Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Thepoet85

Just watching this again and picked up on something said in episode 3 at around the 6 and a half minute mark.

In the pre trial dept Daniel Kucharski is talking about the key being found in SA's trailer, underneath the shoes next to the locker. He said that the shoes were moved before in a prior search and "the key wasn't there the first time they were moved."

He goes on to say that the key was then there when Lenk and Colburn searched the trailer.

If that's not a damming indictment of evidence clearly being planted then I don't know what is.

Thelomen Toblackai

Thepoet85 wrote: »

Just watching this again and picked up on something said in episode 3 at around the 6 and a half minute mark.

In the pre trial dept Daniel Kucharski is talking about the key being found in SA's trailer, underneath the shoes next to the locker. He said that the shoes were moved before in a prior search and "the key wasn't there the first time they were moved."

He goes on to say that the key was then there when Lenk and Colburn searched the trailer.

If that's not a damming indictment of evidence clearly being planted then I don't know what is.

Not really, they never claimed it just appeared. They claimed it fell out of the locker when it was moved. Lenk apparently spotted the key but Colburn had by his own account quite roughly moved the locker prior to it being spotted.

It all sounds dodgy and neither Lenk nor Colburn should have been anywhere near the place but saying "The key wasn't there the first time" isn't itself a damning indictment of evidence being planted. I guess in a murder trial you'd need pretty strong evidence to suggest the police planted the evidence.

Thepoet85

Thelomen Toblackai wrote:

It all sounds dodgy and neither Lenk nor Colburn should have been anywhere near the place but saying "The key wasn't there the first time" isn't itself a damning indictment of evidence being planted. I guess in a murder trial you'd need pretty strong evidence to suggest the police planted the evidence.

Thelomen Toblackai wrote:

Not really, they never claimed it just appeared. They claimed it fell out of the locker when it was moved. Lenk apparently spotted the key but Colburn had by his own account quite roughly moved the locker prior to it being spotted.

The key could not have fallen off the locker and under the shoes however.

In addition to this, we get to see the locker completely empty in an image in one of the latter episodes of the series and the only opening in the locker is at the front. The back and sides of the locker are closed in. The only way the keys could have fallen from the locker onto the shoes would be if they were on top of, or behind the locker. The officers who made the initial searches claimed that the locker was moved about quite a lot at the time. It's inconceivable that they would have missed the key if it had of been present during the initial search of the area.

amdublin

What's the theory with the bullet hole in the shed?

Mantis Toboggan

Theresa was being harassed over the phone before she went missing, the attorney general was convicted off harassment with a number of women after the trial, possible link....

amdublin

Where is the blood???

Mantis Toboggan

amdublin wrote: »

Where is the blood???

And a murder weapon and motive etc the whole case is a mess

Thelomen Toblackai

Thepoet85 wrote: »

The key could not have fallen off the locker and under the shoes however.

In addition to this, we get to see the locker completely empty in an image in one of the latter episodes of the series and the only opening in the locker is at the front. The back and sides of the locker are closed in. The only way the keys could have fallen from the locker onto the shoes would be if they were on top of, or behind the locker. The officers who made the initial searches claimed that the locker was moved about quite a lot at the time. It's inconceivable that they would have missed the key if it had of been present during the initial search of the area.

I don't think its inconceivable at all that a piece of evidence that would have likely been hidden was discovered after multiple searches. Just as you say its not possible someone else would say it is possible it was lodged somewhere, jammed at the back, fell out as it was moved, any number of things could have moved it under the slippers where given it had already been searched it may not have been found for a while after.

The show didn't really go into too much detail on it beyond showing us the defences argument. It's probably the closest they got to showing evidence tampering/planting and I'm inclined to fall on the side it was planted given what I've seen but I don't think they conclusively proved it by any means. As I said it's a murder trial, this is evidence with the suspects dna, it'd have to be a rock solid argument that it was planted. It was a 7 day trial, who knows how long they spent discussing this one thing and how well the prosecution argued it wasn't planted.

Thelomen Toblackai

Tyson Fury wrote: »

And a murder weapon and motive etc the whole case is a mess

They have a murder weapon. Stephen Averys gun. With a bullet found in garage with Halbachs dna on it and a matching bullet wound in the fragments of her skull.

They also have the motive. Whether you believe it or not there's quite a bit of evidence pointing to the man they convicted. Personally I think the police ****ed it up so that it wasn't a fair conviction but I still think there's enough to point to Avery.

