Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

smash

Senna wrote: »

Who has a website that generates revenue!!

The aerial photos is very interesting, pictures probably destroyed and never to see the light of day again.

30 seconds in to this there's an aerial shot, but when it was recorded hasn't been verified. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5oZgZQwoiM&feature=youtu.b

8-10

One of the weirdest things was her brother's TV interview just 1 day after she was reported missing (so no body or anything suggesting a murder yet - just a missing person who they think harm might have come to) along the lines of just hoping they can "move on" and being in the "grieving" process

Usually when people are on tv talking about their missing relative they are giving appeals to them directly to come home or appeal to those holding them. Even when it's apparent something might have happened to cause harm to the person, they generally still act with the hope that they'll be found alive. I think he said something at the end to suggest he hoped she was alive but saying that he's grieving and needs answers in order to move on strikes me as being strange at the least

ScumLord

smash wrote: »

Surprisingly there is admittance that there were photographs taken, but none can be located.

American law enforcement likes to think it's CSI, but in reality it would probably be doing well to be the wire.

Supernintento Chalmers

Tsipras wrote: »

For the people who think he's innocent:

Would you leave him alone in a room with your Mother??

No way, poor guy has been through enough

MonkieSocks

8-10 wrote: »

One of the weirdest things was her brother's TV interview just 1 day after she was reported missing (so no body or anything suggesting a murder yet - just a missing person who they think harm might have come to) along the lines of just hoping they can "move on" and being in the "grieving" process

Usually when people are on tv talking about their missing relative they are giving appeals to them directly to come home or appeal to those holding them. Even when it's apparent something might have happened to cause harm to the person, they generally still act with the hope that they'll be found alive. I think he said something at the end to suggest he hoped she was alive but saying that he's grieving and needs answers in order to move on strikes me as being strange at the least

Is this the interview?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRZMx8bYTPQ

Related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_70mbCpnDE

captbarnacles

http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/

A few months later, Avery and another man were charged with cruelty to animals after dousing Avery’s cat with gasoline and oil and tossing it into a bonfire at the Avery junkyard. Though he claimed he had nothing to do with the cat’s death, Avery was found guilty and imprisoned for nine months.

The bad blood thickened between Avery and the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department in January 1985, when Avery ran a deputy’s wife off the road at gunpoint and tried to force her into his car. The woman, Sandra Morris, was Avery’s cousin and a friend of Manitowoc County Deputy Sheriff Judy Dvorak. Morris had complained to police that Avery had exposed himself in his front yard on several occasions when she drove past his house. Avery let the woman go when she told him her infant daughter was alone in her car.

Avery admitted running Morris off the road and brandishing a rifle. He was sentenced to six years in prison for endangering the safety of another person.

Hadn't seen much mentioned about this charge and sentence.

8-10

captbarnacles wrote: »

http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/



Hadn't seen much mentioned about this charge and sentence.

Yeah people mention his wrongful conviction and 18 years behind bars but neglect to mention that 6 of those were for the above charge, running concurrently with the attempted homicide / sexual assault sentence

I've heard it said in news reports that he's the guy who served 18 years for a crime he didn't commit.

12 years for a crime he didn't commit and 6 for one he did in my book

irishmover

captbarnacles wrote: »

http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/



Hadn't seen much mentioned about this charge and sentence.

It was in the documentary. The sentencing wasn't.

captbarnacles

The more I read of Avery and his brothers the more sickened I am. LOL at the numbnuts on twitter calling for his release.

Not to mention the domestic violence and apparent molestation of his relations (he has never been charged with that) He has a very low IQ so not being able to understand his motives or the way he went about covering his tracks is perfectly normal.

Azalea

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Why is everybody so intrigued by this? Did the internet tell you that you should be?

Likely a large element of that along with the heavy initial marketing, and yes there are other cases involving police corruption... but how many cases are there involving someone who spent several years in prison for a crime they did not commit, and then wind up back in prison for life two or three years later, with very sketchy evidence? That's what makes this case so noteworthy in my opinion.

