key was only found on the 7th search!

There was a bunch of keys in the desk that this key supposedly fell out from.

PressRun

Regardless of whether Steven Avery is really the culprit or not, I don't know how anyone could really say that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. The evidence that was published after the airing of the documentary doesn't even go any way to proving that he was guilty.

Sunflower 27

jcsoulinger wrote: »

Did he do it or not? I'm split on this.

One thing is clear though and that is the prosecution, the local PD and Brendan's original lawyer acted appaulingly and will never be held to account.

On the bullet in the garage how would the whole place be cleaned up but that be left behind with only miniscule amounts if any of the victims dna, doesn't make any sense.

Also her key only had stevens DNA on, this was ridiculously suspicious.

The cops were tampering with evidence no doubt in my mind.

This is my whole point, too. Two crucial pieces of evidence that are so damn dodgy.

Luminol would have detected blood not visible to the naked eye that was removed by bleach. That is standard procedure in forensics.

So much of the rest is circumstantial. Nowhere near enough to convict the guy.

The car his property appears to have been spotted days before by colburn. That is the most suspicious bit to me. I'd love to know what happened there.

Sunflower 27

PressRun wrote: »

Regardless of whether Steven Avery is really the culprit or not, I don't know how anyone could really say that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. The evidence that was published after the airing of the documentary doesn't even go any way to proving that he was guilty.

Totally. The idea that there was all this other stuff.... None of it makes you go ahhhhh, now I see how they got him.

Ridiculous.

Anonymous are now active

#OPAVERYDASSEY

Sunflower 27

Why is Kratz saying it is one-sided when he was asked to be in the series but refused? What did he think would happen in that case?

He could never have known in his wildest dreams that the documentary would go on to be a massive hit on Netflix. Not so smug now are you, Ken boy;)

Sunflower 27

Anyone who thinks someone close to Avery killed Teresa may be interested in the link below. It makes for jaw-dropping reading. Click on the two documents the author mentions.


https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xqlut/document_2009_retrial_request_for_steven_avery/

marklazarcovic

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

copied and pasted the parts pertaining to the 'others' who had means,motive and opportunity,same as mr avery.


Scott Tadych



103. Scott Tadych had sufficient motive, OPPOItumty and a direct
connection to the crime such that Mr. Avery, should have .been allowed to
introduce third-party ,-esponsibility evidence relating to him.
104. Tadych's motive to kill Ms. Halbach is his violent and ,-:olatile
personality. According to Tadych's co-workers, Tadych is a short-tempered and
angry person capable of murder (Calumet County Sheriff s Department intervie,W. . ' "
3/30/06; pp.71 9-722). Tadych was described as a chronic liar who blows up at
I .
people, "screams a lot" and is a "psycho." Another co;worker describe~ Tadych,as
"not being hooked up right" and someone who would ".flY. offthF ~dle at
everyone at work." (Calumet County Sheriff's Department. interxiew 3{31/06,
. p. 726).
105. Tadych's previous experiences with the court system show hiql to be
a violent and impulsive person, particularly towards women. In 1994, he was
charged in Manitowoc County with criminal trespass and battery. The criminal
complaint (Case No. 94-CM-583) alleged that Tadych went to the home of
Constance Welnetz at about 3:00 a.m. and knocked on her bedroom window.
Welnetz was asleep with Martin LeClair. Welnetz then heard a loud knock on the
back door. As she was calling the police, Tadych walked into her home and stated
to her: ''You will die for this, bitch." In the meantime, LeClair had gone outside ,
to confront Tadych, and Tadych had hit him, knoclung him briefly uncQnscious.