Everything else I've heard has been what ifs and maybes. There's little to no evidence to point to anyone else as the killer.

BabysCoffee

Feel sorry for Brendan. I truly believe he wasn't involved in the killing. If it happened like he said in his coerced statements there should have been apparent blood all over the bed.

Steven Avery is a strange one. I think perhaps he did kill her. But I don't think on the evidence presented he should have been convicted.

I would have liked to have seen the vial of blood being tested for EDTA as a control to indicate that the test did actually work.

PS. What should I watch next?!

Luckycharms_74

Just watched the 1st episode and it's great.
Will go on a binge today and watch plenty more.
Its scary stuff what went on by police, DA & judge

Mantis Toboggan

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

They also have the motive. Whether you believe it or not there's quite a bit of evidence pointing to the man they convicted. Personally I think the police ****ed it up so that it wasn't a fair conviction but I still think there's enough to point to Avery.

Everything else I've heard has been what ifs and maybes. There's little to no evidence to point to anyone else as the killer.

What's the motive then? The man was just about to get a serious amount of money and had already done 18 years for a something he never did, why would he want to risk everything?

Thepoet85

Thelomen Toblackai wrote:

I don't think its inconceivable at all that a piece of evidence that would have likely been hidden was discovered after multiple searches. Just as you say its not possible someone else would say it is possible it was lodged somewhere, jammed at the back, fell out as it was moved, any number of things could have moved it under the slippers where given it had already been searched it may not have been found for a while after.

Just can't believe that they wouldn't have found the key if it was there, so we'll never agree on that.

The fact that it was Lenk who found it adds suspicion for me also. He had priors with Avery and was one of the several people who were being accused of negligence in 1995. He had a lot to lose.

Btw, I don't think the police were involved with the murder. I merely think they saw an opportunity to nail Avery, and negate the case being put against them.

There are so many ifs and buts, it's hard to separate fact from fiction.

Thepoet85

Tyson Fury wrote:

What's the motive then? The man was just about to get a serious amount of money and had already done 18 years for a something he never did, why would he want to risk everything?

Plus he was planning on getting married and having children with Lori. Doesn't make sense to jeopardise all of that.

Taboola

Can't find the link but somewhere it was said that Avery had purchased chains and handcuffs to use with his girlfriend a few days prior to the 31st October.

Where these ever found?

Sunflower 27

Was it seven searches before the key was found?

As it remarkably didn't have Teresa's dna on it, it stands to reason it was cleaned thoroughly and Steven touched it, thereby putting his dna on it (& id think he had a good idea about how dna works) or someone else did, using anything to hand. Lenk was in his trailor after all.A scrubbed key could have picked Avery's dna up on anything in that trailor.

Sunflower 27

Taboola wrote: »

Can't find the link but somewhere it was said that Avery had purchased chains and handcuffs to use with his girlfriend a few days prior to the 31st October.

Where these ever found?

He worked in a car junkyard. He used chains all the time. Maybe it would be significant if he was an accountant, but living in a car dump ground it would make sense he purchased things like that for pulling vehicles around.

Taboola

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

He worked in a car junkyard. He used chains all the time. Maybe it would be significant if he was an accountant, but living in a car dump ground it would make sense he purchased things like that for pulling vehicles around.

Handcuffs?

Mantis Toboggan

Will be interesting to see if this documentary has any traction.

Sunflower 27

Taboola wrote: »

Handcuffs?

Kinky sex with girlfriend? He must have dreamt up plenty of fantasies being locked up for 18 years.

There were no marks on tbe bed where she was supposedly chained. Or dna, if I have read correctly, which really just makes the cuffs circumstantial evidence.

Just think, would a man who was suing his local sherriffs department, spend weeks plotting to kill a woman who would have her last known sighting as his address?

strandroad

The prosecution was dirty but the documentary is very biased too. One can be mistreated by justice even if they are in fact guilty and the document makers don't seem to be able to grasp it.

There's so many omissions in the presentation of the body of evidence against him, they also whitewash his past crimes - it's clear that they present him as innocent even if there is no way for them (or us) to know that.

What he should get is another trial outside of that jurisdiction for sure.

Taboola

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Kinky sex with girlfriend? He must have dreamt up plenty of fantasies being locked up for 18 years.