Also people are watching it due to recommendations, as it is a good programme - compellng viewing. I think miscarriages of justice always stir an interest. I guess just because you have no interest in the story doesn't necessarily mean others must share your view but watch the programme anyway for the craic. There's genuine interest, even if some is due to hype.

Tigger

He killed a cat as above it was in the program and I'm glad he's in jail but I still think he was framed twice
Probably by people who thought he did it but framed nonetheless

Azalea

Tigger wrote: »

He killed a cat as above it was in the program and I'm glad he's in jail but I still think he was framed twice
Probably by people who thought he did it but framed nonetheless

You're glad he's in jail but you think he was framed?

Azalea

captbarnacles wrote: »

The more I read of Avery and his brothers the more sickened I am. LOL at the numbnuts on twitter calling for his release.

Not to mention the domestic violence and apparent molestation of his relations (he has never been charged with that) He has a very low IQ so not being able to understand his motives or the way he went about covering his tracks is perfectly normal.

You're assessing him based on "apparent" stuff?

Rabo Karabekian

captbarnacles wrote: »

The more I read of Avery and his brothers the more sickened I am. LOL at the numbnuts on twitter calling for his release.

Not to mention the domestic violence and apparent molestation of his relations (he has never been charged with that) He has a very low IQ so not being able to understand his motives or the way he went about covering his tracks is perfectly normal.

You've nothing to say about the actual case, no? The bit in bold is quite ironic.

ScumLord

Azalea wrote: »

You're glad he's in jail but you think he was framed?

I get the impression Tigger thinks he should be sentenced to murder for killing a cat.

captbarnacles

Assessing him based on domestic abuse and him ordering a woman into his car at gunpoint? Yes, I am. Burning the cat alive too. All these show him to be a violent man but don't prove murder obviously.

I've read a quite a lot about the case form various sources. I don't think the jury made a mistake in finding him guilty.

MadDog76

captbarnacles wrote: »

Assessing him based on domestic abuse and him ordering a woman into his car at gunpoint? Yes, I am. Burning the cat alive too. All these show him to be a violent man but don't prove murder obviously.

I've read a quite a lot about the case form various sources. I don't think the jury made a mistake in finding him guilty.

That's that then!

I'll email his legal team and inform them of your findings, you Pm a Mod and tell them to close this thread ....... case closed!

Azalea

captbarnacles wrote: »

Assessing him based on domestic abuse and him ordering a woman into his car at gunpoint? Yes, I am. Burning the cat alive too. All these show him to be a violent man but don't prove murder obviously.

I've read a quite a lot about the case form various sources. I don't think the jury made a mistake in finding him guilty.

Well *apparent* molestation as you said. I'm certainly not suggesting Avery is a misunderstood angel by the way but he got prison when innocent already, and the evidence is so sketchy for the second case... that I wouldn't be inclined to believe every anecdote.

Earthhorse

I think that's part of what makes this case so compelling. Avery is an unsympathetic character in some ways. He may well have killed her too.

We can't just disregard principles of justice because he's an unsavoury character.

nacho libre

I don't quite know what to believe anymore. I don't know if he is guilty or not, but it clear based on the evidence put forward by the prosecution that it was sketchy and not enough to convict him
I will say the victims brother, who guessed her mailbox password, seems a sinister individual. I get the impression from interviews he is a cold individual and maybe hiding something. Of course that doesn't make him a murder.

Azalea

Wasn't it Teresa's ex along with her brother who said they got into her voicemail? That sure was a weird part of the documentary.

Remember Teresa's boss said she was getting nuisance phone-calls before she died too? Creepy...

captbarnacles

I don't think the prosecution have anything to be proud of in how they behaved. They might even have made a hamhanded attempt to tamper with evidence and the 'interview' of the nephew was appalling. I think they got the right result though.

captbarnacles

This is worth listening too for a different perspective from the documentary:

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-10-14279934/

Earthhorse

captbarnacles wrote: »

This is worth listening too for a different perspective from the documentary:

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-10-14279934/

It's a terrible analysis. I read the first one of his "rebuttals" too and they're really poor.

