NoSaint Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I binged on it, then read a bunch of the material that's come out since. While watching the doc I got the sense that it was biased from the start, and the past few weeks have left little doubt that the filmmakers set about not to document Avery's innocence or guilt, but rather the flaws in the justice system. They certainly made a compelling documentary, and some of what the uncovered about the police in that county was down right terrifying from a civil liberties perspective. But in terms of whether he did it or not I couldn't tell you. I don't think he's a very stable person, and certainly not the sweetheart the filmmakers tried to portray him as. His nephew got the rawest of deals and may very well be innocent, but someone living on that compound killed that woman, if it wasn't Steven it was his brother or one of the other Averys who avoided the camera for 10+ years of filming. I'm fairly convinced of that. I'll buy this. Most are missing the point if they are focusing on "is he innocent" and that even "guilty vs not guilty" is a stretch to discuss. What was ultimately very thoroughly portrayed was how easy it can be for very questionable tactics to be used and how delicate our right to justice is. Avery could be 110% guilty and it's not right to give the case extra juice. I also have been amused by the quick backlash against the filmmakers with the first interview with the prosecution after this got big. There have since been rebuttals from the defense team on several of his points he presented as fact in those interviews. Also interesting a juror has come out since saying they wanted to vote not guilty but we're scared of police retribution. How this case wasn't moved far away and re-tried at some point still disappoints me, even if he is legit guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 The vial of blood had a small needle hole in the top and, from what I understood, the DA had the right to take a small sample of that blood to get Avery's DNA profile to match against the blood in the RAV4. Anyway, the biggest problem I see is the blood spatter issue: not one iota of blood spatter anywhere in the bedroom or garage. Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I read an article that outlined cases for two of his brothers as suspects as well as either of his nephew and brother in law that lived next door (who's alibis just happened to be them passing each other on the road even though his nephew's timeline had all kinds of holes in it). One brother beat his wife, the other sexually abused his daughters. It seems the family really did have its share of lowlifes. One thing I can't reconcile for the life of me is how Brendan comes up with that story out of the blue. Even if he was retarded and was coerced, it is such a crazy story to just make up, and go along with. There is no doubt in my mind the evidence was planted. And the timing for it to happen when it did, when the town and some cops had so much to lose, and Avery so much to gain with his imminent payoff. Seems crazy he would take any chance throw all that away, and he goes and commits a gruesome murder? Doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 The vial of blood had a small needle hole in the top and, from what I understood, the DA had the right to take a small sample of that blood to get Avery's DNA profile to match against the blood in the RAV4. Anyway, the biggest problem I see is the blood spatter issue: not one iota of blood spatter anywhere in the bedroom or garage. Weird. Being capable of hiding ALL the blood but leaving car, keys, bullet, and bones in plain site is always going to be a tough one to reconcile without saying some combo of: 1) didn't do it 2) did it but not in the way accused 3) did it and lots planted by police He'd have to be both a mastermind and a fool. I could've bought one of those being a souvenir but so many things laying around, but the blood so perfectly cleaned is tough to accept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I'll buy this. Most are missing the point if they are focusing on "is he innocent" and that even "guilty vs not guilty" is a stretch to discuss. What was ultimately very thoroughly portrayed was how easy it can be for very questionable tactics to be used and how delicate our right to justice is. Avery could be 110% guilty and it's not right to give the case extra juice. I also have been amused by the quick backlash against the filmmakers with the first interview with the prosecution after this got big. There have since been rebuttals from the defense team on several of his points he presented as fact in those interviews. Also interesting a juror has come out since saying they wanted to vote not guilty but we're scared of police retribution. How this case wasn't moved far away and re-tried at some point still disappoints me, even if he is legit guilty. Pretty spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) One thing I can't reconcile for the life of me is how Brendan comes up with that story out of the blue. Even if he was retarded and was coerced, it is such a crazy story to just make up, and go along with. He doesn't come up with the story out of the blue. His interview with the detectives is after his defense attorneys