Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

The Raptor

smash wrote: »

May 31st is the deadline for Kathleen Zellner's brief to be submitted to court. https://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHistory.xsl;jsessionid=2D0B9943AF1266FA501512235342FF5B?caseNo=2015AP002489&cacheId=8600BA3B7F7342E65209A814D01D2D2F&recordCount=4&offset=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC

If she has the evidence she says she has then it's going to get very interesting!

Does this mean we have to wait until June for any kind of an update?

DEFTLEFTHAND

I've heard Avery's legal team are planning to enter new evidence. Triangulation mobile phone records apparently tracked the victims vehicle arriving and leaving the Avery property. The last contact was picked up 10 miles from their property at 5.30pm. Averys phone stays situated at his home all night.

Apparently his original defense team had this information in 2007 but were not permitted to use it in court at the time.

I'm still on the fence about Stephen Avery but it certainly is a fascinating case. It's interesting to note that this technology is what snared Joe O'Reilly here in Ireland.

mewe

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I've heard Avery's legal team are planning to enter new evidence. Triangulation mobile phone records apparently tracked the victims vehicle arriving and leaving the Avery property. The last contact was picked up 10 miles from their property at 5.30pm. Averys phone stays situated at his home all night.

Apparently his original defense team had this information in 2007 but were not permitted to use it in court at the time.

I'm still on the fence about Stephen Avery but it certainly is a fascinating case. It's interesting to note that this technology is what snared Joe O'Reilly here in Ireland.

I can't quite understand why people are still on the fence about Steven Avery. I'm not singling you out or anything, you've given an honest assessment but whatever you think about his character with regard to his past, the murder conviction is just ridiculous and such a blatant set up. After what happened before with him and the previous miscarriage, it's like a horror story.

mikeym

Any updates on Brendan Dassey?

He deserves a retrial.

Noahboah2014

mikeym wrote: »

Any updates on Brendan Dassey?

He deserves a retrial.

Would also love to hear an update. Have seen a few links on Fb recently but nothing solid

mewe

It's so sad. We're dealing with peoples lives being taken away from them by these sick bastards.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I've heard Avery's legal team are planning to enter new evidence. Triangulation mobile phone records apparently tracked the victims vehicle arriving and leaving the Avery property.

Mobile phone records do not track the victims vehicle. They track the victims phone.
Which anyone could have.
Doesn't really prove anything other than that phone was where the triangulation showed it to be.

I think he is guilty btw, if not just him, someone on his property with his knowledge.
I'm just pointing out that tracking a moveable object, without proving the victim had it , means nothing.

mewe

bubblypop wrote: »

Mobile phone records do not track the victims vehicle. They track the victims phone.
Which anyone could have.
Doesn't really prove anything other than that phone was where the triangulation showed it to be.

I think he is guilty btw, if not just him, someone on his property with his knowledge.
I'm just pointing out that tracking a moveable object, without proving the victim had it , means nothing.

Can I ask, why do you think he's guilty?

Tipsy McSwagger

mewe wrote: »

I can't quite understand why people are still on the fence about Steven Avery. I'm not singling you out or anything, you've given an honest assessment but whatever you think about his character with regard to his past, the murder conviction is just ridiculous and such a blatant set up. After what happened before with him and the previous miscarriage, it's like a horror story.

Not everyone is lazy enough to just to watch a one sided documentary.

mewe

mewe wrote: »

Can I ask, why do you think he's guilty?

Because I don't just go on a one sided documentary to decide.
There's a lot more to the case.

mewe

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Not everyone is lazy enough to just to watch a one sided documentary.

That's won the argument for you right there.

Two Tone

I understand people not being sure (I was like that for a while) but being convinced of his guilt... not sure there, I mean... why? So much allegations were debunked. What is there that is solid which points to his guilt?

mewe

bubblypop wrote: »

Because I don't just go on a one sided documentary to decide.
There's a lot more to the case.

As above. Unless you can present something credible to argue why he's guilty, just saying the documentary is one sided is lazy in my opinion.

Atlantic Dawn

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I'm still on the fence about Stephen Avery but it certainly is a fascinating case. It's interesting to note that this technology is what snared Joe O'Reilly here in Ireland.

There was a recent case in Ireland which cast doubt on the reliability of phone mast data, apparently some are powered down and no official log is kept of which are down and which are active so triangulation of the location of the phone may not be reliable, I'd expect some people will get off where they were convicted relying on phone evidence.