Potential Underachiever

Earthhorse wrote: »

I think that's part of what makes this case so compelling. Avery is an unsympathetic character in some ways. He may well have killed her too.

We can't just disregard principles of justice because he's an unsavoury character.

Or as I like to say he's an unsAVERY character, I know I know I'm a genius!

Senna

I would really hate if his new DA found something that could quash his conviction, he gets out, not retrial and no answers.
I think he done it, but would like a retrial to get a fair judgment.

8-10

captbarnacles wrote: »

I don't think the jury made a mistake in finding him guilty.

If you don't think that they made a mistake finding him guilty of murder, do you also think that they did not make a mistake finding him Not Guilty of mutilating a corpse?

If they correctly found him not guilty of that - who burned the body?

If you think that Steven Avery burned the body, then the jury must have gotten that wrong?

Tigger

Azalea wrote: »

You're glad he's in jail but you think he was framed?

ScumLord wrote: »

I get the impression Tigger thinks he should be sentenced to murder for killing a cat.

I think that he was framed but that the people that framed him thought he did it both times.
I'm glad he's in jail cos he burned a cat.
I am fascinated by the length of sentences people get in America

Ri_Nollaig

Tigger wrote: »

I think that he was framed but that the people that framed him thought he did it both times.
I'm glad he's in jail cos he burned a cat.
I am fascinated by the length of sentences people get in America

He served 18 years for the first proven wrongful conviction and has been in prison for 11 for the second which is currently pending.

So you are saying 29+ years for killing a cat?
I love my cat too but seriously?
I don't think you'd even get a fine if you did that here. Half the country's scumbags would be locked up every Halloween if it was the case!

Think the documentary showed that he was a colourful character to say the least and probably not the nicest person, i.e. killing the cat and probably other things. But still talking the vast majority of his adult life in prison at this stage. For his own sanity I hope he did the murder as its just unbelievable otherwise.

Tigger

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

He served 18 years for the first proven wrongful conviction and has been in prison for 11 for the second which is currently pending.

So you are saying 29+ years for killing a cat?
I love my cat too but seriously?
I don't think you'd even get a fine if you did that here. Half the country's scumbags would be locked up every Halloween if it was the case!

Think the documentary showed that he was a colourful character to say the latest and probably not the nicest person, i.e. killing the cat and probably other things. But still talking the vast majority of his adult life in prison at this stage. For his own sanity I hope he did the murder as its just unbelievable otherwise.

It's not justice but if burning a cat gets 29 years the the scrotes would probably stop.

Noo

8-10 wrote: »

If you don't think that they made a mistake finding him guilty of murder, do you also think that they did not make a mistake finding him Not Guilty of mutilating a corpse?

If they correctly found him not guilty of that - who burned the body?

If you think that Steven Avery burned the body, then the jury must have gotten that wrong?

This was also something that stuck with me, if everything happened the way the prosecution made out then how on earth was he found guity of murder but not of mutilating a corpse? Obviously getting the murder conviction was the biggie but its still odd.

captbarnacles

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

He served 18 years for the first proven wrongful conviction and has been in prison for 11 for the second which is currently pending.

So you are saying 29+ years for killing a cat?
I love my cat too but seriously?
I don't think you'd even get a fine if you did that here. Half the country's scumbags would be locked up every Halloween if it was the case!

Think the documentary showed that he was a colourful character to say the latest and probably not the nicest person, i.e. killing the cat and probably other things. But still talking the vast majority of his adult life in prison at this stage. For his own sanity I hope he did the murder as its just unbelievable otherwise.

Eh you could easily serve jail time for it.

People continually omit the fact he was sentenced to six years for ordering a woman into his car at gunpoint.

Azalea

Tigger wrote: »

It's not justice but if burning a cat gets 29 years the the scrotes would probably stop.

But he wasn't/isn't in prison for 29 years for burning a cat And there is no such sentence for burning a cat so it won't stop scumbags from burning cats unfortunately.