106. In 1997, the state charged Tadych with recklessly causing bodily
harm to Welnetz's son, Ryan, as well as disorderly conduct and damage to
property. The complaint alleged that Tadych had accused Welnetz of seeing
another man. When she told Tadych to leave, he SWlDlg at her and missed, then
"went out of control," (see complaint in Case No, 97-CF-237), He pushed and
punched Welnetz repeatedly, tried to push her down the basement stairs, pulled her
hair, and also punched Ryan Welnetz, then 11 years old, Tadych went outside and
ripped the CB out ofWelnetz's truck. He damaged other property as well.
107, In 1998, the state charge\i Tadych with trespass and disorderly
conduct for entering the home of Patricia Tadych-bis mother-without
pennission. (Case No. 98-CM-20), When Tadych found that his mother had
moved some of his fishing equipment, and that Eome equipment was missing, he
began to yell at her, calling her a "****er," a "bitch" and a "****." Tadych shoved
her, nearly causing her to fall.


108. In 2001, Constance Welnetz filed a petition for a teinporary
restraining order from Tadych (Case No. 01-CV-3). In her petition, Welnetz stated
that Tadych had called her repeatedly at work within short periods of time,
threatened to "kick her ass," to ''turn her over to social services" and to make her
life "miserable." He called her a "****ing CUllt bitch," He went to her home and
pushed his way into her home. He left the home on one occasion only after she
picked up the phone to call the police, but then he spit Oli her car and tried all the
car door~ to get in, When Welnetz left in her car, Tadych followed her. At one
point, Tadych phoned Welnetz and told her that if she would not talk to him and
give him "another chance" he would ruin her life and hurt her because she was a
"worthless piece of ****."
-4

109. And in 2002, Tadych a.gain assaulted Welnetz (Case No. 02-CM-
449). After Welnetz had tried to "kick Tadych out of her residence" for yelling at ,
her son, Tadych shoved Welnetz against the wall, took her phone and threw it on
the floor so she could not call the police. Tadych also twice punched Welnetz in
the shoulder with a closed fist.
110. Tadych would also have had a motive to frame Steven Avery. At the
time of Ms. Halbach's. murder, Tadych was dating Barb Janda, who lived next
door to Steven Avery, and who is the mother of Bobby, Blaine, Brendan and Bryan
Dassey. If Tadych killed Ms. Halbach, or if one of the Dassey boys had killed her,
Tadych would have had a motive to fi1une someone else for the crime, and Steven
Avery would have been a convenient choice for a frame-up.
Ill. Tadych also had opportuDity to kill Ms. Halbach. Janda and Tadych
are now married. As her then-boyfriend, Tadych would have been on the property
numerous times, and would have had easy access to the property.
112. Tadych testified that he was at the Janda home twice on October 31,
2OOS. It was Janda's van that Teresa Halbach had come to photograph, 'lUld so
Barb, and likely Tadych, knew Ms. Halbach would be coming to the yard to
photograph the van. Because of the close proximity of the Janda and Steven Avery
residences, anyone at the Janda home could ·see the van and Teresa Halbach
coming to photograph the van. Indeed, Bobby Dassey testified that he saw her
taking pictures of his mother's car.
113. Tadych also had a ct connection to the cI:ime. Tadych's alibi for
the time at which it is believed that Ms. Halbach was killed is Bobby Dassey, who
is now Tadych's step-son. Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych are mutual alibis in
this case. Each states that he saw the other while driving, on their way 10 hunt.
(Of course, that they saw each other while driving does not mean that one of them
-49-


06/ 29 / 2009 15: 21 FAX 9204321190 WBAY NEWS ROOM ~ WKOW 1i!I 02 4 ROM
(MON)~UH 2$ 200& ":4e"T. " :a.' No. 7C0 1 07QQOO p 2 G
could not have had a restrained Teresa Halbach in his car at that time). No one
else can vouch for their whereabouts during that afternoon.


114. Another co-worker of Tadych reported that Tadych had approached
him to sell him a .22 rifle that belol1ged to one of the Dassey boys. (Calumet
County Sheriff's Department report of 3/30/06, p. 725-726). A .22 rifle was
believed to be the murder weapon in this case.
115. Additionally, a co-worker stated that Tadych had left work on the
day that Steven Avery was l!I1'eSted, and that he was a "nervous wreck" when he
left. Further a co-worker stated that Tadych had commented that one of the
Dassey boys had blood on his clothes, and that the clothes had "gotten mixed up
with his laundry." (Calumet County Sheriffs Department report of 312/06, .
p.687).