More here...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0614/795620-court-of-appeal-mobile-phones/

mewe

mewe wrote: »

As above. Unless you can present something credible to argue why he's guilty, just saying the documentary is one sided is lazy in my opinion.

Just watching it showed it was one sided, now I'm not saying everything in it was wrong but it was obviously one sided.
Anyone watching could see that!

I believe he had something to do with it/ did it himself/ knows who did.
Whatever involvement he had, I don't believe that documentary was unbiased, which shows by the way his defence are giving interviews based on the show.

Tipsy McSwagger

Two Tone wrote: »

I understand people not being sure (I was like that for a while) but being convinced of his guilt... not sure there, I mean... why? So much allegations were debunked. What is there that is solid which points to his guilt?

He admitted she was at his house the day she disappeared.
She was never seen again after he admitted talking to her.
He made 3 calls to her phone that day but hid his number.
She was terrified of him.
Her belongings were found outside his house.
Her remains were on his property.
Her car was on his property.
The bullet that killed her was fired from his gun.
His DNA was on her car.
He had threatened females before with a gun.

mewe

bubblypop wrote: »

Just watching it showed it was one sided, now I'm not saying everything in it was wrong but it was obviously one sided.
Anyone watching could see that!

I believe he had something to do with it/ did it himself/ knows who did.
Whatever involvement he had, I don't believe that documentary was unbiased, which shows by the way his defence are giving interviews based on the show.

You've just basically said again, the documentary is one sided. I give up with people saying he's guilty but not providing credible reasons as to why.

mewe

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He admitted she was at his house the day she disappeared.
She was never seen again after he admitted talking to her.
He made 3 calls to her phone that day but hid his number.
She was terrified of him.
Her belongings were found outside his house.
Her remains were on his property.
Her car was on his property.
The bullet that killed her was fired from his gun.
His DNA was on her car.
He had threatened females before with a gun.

Are you basing the bullet from his gun on the bullet that mysteriously appeared all of a sudden on his property? Also, he threatened that lunatic that had a vendetta against him with a gun to stop spreading rumours against him = clearly, guilty as sin. Case closed.

mewe

mewe wrote: »

You've just basically said again, the documentary is one sided. I give up with people saying he's guilty but not providing credible reasons as to why.

I don't need to provide any evidence.
I've stated that I'm not gullible to believe a one sided documentary, I need more information.
Which I got for myself.
And I'm not saying he is guilty, merely that I believe he had something to do with it. He either did it himself/ knows who did etc etc

El Chapo

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He admitted she was at his house the day she disappeared.
She was never seen again after he admitted talking to her.
He made 3 calls to her phone that day but hid his number.
She was terrified of him.
Her belongings were found outside his house.
Her remains were on his property.
Her car was on his property.
The bullet that killed her was fired from his gun.
His DNA was on her car.
He had threatened females before with a gun.

Of course he was, he was waiting for her to take pictures to sell cars.
Any evidence of that?
Lots of people withhold their number.
Hearsay.
Planted, IMO.
Planted, IMO.
Did you expect her to park out on the road and walk into the property to take pictures?
No, it wasn't.
Planted, IMO.
Hearsay.

Don't give up the day job.

mewe

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't need to provide any evidence.
I've stated that I'm not gullible to believe a one sided documentary, I need more information.
Which I got for myself.
And I'm not saying he is guilty, merely that I believe he had something to do with it. He either did it himself/ knows who did etc etc

Sure tell us the information you got for yourself.

mewe

mewe wrote: »

Sure tell us the information you got for yourself.

If you were interested you would do some investigating yourself.

But maybe your happy to believe anything your told

Tipsy McSwagger

El Chapo wrote: »

Of course he was, he was waiting for her to take pictures to sell cars.
Any evidence of that?
Lots of people withhold their number.
Hearsay.
Planted, IMO.
Planted, IMO.
No, it wasn't.
Planted, IMO.
Hearsay.

Don't give up the day job/

Well if someone had seen her after she left the property now that would be a big deal wouldn't it?

mewe

bubblypop wrote: »

If you were interested you would do some investigating yourself.

But maybe your happy to believe anything your told

Don't dodge the question. I'm confident in my opinion. You clearly are not.

El Chapo

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Well if someone had seen her after she left the property now that would be a big deal wouldn't it?

Maybe the next person to see her was her killer. They're hardy going to be shouting it from the roof tops are they?

Tipsy McSwagger

bubblypop wrote: »

If you were interested you would do some investigating yourself.