He did get the punishment on the statutes for animal cruelty back in the early 80s. Subsequent sentences (including the wrongful one) are for different crimes.

Ri_Nollaig

captbarnacles wrote: »

Eh you could easily serve jail time for it.

I know there is animal cruelty laws here, but most [especially if they are under 18] will likely get away with it.
You would really have to go out of your way to get any sort of custodial sentence for animal cruelty in Ireland.

Tigger

captbarnacles wrote: »

Eh you could easily serve jail time for it.

People continually omit the fact he was sentenced to six years for ordering a woman into his car at gunpoint.

He's clearly a saint

8-10

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

He served 18 years for the first proven wrongful conviction

6 of these 18 years was for a conviction of endangering safety when he ran his cousin off the road and put a gun to her head don't forget! (episode 1)

Proven wrongful conviction for the sexual assault - yes. But doesn't mean he shouldn't have served none of the 18, he still should have served 6 of them.

smash

Senna wrote: »

I would really hate if his new DA found something that could quash his conviction, he gets out, not retrial and no answers.
I think he done it, but would like a retrial to get a fair judgment.

So you'd hate if he was exonerated because of new evidence to prove he didn't do it? You'd hate if an innocent man was set free? All because you wouldn't get answers about what really happened... Right.

smash

8-10 wrote: »

If you don't think that they made a mistake finding him guilty of murder, do you also think that they did not make a mistake finding him Not Guilty of mutilating a corpse?

If they correctly found him not guilty of that - who burned the body?

If you think that Steven Avery burned the body, then the jury must have gotten that wrong?

Brendan Dassey was found guilty of mutilating the corpse. Just like Kratz said "one man is responsible for this" and both of them are in prison...

Flint Fredstone

captbarnacles wrote: »

People continually omit the fact he was sentenced to six years for ordering a woman into his car at gunpoint.

Just to sit there or did he take or somewhere and do something?

MadDog76

captbarnacles wrote: »

Eh you could easily serve jail time for it.

People continually omit the fact he was sentenced to six years for ordering a woman into his car at gunpoint.

You seem to be implying that he was attempting to kidnap some random woman?

He actually ordered the woman out of her car, at gunpoint, as she drove past his property ......... the woman in question was his cousin, the gun wasn't loaded and the motive for his action was to frighten her into stop spreading (false, according to him) rumours about him .......... it was basically a domestic/family dispute that got out of hand.
And, obviously, Steven handled the situation terribly resulting in a (relatively harsh) sentence of six years which he served every day of ....... and then some!

Unfortunately for Mr. Avery, the woman (his cousin) was married to a Manitowoc County Sheriff's Deputy ......... it would appear that this incident was the catalyst for the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department to focus on Steven Avery (and only Steven Avery) when the rape occurred ........ they managed to achieve their goal of having him (wrongfully) convicted of that crime.

Azalea

Tigger wrote: »

He's clearly a saint

I think they were implying the very opposite to that.

He definitely doesn't seem like a saint but wrongful conviction is wrongful conviction. And sketchy evidence is sketchy evidence.

TheNap

Ken Kratz: AMURDERERSAYSWHAT

Avery : What

Ken Kratz: Case closed

Senna

smash wrote: »

So you'd hate if he was exonerated because of new evidence to prove he didn't do it? You'd hate if an innocent man was set free? All because you wouldn't get answers about what really happened... Right.

I meant the conviction being squashed on a technicality that isn't related to evidence or guilt, which let's face it, that's probably the best this new DA can hope for. Obviously new evidence would answer some/maybe all questions. Sorry I can't be quite as dramatic as you with my answers.

smash

Senna wrote: »

I meant the conviction being squashed on a technicality that isn't related to evidence or guilt, which let's face it, that's probably the best this new DA can hope for. Obviously new evidence would answer some/maybe all questions. Sorry I can't be quite as dramatic as you with my answers.