116. Applying these facts to the three-factor test in Denny, the court erred
in concluding it was insufficient to meet the stancbrd for admissibility. Evidence
relating to Tadych was relevant because it tended to prove that Mr. Avery was not
the guilty party. It would not have confused the jUlY or undul}'tprolonged the trial.
Likewise, there was no risk that the jury would be misled or confused had
Mr. Avery been able to introduce evidence of Scott Tadych's culpability. It was
Up to the jury, not the court, to decide whether to believe Tadych might'have been
responsible for the crime.

marklazarcovic

Cbarles Avery
117. Charles Avery also potentially had the motive to kill Teresa Halbach.
Charles Avery had assaulted his former wife and had an' aggressive history with
women who came to the Avery Salvage Yard. In 1999, the state charged Charles
I
with sexual assault by use of force of his then wife Donna. The complaint alleged
(Case No. 99-CF-155) that CharlCd had held Donna down and had sexual I
-50- , , .,
I 1\
I
06 / 29 / 2009 15 :21 FA.X 9204321190 FROM
WBAY NEWS ROOIl ~ WKOW 141 025
(MOH)..JUN ::till 2008 l': .. 8/.T .... ~!Q:.'Mo.7S010,. eOO p 2.8
intercourse with her against her will. The comolaint also stated that Donna
reported that Charles had tried to strangle her with a phone cord, and told her that
"if she did not shut up he would end it all."


118. In another criminal complaint ftIed the same day (Case No. 99-CM-
361), Donna Avery stated that Charles had contacted her even though there was a
domestic abuse injunction in place. According to the complaint, Charles entered
Donna's residence without her permiSSion, that he followed her when she left, and
that he again entered her residence without her permission later that night, 1pping
the phone from hcr hands when she tried o call the police. Charles also blocked I I , I I LI 1 j
the door whcn Donna attempted to leave.

119. Charles Avery's aggression extended to women who were customers
of the AVfrry Salvage Yard. For example, Invr.stigator John Dedcring of the
Calumet County Sheriff's Department interviewed Zina Lavora who had had her
. car towed by the Avery Salvage business. After the tow, Charles Avery began
sending her flowers and repeatedly asking her to go out on dates, which she found
to be disturbing. He sent candy to her home, and on one occasion, he rang her
doorbell and left her a long gift-wrapped box with a $100 bill. He continued to
call her over the next three weeks, and she reported to her co-workers that she was
afraid ofbim. (Calumet County Sheriff's Department report of 11'/8/05, p. 159).1

120.' Another woman who had been a customer had a similar exPlerience
with Charles Avery. The same Sheriff's Department report contains, a statement
I L I I
by Judith Knutsen that she bought a part for her car through the Avery Salvage
Yard. A few months later, in October of 2005, the Avery business towed her car.
On October 30, 2005, Knutsen's supervisor gave her a note thatlshe should go to
the property the next day to pick up the belongings from her car; She did1not·go.
On November 2, 2005, she phoned the business and spoke with Charles Avery.
-51-
f O
06 / 29 / 2009 15 :21 FAX 9204321190 WBAY NEWS ROOM ~ WKOW IaJ 026 ~ROM (MON)JUN 28 2008 11:4C/CT.11 1Ge/Ho.TS01.?0980 P 27
Charles told her be had been to her house the previous day to drop off her
belongings, and then proceeded to ask Knutsen out for dinner. She refused. . Then
on November 4, 2005, Charles went to Knutsen's home with her perso~
belongings which he said he had sorted from her car.

121. Other stories of Charles' aggressive history with women exist Gary
and Daniel Lisowski spoke with law enforcement about Charles. Daniel Lisowski
was then dating a young woman whose mother was a single mother. Lisowski
reported that Charles had driven by this woman's house repeatedly, would call her
to ask her out, and would tell her on the phone that he had seen her in her bathing
·suit as he had driven by. (DCI Report, Bate stamp 023 1).