But maybe your happy to believe anything your told

There's 2 types of people. The lazy arses that watch a documentary and believe everything in it, sign petitions and rant on Facebook. The other side are people who actually bother to research cases and come to their own opinion based on facts and evidence.

El Chapo

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

There's 2 types of people. The lazy arses that watch a documentary and believe everything in it, sign petitions and rant on Facebook. The other side are people who actually bother to research cases and come to their own opinion based on facts and evidence.

I hope you didn't do research because going by your posts on here, you haven't a breeze.

"she was terrified of him"

So terrified she agreed to go to his property to take photos?

Seriously? :rolleyes:

mewe

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

There's 2 types of people. The lazy arses that watch a documentary and believe everything in it, sign petitions and rant on Facebook. The other side are people who actually bother to research cases and come to their own opinion based on facts and evidence.

Show us lazy arses your evidence so Columbo.

Tipsy McSwagger

El Chapo wrote: »

Maybe the next person to see her was her killer. They're hardy going to be shouting it from the roof tops are they?

Ye the cops were waiting down the road, seen Theresa and decided to kill an innocent woman to get back at a man suing the police department.

Two Tone

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

There's 2 types of people. The lazy arses that watch a documentary and believe everything in it, sign petitions and rant on Facebook. The other side are people who actually bother to research cases and come to their own opinion based on facts and evidence.

And the second group includes people who believe he is innocent also.

I don't think people are saying the police killed Teresa.

mewe

mewe wrote: »

Don't dodge the question. I'm confident in my opinion. You clearly are not.

You can confidently believe everything you watch on TV/ are told on paper.
Good for you.

I prefer to make up my own mind.

mewe

bubblypop wrote:

You can confidently believe everything you watch on TV/ are told on paper. Good for you.

bubblypop wrote:

I prefer to make up my own mind.

Yeah I've also made up my own mind too. Explain to me how you made up your own mind differently to me.

anothernight

It's a bit arrogant to assume that someone who thinks he's innocent must only think so because they've only watched the documentary and not sought out any other information themselves. :rolleyes:

Two Tone

bubblypop wrote: »

You can confidently believe everything you watch on TV/ are told on paper.

That's a bit dishonest - this is a ten-hour documentary, and that's only what made the final cut. It took a decade to make and was extremely indepthly researched. It's not some half assed newspaper article or hastily cobbled together news feature or hour-long TV3 documentary.

Plenty of airtime is given to the prosecution, Avery's previous crimes are not omitted, and the Halbach family were invited to be interviewed but declined.

It's laudable to have an open mind - something there could be more of, but not being devil's advocate for the sake of it to stand out from the crowd.

Chain Smoker

Two Tone wrote: »

That's a bit dishonest - this is a ten-hour documentary, and that's only what made the final cut. It took a decade to make and was extremely indepthly researched. It's not some half assed newspaper article or hastily cobbled together news feature or hour-long TV3 documentary.

Plenty of airtime is given to the prosecution, Avery's previous crimes are not omitted, and the Halbach family were invited to be interviewed but declined.

It's laudable to have an open mind - something there could be more of, but not being devil's advocate for the sake of it to stand out from the crowd.

That's not necessarily on point either though, it's a ten hour documentary that took a decade to make, but the documentarians have made absolutely nothing beforehand to help gauge what kind of filmmakers they are.

All I can really remember about Making A Murderer is that the documentarians at the very least were a bit afraid of portraying the Averys negatively. That's somewhat understandable (i.e. it's not necessarily relevant to the case whatsoever and its going to distort peoples opinions in the same way as it obviously done in the local community), but it also makes everything else a little harder to trust.



For the first season of Serial (which Making a Murderer got compared to a lot), it was really visible that Sarah Koenig (a pretty good journalist, not necessarily a great entertainer) was extremely frustrated with how people were so aggressively siding with the Adnan is innocent argument rather than the Adnan has been convicted on inconclusive evidence one.
Making a Murderer, at points, seemed as though it was oblivious to the difference in the two.

DEFTLEFTHAND

mikeym wrote: »

Any updates on Brendan Dassey?

He deserves a retrial.

I'd say the very same.

His trial really stayed with me. A 16 year old borderline mentally retarded kid.

From his general demeanour to his limited mental capacity I just don't believe that boy could be guilty of participating in a rape and a murder.

I remember in the doc when his father sees him walking to the courthouse in chains.
His Dad says that it hurts him to see Brendan in chains because he knows what kind of boy he is.

A gentle simple boy, who was manipulated and taken advantage of by both Police and Prosecutors.