No it's not. His new attorney (Not DA) is allowed build a case surrounding alternative suspects and evidence pointing to them. This evidence will include at the very least:

• The additional blood found in the SUV which was identified as human but dismissed as it didn't match Avery or Halbach.
• The additional fingerprints found in the SUV which were dismissed as they didn't match Avery or Halbach.
• The deletion of voice mails from Halbach's phone which would link in to the theory that Avery was not Halbach's final stop.

Strang and Buting could not introduce additional suspects or deviate from the case because their sole job was to defend Avery on the charge of murder and the course to do so was to prove that the evidence either wasn't sufficient or was planted by a corrupt police force.

captbarnacles

MadDog76 wrote: »

You seem to be implying that he was attempting to kidnap some random woman?

He actually ordered the woman out of her car, at gunpoint, as she drove past his property ......... the woman in question was his cousin, the gun wasn't loaded and the motive for his action was to frighten her into stop spreading (false, according to him) rumours about him .......... it was basically a domestic/family dispute that got out of hand.
And, obviously, Steven handled the situation terribly resulting in a (relatively harsh) sentence of six years which he served every day of ....... and then some!

Unfortunately for Mr. Avery, the woman (his cousin) was married to a Manitowoc County Sheriff's Deputy ......... it would appear that this incident was the catalyst for the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department to focus on Steven Avery (and only Steven Avery) when the rape occurred ........ they managed to achieve their goal of having him (wrongfully) convicted of that crime.

"In 1985, Avery was charged with assaulting his cousin after he ran her off the road at gunpoint. The cousin, the wife of a part-time Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy, had earlier complained that Avery had exposed himself when she drove past his house.[7] Avery was sentenced to six years for endangering the safety of another person.[8] According to Avery, the gun was not loaded, and he was trying to stop her from spreading false rumors about him"

You are presenting Mr Averys side of the story. If she is telling the truth puts a different slant on it eh?

MadDog76

captbarnacles wrote: »

"In 1985, Avery was charged with assaulting his cousin after he ran her off the road at gunpoint. The cousin, the wife of a part-time Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy, had earlier complained that Avery had exposed himself when she drove past his house.[7] Avery was sentenced to six years for endangering the safety of another person.[8] According to Avery, the gun was not loaded, and he was trying to stop her from spreading false rumors about him"

You are presenting Mr Averys side of the story. If she is telling the truth puts a different slant on it eh?

Were you trying to prove some point with that post???

What you quoted is exactly what I have already posted, minus the part in bold ....... is that in some way significant to you?

smash

captbarnacles wrote: »

"In 1985, Avery was charged with assaulting his cousin after he ran her off the road at gunpoint. The cousin, the wife of a part-time Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy, had earlier complained that Avery had exposed himself when she drove past his house.[7] Avery was sentenced to six years for endangering the safety of another person.[8] According to Avery, the gun was not loaded, and he was trying to stop her from spreading false rumors about him"

You are presenting Mr Averys side of the story. If she is telling the truth puts a different slant on it eh?

Yet when Sandra Morris was deposed she was fumbling over her own stories and started to back track on her claims of public masturbation etc.

xtradel

captbarnacles wrote: »

"In 1985, Avery was charged with assaulting his cousin after he ran her off the road at gunpoint. The cousin, the wife of a part-time Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy, had earlier complained that Avery had exposed himself when she drove past his house.[7] Avery was sentenced to six years for endangering the safety of another person.[8] According to Avery, the gun was not loaded, and he was trying to stop her from spreading false rumors about him"

He had no feckin underwear!! How would he not expose himself after a shower and wearing a towel whilst drying himself off in the manitowac sun....or snow depending on the episode :pac:

recylingbin

MonkieSocks wrote: »

why would Avery, who was probably gong get a lot of money, through a filed a $36 million federal lawsuit against Manitowoc County.

Kill a Woman, who a lot of pepople knew was going out to his peoperty.

.

Just to watch her die?

Ann22

"The Staircase" is another great, guilty or innocent serialised documentary (on YouTube). I was glued to it. There's a short follow up episode after the final one so don't read up on Wiki soon as it's over.