There were no marks on tbe bed where she was supposedly chained. Or dna, if I have read correctly, which really just makes the cuffs circumstantial evidence.

Just think, would a man who was suing his local sherriffs department, spend weeks plotting to kill a woman who would have her last known sighting as his address?

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having handcuffs. I'm asking were they found.

You seem to be getting very wound up by people questioning anything here.

Thelomen Toblackai

Tyson Fury wrote: »

What's the motive then? The man was just about to get a serious amount of money and had already done 18 years for a something he never did, why would he want to risk everything?

The motive is the same as they were trying to prove existed for other members of the family. To sexual assault Talbach. There's lists earlier in this thread on the other family members and their history of violence and sexual deviancy. The same exists for Stephen Avery. He's not a nice guy done wrong by the police. At the time of the murder he was already being investigated for sexually abusing his niece.

Only for Stephen Avery there's accounts to corroborate his possible intents to commit the crime with his asking for Talbach specifically to come photo the car, her apparently telling colleagues she was uncomfortable with him, he his his number when calling her on the day she was to call out, buying handcuffs and leg irons in the weeks prior to the visit, an apparent conversation with other inmates in his intent to kidnap and rape women when he got out.

None of it proof on its own but add that to his blood and DNA in her missing car, her bones in his back yard, a bullet from his gun with her DNA found in his garage consistent with a gunshot wound to her skull fragments.

There's a good argument that it should have been a mistrial or should at this stage be a retrial. That the police interfered with the investigation and possibly planted evidence. But compared to other suspects being mentioned there's a wealth of evidence that it was Stephen Avery.

It's odd seeing people point the finger at Bobby Dassey because he had marks on his back, at Talbachs brother and ex boyfriend because they looked dodgy. All the while claiming Avery was set up despite all the evidence that points to him.

Sunflower 27

Taboola wrote: »

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having handcuffs. I'm asking were they found.

You seem to be getting very wound up by people questioning anything here.

You posted 'handcuffs?'

Which implied to me you were asking why he may have bought them.I merely gave an answer. Not sure how that can be viewed as being wound up, but think as you will

Taboola

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

You posted 'handcuffs?'

Which implied to me you were asking why he may have bought them.I merely gave an answer. Not sure how that can be viewed as being wound up, but think as you will

Yes because you implied there was nothing unusual about having chains in a car junkyard. Can the same be said for handcuffs? I don't think so.

Ageyev

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

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.

When the car was found by the search party it had no licence plates. Colburn called in the licence plate number two days before the car was found and asked the dispatcher if it was a Toyota Rav4 - he asked this before the dispatcher could offer the info. This was the call where he asked "do we have Steven Avery in custody?".

Thelomen Toblackai

Taboola wrote: »

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having handcuffs. I'm asking were they found.

You seem to be getting very wound up by people questioning anything here.

I didn't see any mention of them being found. If they had and were DNA free the defence would have used it and it would be shown in the TV show. So I assume they were never found.

Kratz also mentioned that there were other things found in the burn pit like "the tools he used to dismember the body". None of that was mentioned in the show so its possible they're may have been other things there too.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

The motive is the same as they were trying to prove existed for other members of the family. To sexual assault Talbach. There's lists earlier in this thread on the other family members and their history of violence and sexual deviancy. The same exists for Stephen Avery. He's not a nice guy done wrong by the police. At the time of the murder he was already being investigated for sexually abusing his niece.

Only for Stephen Avery there's accounts to corroborate his possible intents to commit the crime with his asking for Talbach specifically to come photo the car, her apparently telling colleagues she was uncomfortable with him, he his his number when calling her on the day she was to call out, buying handcuffs and leg irons in the weeks prior to the visit, an apparent conversation with other inmates in his intent to kidnap and rape women when he got out.

None of it proof on its own but add that to his blood and DNA in her missing car, her bones in his back yard, a bullet from his gun with her DNA found in his garage consistent with a gunshot wound to her skull fragments.

There's a good argument that it should have been a mistrial or should at this stage be a retrial. That the police interfered with the investigation and possibly planted evidence. But compared to other suspects being mentioned there's a wealth of evidence that it was Stephen Avery.

It's odd seeing people point the finger at Bobby Dassey because he had marks on his back, at Talbachs brother and ex boyfriend because they looked dodgy. All the while claiming Avery was set up despite all the evidence that points to him.