Noo

Wasnt the once sided part of the documentry unintential though? The Avery family and lawyers etc. were the only ones willing to give interviews for it. The persecution refused, thats why they only have their side through media footage and whatnot.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Noo wrote: »

Wasnt the once sided part of the documentry unintential though? The Avery family and lawyers etc. were the only ones willing to give interviews for it. The persecution refused, thats why they only have their side through media footage and whatnot.

The Jury member who was excused after the first day of deliberations due to a family emergency on the Steven Avery Trial said that the initial vote was 7 not guilty, 5 guilty.

The Jury really was split. He thinks the stronger members wore down the weaklings over the course of the 4 days.

smash

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He admitted she was at his house the day she disappeared.
She was never seen again after he admitted talking to her.
He made 3 calls to her phone that day but hid his number.
She was terrified of him.
Her belongings were found outside his house.
Her remains were on his property.
Her car was on his property.
The bullet that killed her was fired from his gun.
His DNA was on her car.
He had threatened females before with a gun.

If you'd done any research you'd know that your wrong on multiple accounts here.

riclad

He deserves a new trial,
the evidence used against him was partly a statement made by younger relative .
a person of low intelligence .
Who did not have a lawyer present when he was interviewed .

I read articles about the case .
In many cases some people will say almost anything when put under
pressure by police especially someone who is young and naive .
IF someone goe,s to jail for life the evidence used against should be examined carefully in great detail .the jury saying 7 not guilty,.5 guilty , at some point
Shows there was alot of evidence to show that he was maybe innocent .
Would someone make a 10 hour documentary about someone they
believe to be guilty .

SebastianT

Brendan Dassey's conviction overturned and his release has been ordered by a judge.

Breaking on Twitter now.

ben.schlomo

SebastianT wrote: »

Brendan Dassey's conviction overturned and his release has been ordered by a judge.

Breaking on Twitter now.

Ya just read a few of the source articles there, great news.

MonkieSocks

The prosecutors have 90 days to retry him or let him walk free.

Hope they let the lad go and live his life in peace.

smash

MonkieSocks wrote: »

The prosecutors have 90 days to retry him or let him walk free.

Hope they let the lad go and live his life in peace.

They'll let him go. Avery's attorney has less than 3 weeks to file her brief which allegedly contains mountains of new evidence. If the state step in to retry Dassey they'll end up in a world of pain.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Brendan Dassey's conviction has been overturned.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Judge-Overturns-Conviction-for-Making-a-Murderers-Brendan-Dassey-390019181.html

I think sense finally prevailed here.

Kitty6277

Personally, I think innocent. Say that all the evidence against him is true, that he did kill her, one (of many) things that make absolutely no sense, how did he manage to make a fire so hot that it literally burned the DNA out of "her" bones? Even a cremation expert testified that it wasn't possible.

Noo

Kitty6277 wrote: »

Personally, I think innocent. Say that all the evidence against him is true, that he did kill her, one (of many) things that make absolutely no sense, how did he manage to make a fire so hot that it literally burned the DNA out of "her" bones? Even a cremation expert testified that it wasn't possible.

And allegedly butcher her up in the bedroom or garage and manage to clean up every single drop of blood without missing a drop and even make it look like nothing was ever cleaned up......criminal mastermind.

clever user name

Noo wrote: »

And allegedly butcher her up in the bedroom or garage and manage to clean up every single drop of blood without missing a drop and even make it look like nothing was ever cleaned up......criminal mastermind.

This had me absolutely baffled. And still does. Every time I think 'OK, perhaps he is guilty', I think of this and change my mind.

irishgeo

clever user name wrote: »

This had me absolutely baffled. And still does. Every time I think 'OK, perhaps he is guilty', I think of this and change my mind.

Lets not forget the bones in the quarry. How they get there. If he killed with the intention of burning her and store her in the boot of his car why he bring her to the quarry.

130Kph

This is the only theory (posted here in Feb) I’ve seen that makes any coherent sense because it plausibly explains all the facts, supposed mysteries, inconsistencies and flaws that arise in any one theory of the case given by the various defence or prosecution teams or other commentators. It’s just in layman’s language.

It’s dispiriting to read certain posters accepting that the police likely did some planting of evidence but still assert Avery is “probably” guilty, based on hunches or feelings. This type of thinking –by people who should know better- is one of the best reasons to abolish trial by jury in criminal cases?

It’s worth re-posting and I’ve put it in paragraphs for easier reading.