investigator, O'Kelly, walks him through the details of the murder, also the same interrogation his defense attorney, Len Kachinsky, chose not to attend. O'Kelly and Kachinsky believed he was guilty and thought he'll be better off confessing, so O'Kelly had him lay out what happened in detail, but it looked like O'Kelly walked him through in detail what he wanted Dassey to say. As for the series, there was some serious missteps by investigators and IMO, there is no way they proved guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. I have a read a ton of articles about the case the poke holes in just about every piece of evidence shown on the series and not shown. They could be guilty as hell, but the trial was bogus... I have to go back and watch episode 7, the very suspicious, Lenk finds the key episode. I though every time they filmed them searching the room, the bed was not made, there weren't even sheets on the bed. But when the key is found the bed was made. I definitely could be wrong, but it was interesting, and I'll have to review that one. pretty good information here: http://awesomejelly.com/review-evidence-steven-avery-brendan-dassey-case-making-murderer/ Trial transcripts here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3zmwj2/on_obtaining_the_avery_trial_transcripts_and_case/ Edited January 27, 2016 by ricojes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) He doesn't come up with the story out of the blue. His interview with the detectives is after his defense attorneys investigator, O'Kelly, walks him through the details of the murder, also the same interrogation his defense attorney, Len Kachinsky, chose not to attend. O'Kelly and Kachinsky believed he was guilty and thought he'll be better off confessing, so O'Kelly had him lay out what happened in detail, but it looked like O'Kelly walked him through in detail what he wanted Dassey to say. As for the series, there was some serious missteps by investigators and IMO, there is no way they proved guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. They could be guilty as hell, but the trial was bogus... Yeah but I thought he told some other people before he was actually arrested (the one girl at the party, who then recanted on the stand, for one). Also, the O'Kelley interview was after he had already gone through the initial interview at the school and was already arrested - I thought the arrest itself was based on him confessing or at least telling other people he was involved in what happened (way prior to O'Kelly). And even if the confession story was 100% created by the cops - why in the hell would they create such a crazy gruesome story when they knew there wouldn't be plausible physical evidence to back it up (no pools of blood in the bedroom, garage, etc) My impression was Brendan came up with pieces of the story first, then the cops 'guided' him into laying it all out in detail. Edited January 27, 2016 by stevewin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 One of the more damning bits of evidence for Avery is that according to Nancy [dis]Grace he called her twice earlier that day dialing *67 to hide his number, then called her without blocking his number around 4:30 pm, after the time it is now established she was there, and left a message asking why she never showed. If that's true it sounds like he thought he was smarter than he was and tried to give himself an alibi. I can think of no other reason to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Being capable of hiding ALL the blood but leaving car, keys, bullet, and bones in plain site is always going to be a tough one to reconcile without saying some combo of: 1) didn't do it 2) did it but not in the way accused 3) did it and lots planted by police He'd have to be both a mastermind and a fool. I could've bought one of those being a souvenir but so many things laying around, but the blood so perfectly cleaned is tough to accept Yes. The one part that really made me go "Hmmmmmm" was when the defense atty was asking the Sheriff Depty. (Andrew Colburn I think?) did he ever call in the RAV4 license plate and he didn't think he did, then they played the tape where he did, in fact, call in the RAV4 license plate and he read it off and the dispatcher confirmed his inquiryyyyy....this was two days before the vehicle was actually found on the Avery lands. Not much was made of it...but I thought it was a huge issue and lends to some of the conspiracy theory that the cops found the car a few days before elsewhere, put blood in it, then took it to his lot and barricaded it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Yeah but I thought he told some other people before he was actually arrested (the one girl at the party, who then recanted on the stand, for one). Also, O'Kelley was after he had already gone through the initial interview at the school and was already arrested - I thought the arrest itself was based on him confessing or at least telling other people he was involved in what happened (prior to O'Kelly). And even if the confession story was 100% created by the cops - why in the hell would they create such a crazy gruesome story when they knew there wouldn't be plausible physical evidence to back it up (pools of blood in the bedroom, garage, etc) The 14 year old girl? i don't know