122. Charles Avery also bad a motive to frame Steven Avery for
Ms. Halbach's murder, namely jealousy for Steven over money, a share of the
family business, and over Jodi Stachowski. When Steven Avery returned to ,the
Salvage Yard after his exoneration, it meant that the Avery Salvage Yard business
would no longer be run by just Charles and Earl Avery as Allen Avory was
involved less and less in the business. It meant that Steven Avery would also be
part of the business. Thus, what looked like a half share in the family business was
likely to be a third share with Steven's arrival. Carla Avery, Charles' daughter,
told police that Charles ''puts up" with Steven working at the yard, but that he does
not really want him to wode there. (DCI Report, Bate stamp 0657) .

. 123. Steven Avery also looked to be in line to receive a large sum of
money as a result of his exoneration. That money may have caused jealousy to
Charles that would cause him to want to see Steven off the Avery Salvage Yard.
He inay even 'have believed that if Steven were again sent to prisOIlj his lawsuit
proceeds might go to him and the other A very family membersl . "J
-52-
06/29/2009 15:22 FAX 9204321190 WBAY NEWS ROOM ~ WKOW ~ 027 F~M
(MON)~UN 28 200e ~'~47'ST.":OO/Ho.7U0107G •• O p ~e

124. Charles Avery had also fiightened Jodi Stachowski, Steven Avery's
girlfiiend at the time of Ms. Halbach's murder. While she was in jail, Stachowski
had told another woman that she was afraid of Charles, and that shortly after
Stachow~ki and Steven began dating, Charles had come over to Steven's home
with a shotgun because he was angry that they were dating. (DCI Report.at Bate
stamp 0685). Stachowski told this woman that she "was freaked out by Chuckie,"
and that she had once awoken to fmd Chuckie in her residence that she shared with
Steven. (Jd.) .

125. Charles also had opportunity to kill Ms. Halbach. As one of the
Avery brothers, he was on the property daily, and would have been aware of
anyone coming from Auto Trader to photograph cars on the lot. Robert Fabian
told police that Charles had asked Steven if "the photographer" had come yet to'
the yard on October 31, 2005. (Calumet County Sheriff's Department leport of
11110/05, p. 208). On November 6, 2005, Charles told law enforcement that he
recalled Steven may have left work to "go and meet with a girl to take some
pictures." (DCI Report at Bate stamp 0371).

126. Charles also had a means to frame Steven. For example, after Steven
cut his finger, Charles could have smeared Steven's blood from a rag in
Ms. Hnlba.ch's car. He could have planted the key in Steven's ·room. Getting rid
of StevCD would only improve Charles' situation at the Avery Salvage Yard.

127. The location of Charles' residence on the property is suspicious as
well. His trailer is located next to the office and the main entrance to the business,
so he would be most likely to see people coming to do business at the yard. His
trailer is also the closest of any of the residences to the location where
Ms. Halbach's car was found. Also, unless Ms. Halbach's car was driven into the
-53-
, \(
I
r
06 / 29 / 2009 15:22 FAX 9204321190 WBAY NEWS ROOM ~ WKOW ~028 ~OM
(MOH)~UN 2. 2008 11:47/ST.l1:G8/No.780 1.7~eQO p 2.
pit from the rear Radant quarry area, anyone driving her car down to where it was
ultimately found would have driven past Charles' trailer.

128. Charles Avery told law enforcement that he spends a "considerable
amount of time working in the pit area" and yet he did not notice Ms. Halbach's
car. (DCI Report at Bate stamp 0370). He lives alone, and stated he saw no one
on the night of October 31, 2005, so he does not havc an alibi for that night. (DCI
Report at Bate stamp 0371). Charles has access to firearms as be is a bunter and
uses the pit when he wants to sight in his guns. (DCI Report at Bate stamp 0374).