AH wrote:

This is from youtube, the best explanation of what happened imho:

The police didn't kill Theresa Halbach. Andrew Colborn located that RAV4 with the assistance of Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas who illegally trespassed onto the Avery Salvage Yard on the night of November 3rd 2005.

Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas suspected something was up since the Avery Salvage Yard was the last place they knew Theresa visited on Oct.31st Halloween day. They went snooping on the property and found the car. They checked the car and found the key in the ignition and blood in the cargo area.

Mike or Ryan removed the key from the ignition to ensure that no one could easily move the car off of the Avery property... freaked out about this huge discovery they call the Manitowoc Sheriffs Department. Andrew Colborn fielded the call that night and went out and met Ryan and Mike at the Salvage Yard so he could view the car for himself. Ryan and Mike show him the car and to be certain its Halbachs.

he "calls" in the plate number to dispatch. Colborn has to "call" in... instead of "radio" in... the plate number to Manitowoc dispatch because he wasn't in his police cruiser at the moment, but rather on foot and in the "field' on the Avery Salvage property. This mistake places Colborn at the scene and in contact with Halbachs RAV4... 2 days before it is officially located on November 5th, 2005, by Pam Sturm....

This is problematic for Colborn because all call and radio transmissions to dispatch are recorded and logged onto the Manitowoc Police server. Andrew Colborn is now operating outside of police protocol at a potential crime scene that he has no official directive to be at. He tells Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas to basically STFU about what they found and not mention to anyone that they were ever on the Avery Salvage property that night.

Ryan or Mike turns the RAV4 key over to Andrew Colborn. Mike and Ryan are told to go home. Andrew Colborn then immediately calls Lt. James Lenk and briefs him about the discovery of the Halbach car and breaches of protocol he committed on the Avery property, also about Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach being there. Lt James Lenk realizing that Colborn's calling in Halbachs plate is a serious mistake with potential consequences orders Andrew Colborn to remove the license plate from Halbach's car and then report to him immediately.

What James Lenk and Andrew Colborn, or the others for that matter, don't realize at this point and are completely unaware of is that Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych have kidnapped, raped, shot and then burned Theresa Halbach in the privacy of the gravel quarry off of Jambo Rd on Halloween evening. They choose to burn her body to dispose of their DNA evidence of the crimes.

They hid Halbach's car in the rear of Avery Salvage and wiped it clean of their prints. I believe it is Scott Tadych's idea to secretly transport the cremains of Halbach from the gravel quarry and dispose them into Steven Avery's burn pit. Scott Tadych transports Halbach's cremains in secret by using one of Barb Jandas burn barrels from her yard.

Scott Tadych fails to collect all of Halbach's cremains from the original burn site in the gravel quarry, thus leaving some behind that FBI investigators later find... but he also fails in making certain all of Halbach's cremains are out of Barb Jandas burn barrel after dumping them into Steven Avery's burn pit. This is why investigators found small bits of Halbach in Barb Jandas burn barrel. Thus making a total of three sites where Halbach's cremains are found.

Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey are unaware that Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach have found Theresas car on the property and that Lenk and Colborn are now involved and in play with their scheme. .........By shear colossal luck, two completely independent frame jobs targeting one man, Steven Avery were shaping up into the perfect storm. On one front, from Lenk and Colborn regarding the RAV4, ....and on the other unconnected front by Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey regarding the cremains of Theresa Halbach.

One party wasn't aware of the other's involvements at any point during the days leading up to the official discovery of Halbach's RAV4 at the Avery Salvage Yard hence why the investigation and murder trial made zero sense to anyone especially the Jury.

None of the evidence could be connected because it was all unrelated... everybody was guessing. But Buting and Strang had zeroed in on a part of it but couldn't fully form a solid defense to prove it. The Jury couldn't conceive that Manitowoc officers could have conspired to kill Theresa Halbach to frame Steven Avery as Ken Kratz insisted they had to if they wanted to follow the theory the defense presented of the frame up of Steven Avery by Manitowoc officials. And Ken Kratz was right...

Imagine Scott Tadych's confused and utter relief when Steve Avery's blood was found in the Halbach car and the RAV4 key found in Steve Avery's bedroom..... he must have been like.... WTF?! A quote from Scott Tadych after Steven Avery is convicted of Theresa Halbach's murder.... "THIS IS THE GREATEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN" ..... We will see Scott, we will see....................."

This is probably the most credible theory I have come across so far. Notice how the events here not only make logical sense, but they also line up with how many of the parties involved behaved during the documentary i.e how Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas seemed like they knew more about what happened than they were leading on. As well as Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey's bizarre hostility towards Steven Avery.