if you can trust that. Yes, O'Kelley was after he was arrested. I thought those were the details in which you were referring. that "confession" was very detailed and interestingly enough, never used in the trial. Here is that transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwgcpqtc/Transcript%20-%2005-12-2006%20-%20Dassey%20and%20O'Kelly.pdf?dl=0 The initial interview was shaky at best, BD really didn't answer any questions and looked like he guessed to tell the detectives what they wanted to hear. And even if the confession story was 100% created by the cops - why in the hell would they create such a crazy gruesome story when they knew there wouldn't be plausible physical evidence to back it up (pools of blood in the bedroom, garage, etc) I don't think the story was created by the cops. I believe they think that's how it happened. And felt they needed BD confession to put his uncle away. But because his storied differed so much every time he told it, there is no way they would put him on the stand. One of the more damning bits of evidence for Avery is that according to Nancy [dis]Grace he called her twice earlier that day dialing *67 to hide his number, then called her without blocking his number around 4:30 pm, after the time it is now established she was there, and left a message asking why she never showed. If that's true it sounds like he thought he was smarter than he was and tried to give himself an alibi. I can think of no other reason to do that. I don't know if they did, but If I were the defense, I would have checked to see if Avery used *67 frequently. He was in the public eye still and a lot of people were said not to like the Avery family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) The 14 year old girl? i don't know if you can trust that. Yes, O'Kelley was after he was arrested. I thought those were the details in which you were referring. that "confession" was very detailed and interestingly enough, never used in the trial. Here is that transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwgcpqtc/Transcript%20-%2005-12-2006%20-%20Dassey%20and%20O'Kelly.pdf?dl=0 The initial interview was shaky at best, BD really didn't answer any questions and looked like he guessed to tell the detectives what they wanted to hear. I don't think the story was created by the cops. I believe they think that's how it happened. And felt they needed BD confession to put his uncle away. But because his storied differed so much every time he told it, there is no way they would put him on the stand. Yeah, my point was how/why Brendan got it into his head to implicate himself at all prior to the later interviews where they really helped him "spell it all out". It wasn't clear to me how much he initially admitted to - but just seems crazy to 1) initially admit your involvement in something so heinous if you weren't involved and 2) admit to even more heinous details if they weren't true (even if you were of low IQ). I never really understood how the Brendan story evolved - what he told them initially and how much was "filled in" by the cops. And why would the cops think it was a reasonable story to pursue that they slit her throat on the bed when there was no blood? Even when Kratz does the PC and they go into all the horrifying details - why wasn't there someone saying beforehand "Oh - wait, before you say that, there's no blood on the mattress FYI" Edited January 27, 2016 by stevewin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Yeah, my point was how/why Brendan got it into his head to implicate himself at all prior to the later interviews where they really helped him "spell it all out". It wasn't clear to me how much he initially admitted to - but just seems crazy to 1) initially admit your involvement in something so heinous if you weren't involved and 2) admit to even more heinous details if they weren't true (even if you were of low IQ). I never really understood how the Brendan story evolved - what he told them initially and how much was "filled in" by the cops. And why would the cops think it was a reasonable story to pursue that they slit her throat on the bed when there was no blood? Even when Kratz does the PC and they go into all the horrifying details - why wasn't there someone saying beforehand "Oh - wait, before you say that, there's no blood on the mattress FYI" If this were a fictional TV series, no one would believe half this stuff would be possible and probably wouldn't watch because it's too far fetched... Kratz's PC was ridiculous. Especially since a jury hadn't even been selected at that point. At least they didn't have the trial in Manitowoc...No, it was the neighboring county and they bused jurors from Manitowoc... BD's defense attorney states he's guilty, but was under the influence of SA. This is before he had even spoken to BD once. The Aunt from the search party finds the car within a maze of cars at this huge salvage yard within 30 minutes... TH's brother...your sister is missing, what do you do. "Well the grieving process begins"...really, she's just missing at this point. her roomate "guessed" her password and deleted a couple messages... Lenk finds a key on the floor in a room that had been searched several times previous to that... The Sheriff calls in the license plate of the missing Rad 4 to