129. More information connecting Charles Avery to Ms. Halbach's' ,
disappearunce and murder may have been obtained had the police not had such
tunnel vision in its investigation and had they not been so free with information
with Cherles about the investigation. The police reports show that law
enforcement repeatedly told Charles Avery that Steven was the perpetrator of these
crimes, and they told Charles Avery about important aspects of the investigation.
For example, an officer with the Marinette COlmty Sheriffs Department told
Charles that they had found the key to Ms. Halbach's Toyota in Steven's bedroom,
and that they believed that Steven kept the key so he could later move the car from
the salvage yard to the shop where he could strip it to ready it for crushing. (DCI
Report at Bate stamp 0308). The officer also told Charles that they had found
bones and teeth in the bum pit behind Steven's house. (DCI Report at Bate stamp
0309). In a later interview, police told Charles that they believed Steven I1ad
opened the road from the Radant Gravel Pit into the Avery Salvage 'Yard so he
could drive Ms. Halbach's car to the back row of the yard. (DCI Report at Bate
stamp 0355). The officer told Charles .that he "understood how unsettling this
must be for Chuck. but he needs to face the fact that his brother-killed Halbach."
(DCI Report at Bate stamp 0354).
-54

marklazarcovic

Elarl Avery


I:; 1. Much of the same evidence relevant to Charles Avery would apply to
Earl Avery as well. Steven's return meant that Earl's share of the family business
may have gone from one-half to onc'third. Earl stated to the poli~e his willingness \ . ~ "-r t
to give information incriminating to Steven, ~aying that "even if mv brother did . , r: \ I " ['If{ r- I
. sometl1ID.g, I would tell." (Calumet County Sh~ff~ Dep~e!lt rep,ort af p. 75).
Earl's wife was said to have greatly disliked Steven. Earl was on tp.eJUd F "1'ell,
and so would have had access to· both Ms. Halbach and to a ~Ioody to,,\,el with
which to plant Steven's blood in her car. I I oj, I I

132. Earl Avery had also been previously charged with sexual assault. In
I , '
1995, the state charged Earl Avery with sexually assaulting his two daughters. ,
. (Case No. 95-CF-240).


133. Earl Avery also had the means to kill Teresa Halbach. He and
Robert Fabian shot rabbits on the Salvage Yard grounds, riding around the
property on a golf cart. They were hunting rabbits with guns on the day that
Ms. Halbach disappeared.
i
134. Earl admitted driving the golf cart past where Ms. ~a1~~ch's car ;;vas
found, and although Barl's. friend Robert Fabian would say that Earl kne:-v every I. I I
-55"
•
06 / 29 / 2009 15:22 FAX 9204321190 WBAY NEWS ROOM -+ WKOW Ii!J 030
FRON (NOH)JUN 2 8 2008 11:47/eT"1:G8/No.7G01S70eeO P 31
car on the lot, Earl claimed he Ilid not see Ms. Halbach's car. (Calumet County
Sheriffs Department Report a1 p.74-75) (DCI Report at Bate stamp 0330).
Although he and Steven were sighting in their guns in the pit on Noven1ber 4,
2005, he claimed he Ilid not see Ms. H~bach s car. (Calumet County Sheriff's
Department report of 1115/05 at p. 80). Further, a cadaver dog alerted 00 a golf
cart parlced in a small garage behind the main residence on the salvage yard
property. (Great Lakes Search and Rescue Canine, Inc., Report, Narrative at 2).

135. Earl also knew that Ms. Halbach was coming to the yard on
October 31, 2005. He was .familiar with the Auto Trader magazine, and Steven
had commented to him on October 31" that he had to go home because someone
was meeting him from the magazine. (DCI Report at Bate stamp 1278-79).

136. Further, Barl hid from the police en they came to take ' a DNA
sample on November 9, 2005. When the investigators went to his home, he hid in
an upstairs bedroom under some clothes. (Calumet County Sheriff's Department
report at 194).
I
137. Both Earl and Charles Avery would have known more about the I I ~j
Avery Salvage Yard than anyone else. They had taken over the day-to-day running
I • I
of the bWliness as'their father, Allen Avery, spent more and more time at their
property up north. They had the means and the opportunity to ldll Ms. Halbach, to , I
move her car, to plant evidence to incriminate Steven, and then to leave the car so I
that it would be discovered in a search. This is sufficient connection to the offense
to warrant allowing the jury to decide whether it was crellible or not to suspect
Charles and Earl Avery.

marklazarcovic

bobby Dassey


138. Finally, Mr. Avery should have been able to introduce evidence that , I'
Bobby Dassey was a possible alternative perpetrator. If Bobby's brother Brendan
-56-
06 / 29 / 2009 15 : 23 FAX 9204321190 WBAY NEWS ROOM ~ WKOW 032
... ROW (WON)~UN 28 2008 ~ •• / S T . ,, :a./No.TS01.7 aQOO p 02
or his soon-to-be stepfather Scott Tadych were involved in the crimes, Bobby
would have bad a motive to frame Mr. Avery for the crimes.

139. Further, there is some evidence that Bobby did not like Stevon
Avery. Bobby stated that Steven would lie in order to "stab ya in the back," and
that Steven had done this to him in the past. (Calumet County Sheriff's
Department report at 92).

140. Bobby also had opportunity as he was at home at the time that
Ms. Halbach was on the property. Given that Ms. Halbach was coming to
photograph his mother's car, Bobby would have known that Ms. Halbach was
coming to the property. Bobby admitted he saw Ms. Halbach and her car as he
looked out of the window of his residence. Bobby also had the means to shoot
Ms. Halbach; he is a hunter and thus would have access to weapons.

141. Bobby's explanation of his movements on October, 31, 2005, is w o
suspicious. He claimed to have gone hunting after baving seen Ms. Halbach on the
property, and said that Scott Tadych would say that he and Scott passed each other
on the highway on the way to hunting. Strangely, Bobby told the police that
Tadych "would be able to verify precisely wbat time he had seen Boboy."
(Calumet County Sheriff's Department report at 91). He did not explain why that
time would be so important that Tadych would be able to tell the police precisely
what time they bad seen each other. In addition, Bobby stated that he had taken a
shower before he went hunting, and then Barb Janda said he bad taken a shower
after returning from hunting. (DCI Report at Bate stamp 0213).

142. A physical eXamination of Bobby showed that he 'had scratches on
his back (l d.). He told law enforcement that the scratches were from a puppy
(Id.). The exiunining 'physician stated that the scratches looked recent, anp that it
was unlikely they were over a week pld. (ld.).
-57- r.
!I
06 / 29 , 2009 15:23 FAX 9204321190 WBAY NEWS ROOII ~ WKOW I4i 033
""OM (MON)~UH 2e 2000 11:4e/ST.11:2.'~.T80 '.7oe80 ~ 8B

143. Thus, there is circumstantial evidence tying Bobby Dassey to
Ms. Halbach's murder. He admitted to seeing her on the day sh~ disappeared; he
had a motive to frame Steven for the crimes; he had the means to kill Ms. Halbach;
his leaving and return from his residence is only corroborated by Scott ad~h who
saw him driving down the road; he had scratches on his back which he stated were
from a puppy; and as Ms. Halbach had been to the property befqre, B,obby, would
have been familiar with her. He had sufficient motive, opportunity and connection
to the crimes that the court erred in precluding the defense from producing
evidence and arguing Bobby was true perpetrator.

144. In sum, the court should have allowed Mr. Avery to introduce
evidence and argue from that evidence that other persons could have been
responsible for the murder of Ms. Halbach, namely Scott Tadych, Charles or
Earl Avery, or Bobby Dassey.








CONCLUSION
For the reasons argued above, Steven Avery, by his attorneys, respectfully
requests that the court schedule a hearing to hear evidence and argument, and that
the court enter an order vacating the judgments of conviction and granting a new
trial.
Dated this 26th day of June, 2009 . .
Respectfully submitted,