It isn't just marks on his back. It is that he lied in his statement about the timeline, why lie in such an important event as a witness statement?, had access to Steven's property, was there at the time Teresa was there and has no alibi for the hours after Teresa was supposedly murdered.

I agree, a few scratches on his back from a puppy in isolation is pretty harmless.

Ageyev

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Will be interesting to see if this documentary has any traction.

It won't change Avery's legal position. A governor or president isn't going to pardon based on an entertainment show on Netflix. As his former lawyer Dean Strang said in interviews in recent days: there would need to be new evidence either by way of new witnesses coming forward or new scientific testing. Someone coming forward with new information doesn't even guarantee a new trial.

Strang said the documentary should be looked at as an examination of the system and to question whether it leads to justice.

Hrududu

BabysCoffee wrote: »

PS. What should I watch next?!

After binging on Making a Murderer I then burned through The Staircase. That's well worth a watch. Also: Paradise Lost documentaries and West of Memphis which deal with the West Memphis Three case, The Jinx, Dear Zachary

Sunflower 27

Ageyev wrote: »

When the car was found by the search party it had no licence plates. Colburn called in the licence plate number two days before the car was found and asked the dispatcher if it was a Toyota Rav4 - he asked this before the dispatcher could offer the info. This was the call where he asked "do we have Steven Avery in custody?".

No, I think they asked if Avery was in custody when the car was found by the aunt in the car yard. May be wrong though.

Sunflower 27

Taboola wrote: »

Yes because you implied there was nothing unusual about having chains in a car junkyard. Can the same be said for handcuffs? I don't think so.

You not heard of s&m, bondage? Really?

Thelomen Toblackai

Ageyev wrote: »

When the car was found by the search party it had no licence plates. Colburn called in the licence plate number two days before the car was found and asked the dispatcher if it was a Toyota Rav4 - he asked this before the dispatcher could offer the info. This was the call where he asked "do we have Steven Avery in custody?".

I think you've got that confused there.

The call where the officer said "do we have Steven Avery in custody?" started with them finding the car on his property. It was stated they found the car and the officer asked if they had a body or if Avery was in custody. I don't even think that was Colburn.

The Colburn asking about the plates was prior to the car being found but he just gave the number got confirmation it was Teresa Halbachs car and then verified the car make.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

I think you've got that confused there.

The call where the officer said "do we have Steven Avery in custody?" started with them finding the car on his property. It was stated they found the car and the officer asked if they had a body or if Avery was in custody. I don't even think that was Colburn.

The Colburn asking about the plates was prior to the car being found but he just gave the number got confirmation it was Teresa Halbachs car and then verified the car make.

Yes, that's right. Where did colburn get the car registration from? Did be ever say why be called about the license plate number before the car was found?

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Yes, that's right. Where did colburn get the car registration from? Did be ever say why be called about them before the car was found?

His version is he got the licence plate number and details to look out for from a call with Wiegert and he was verifying them.

Were you looking at these plates when you called them in? No, sir. Do you have any recollection of making that phone call? Yeah, I'm guessing eleven-oh-three-oh-five. Probably after I received a phone call from Investigator Wiegert letting me know that there was a missing person. Investigator Wiegert, did he give you the license plate number for Teresa Halbach when he called you? You know, I just don't remember the exact content of our conversation then. But you think... He had to have given it to me because I wouldn't have had the number any other way.

http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=524&t=24358

Sunflower 27

The documentary makers have defended their documentary here. They claim they used tbe strongest evidence that both sides had.

http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murderer-filmmakers-fire-back-at-prosecutor-hes-not-entitled-to-his-own-facts/

Taboola

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

You not heard of s&m, bondage? Really?

Wow. You really just can't even see the wood from the trees can you?

I asked if they were found. <- read that line there again.

I got my answer.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

His version is he got the licence plate number and details to look out for from a call with Wiegert and he was verifying them.

He'd have had to write the number plate down, unless he has a fantastic memory.

Sunflower 27

Taboola wrote: »

Wow. You really just can't even see the wood from the trees can you?

I asked if they were found. <- read that line there again.

I got my answer.

I thought you were claiming there would be no use for hancuffs on his property. I clearly took you up wrong. Readins stuff online and skimming replies, my mistake.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

He'd have had to write the number plate down, unless he has a fantastic memory.

Maybe that's what he was checking. That he wrote it down correctly. Seems reasonable enough for an officer to check info like that with dispatch if they got it from another call.

Sunflower 27

Taboola wrote: »

Yes because you implied there was nothing unusual about having chains in a car junkyard. Can the same be said for handcuffs? I don't think so.

Here... yes, people can have handcuffs and not use them to hold people hostage and murder them. That is what I was answering in reference to the above you posted.

Mantis Toboggan

Ageyev wrote: »

It won't change Avery's legal position. A governor or president isn't going to pardon based on an entertainment show on Netflix. As his former lawyer Dean Strang said in interviews in recent days: there would need to be new evidence either by way of new witnesses coming forward or new scientific testing. Someone coming forward with new information doesn't even guarantee a new trial.

Strang said the documentary should be looked at as an examination of the system and to question whether it leads to justice.

Not sure if you've heard the serial podcast but that's similar enough dealing with murder and shows the ineptitude of the police force. That podcast alone and has managed to force a retrial.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Maybe that's what he was checking. That he wrote it down correctly. Seems reasonable enough for an officer to check info like that with dispatch if they got it from another call.

So he likely did write it down and called it in but can't remember if he wrote it down? I get it now, thanks.

Paully D

Apologies if it has been mentioned more times than I realise but I've done a quick search and I don't think people are making enough of the seriousness of what was about to happen to the individual officers, county and DA who were involved in stitching Avery up the first time if he had been able to go through with his lawsuit.

They would have personally been on the hook for $36m.

Sunflower 27

Paully D wrote: »

Apologies if it has been mentioned more times than I realise but I've done a quick search and I don't think people are making enough of the seriousness of what was about to happen to the individual officers, county and DA who were involved in stitching Avery up the first time if he had been able to go through with his lawsuit.

They would have personally been on the hook for $36m.

Yes, 36 million reasons to make sure Avery over anyone else on the property that day was convicted.

And what do you know, it's one of those lads that finds the key (after 7 searches )

Paully D

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

They have a murder weapon. Stephen Averys gun. With a bullet found in garage with Halbachs dna on it and a matching bullet wound in the fragments of her skull.

They also have the motive. Whether you believe it or not there's quite a bit of evidence pointing to the man they convicted. Personally I think the police ****ed it up so that it wasn't a fair conviction but I still think there's enough to point to Avery.

Everything else I've heard has been what ifs and maybes. There's little to no evidence to point to anyone else as the killer.

Yes, but for 8 days the police were allowed free reign on the Avery property. In that situation I have to ask myself - who better to ensure that there's evidence pointing to Avery than the police? After all, they are the one set of people who know exactly what they need and want to find in these scenarios.

In the closing arguments Kratz actually said "so what if the key was planted"?. Oh, and "reasonable doubt is for innocent people". For me it's just impossible to take anything they said or did at face value.

strandroad

Paully D wrote: »

Apologies if it has been mentioned more times than I realise but I've done a quick search and I don't think people are making enough of the seriousness of what was about to happen to the individual officers, county and DA who were involved in stitching Avery up the first time if he had been able to go through with his lawsuit.

They would have personally been on the hook for $36m.

Wasn't it a county lawsuit?

Thelomen Toblackai

Paully D wrote: »

Yes, but for 8 days the police were allowed free reign on the Avery property. In that situation I have to ask myself - who better to ensure that there's evidence pointing to Avery than the police? After all, they are the one set of people who know exactly what they need and want to find in these scenarios.

In the closing arguments Kratz actually said "so what if the key was planted"?. Oh, and "reasonable doubt is for innocent people". For me it's just impossible to take anything they said or did at face value.

You could say the same about most investigations though. Kratz is an idiot but there was a lot of people involved in the investigation and the defence while arguing it was a frame weren't able to prove anything.

Evidence trumps suspicions and allegations when it comes to a court of law.

Thelomen Toblackai

mhge wrote: »

Wasn't it a county lawsuit?

It's said in the show the state settled the suit for the 400k. So I'm not sure how true that statement was that the officers were personally the hook.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

You could say the same about most investigations though. Kratz is an idiot but there was a lot of people involved in the investigation and the defence while arguing it was a frame weren't able to prove anything.

Evidence trumps suspicions and allegations when it comes to a court of law.

The evidence though is highly questionable. As is the way it was obtained.

Some info here on the lawsuit.


https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xrybq/averys_lawsuit_what_was_really_at_stake_for/