verify....vehicle is later found without plates... I could go on and on.... Edited January 27, 2016 by ricojes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) One of the more damning bits of evidence for Avery is that according to Nancy [dis]Grace he called her twice earlier that day dialing *67 to hide his number, then called her without blocking his number around 4:30 pm, after the time it is now established she was there, and left a message asking why she never showed. If that's true it sounds like he thought he was smarter than he was and tried to give himself an alibi. I can think of no other reason to do that. He actually called Theresa a bunch of times that day. She was running late to the Avery's, she called back to Auto-Trader to say so, so Steven could have been calling to ask where she was. She ignored a couple of his initial calls so the *67 could have been simply been because Steven thought she was ignoring him? I haven't seen anything anywhere saying he left a message at 4:30. He did attempt to call her at 4:35, but Dean Spano addressed that in his opening statement staying Steven called TH back to get another vehicle photographed. At that point the phone was off, so the call went straight to voicemail but I don't think he left a message. EDIT: He also admitted in his first police interview that he called her at 4:35 to come back and photograph another car, didn't deny it or try and say she didn't show. Edited January 27, 2016 by Wayne Cubed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) While people are offering opinions - what are thoughts on the bones. From the defense standpoint - is the theory that the body was burned at the quarry, then the barrel from the compound was taken to the quarry (by someone framing Avery) and used to transport the bones to the fire pit ? From the prosecution side - what was their theory - that he burned the body in the barrel, dumped some of the bones in the firepit, then went and dumped the rest in the quarry??? (or I guess another theory would be burned first in the firepit, then used the barrel to move the remains from the firepit to the quarry?) I thought I remember someone from prosecution mentioning burning the body in the barrel at some point but I could be wrong. Edited January 27, 2016 by stevewin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I think the two worst sources possible from whom to try and come up with usable facts are a) that documentary and b) Nancy !@#$ing Grace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 He actually called Theresa a bunch of times that day. She was running late to the Avery's, she called back to Auto-Trader to say so, so Steven could have been calling to ask where she was. She ignored a couple of his initial calls so the *67 could have been simply been because Steven thought she was ignoring him? I haven't seen anything anywhere saying he left a message at 4:30. He did attempt to call her at 4:35, but Dean Spano addressed that in his opening statement staying Steven called TH back to get another vehicle photographed. At that point the phone was off, so the call went straight to voicemail but I don't think he left a message. It's something I read that was attributed to Nancy [dis]Grace so I can't vouch for it's accuracy. If it's true though that's a tough one to explain. I think the two worst sources possible from whom to try and come up with usable facts are a) that documentary and b) Nancy !@#$ing Grace. Nancy Grace is pretty worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I think the two worst sources possible from whom to try and come up with usable facts are a) that documentary and b) Nancy !@#$ing Grace. I recorded a couple of her shows as I had recently watched the documentary...I got through half of one and deleted the other, she couldn't be more annoying. As far as the documentary, I though it was really good. It was one sided, and I think a lot of that is due to Kratz denying permission to be on camera outside the court room. But I didn't come away from it thinking Avery was innocent, I just don't know how they found him guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 The best part of the documentary: http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/q-and-a/a33352/angenette-levy-making-a-murderer-reporter/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 27, 2016 Author Share Posted January 27, 2016 I recorded a couple of her shows as I had recently watched the documentary...I got through half of one and deleted the other, she couldn't be more annoying. As far as the documentary, I though it was really good. It was one sided, and I think a lot of that is due to Kratz denying permission to be on camera outside the court room. But I didn't come away from it thinking Avery was innocent, I just don't know how they found him guilty. I think it's perfectly reasonable, given what we know, given what's come out that Avery was framed and wrongfully convicted of a crime he probably committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 The best part of the documentary: http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/q-and-a/a33352/angenette-levy-making-a-murderer-reporter/ i feel like she was just wearing those glasses to look like a reporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts