Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (1 Viewer)

[whoknew]

Wow, the power of an extremely biased TV show is just amazing to me how many people are taking this NetFlix series as fact, and no room at all for discussion.

The old adage, it's on TV so it must be true.

Simply amazing

Kind of like when Kratz went on TV? Everyone from NE Wisconsin is rejecting it as some type of bull#### too. I wonder if the truth isn't somewhere in the middle.

Probably is. From what I gather, most people in this forum dont think he's necessarily innocent.

I don't. I'd like to see him get a new trial though just because of all the shenanigans that occurred. The "hide the children" press conference was so manipulative to the entire jury pool area.

Well of course. If all everyone is basing their decision on is this Netflix series, of course you would.

There's no need to be cryptic. If you've got more info to share, I think everyone in this thread would appreciate it.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm just getting caught up in all this.. Haven't watched any of it yet..

That being said, I've been in the automotive salvage business my whole life (family business).. I used to work for a computer company that sold software/hardware to

salvage yards.. Wisconsin was one of the States in my territory.. I've been to Avery's Auto Salvage..

If it was a case of making a car "disappear", it could have been done VERY easily...

By one person alone?

Absolutely... We have a Volvo L90 loader with 20' forks.. picks cars up and moves them around very easily.. Most of the yards that have their own crusher have a remote

in the loader that works the crusher.. it's literally a one man job.

I mean with only one person knowing about it. You've been there - if that crusher gets fired up at 2 AM, someone other than the operator is going to know about it, right?

I haven't looked at the timeline, but I believe he would have had a day or 2 to crush the car before Teresa was even reported missing.

I think they state 4 days. Buting says five then revises to four making a small joke about his math.

you are thinking about when he corrected the number of months between the November and March investigation

Right. It is 4 days though. She went missing on Halloween. Parents reported her missing November 3. Per this

http://news.yahoo.com/steven-avery-5-things-know-220330109.html

 

[MattFancy]

This may have already been mentioned, but I just finished the season and have not read the entire thread...there are multiple times where Detective Lenk's story was changed during the trial from his original statements made months earlier, so it would better fit with the prosecutor's timeline (e.g. the whole time log around the Rav 4 after discovery). Also, Coburn was still sniffing around evidence 4 months AFTER he was removed from the investigation for conflict of interest reasons.

How this does not scream reasonable doubt to the jury is beyond me, let alone, all of the other pieces of evidence that could be seen as reasonable doubt for Avery's case of innocence.

I have about a 25% gut feeling that he may have been guilty, as she was last saw on his property, but I also think evidence had to have been planted by the police to some degree. They search his trailer multiple times head to toe, and didn't find the key until like the 3rd day or something after already searching everything? Shady...

It was 7-4 in favor of not guilty when the jury first voted. The 4 were very stubborn and persuasive according to the dismissed juror.

This is what I want to know more about. How can the jury go from the majority saying he's not guilty, to a unanimous guilty? Just seems really odd.

Well, according to producers on the today show today (link upthread) one of the jurors feared for their personal safety if they didn't convict. Can't blame them with Lenk out there. He's stone cold.

I saw that earlier this morning. Honestly, wouldn't surprise me if true.

 

[Zow]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Wow, the power of an extremely biased TV show is just amazing to me how many people are taking this NetFlix series as fact, and no room at all for discussion.

The old adage, it's on TV so it must be true.

Simply amazing

Kind of like when Kratz went on TV? Everyone from NE Wisconsin is rejecting it as some type of bull#### too. I wonder if the truth isn't somewhere in the middle.

Probably is. From what I gather, most people in this forum dont think he's necessarily innocent.

I don't. I'd like to see him get a new trial though just because of all the shenanigans that occurred. The "hide the children" press conference was so manipulative to the entire jury pool area.

Well of course. If all everyone is basing their decision on is this Netflix series, of course you would.

As I asked before (which you didnt answer) what was left out that changes what we "know". Did someone other than the dept that wasnt supposed to be involved find the key? Was there a #### ton of blood in his bedroom that they left out. Was Halbach's DNA all over the property and the show hid that?

 

[Sabertooth]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

That attorney is now a judge. SHOCKING!

 

[Sabertooth]

Wow, the power of an extremely biased TV show is just amazing to me how many people are taking this NetFlix series as fact, and no room at all for discussion.

The old adage, it's on TV so it must be true.

Simply amazing

Kind of like when Kratz went on TV? Everyone from NE Wisconsin is rejecting it as some type of bull#### too. I wonder if the truth isn't somewhere in the middle.

Probably is. From what I gather, most people in this forum dont think he's necessarily innocent.

I don't. I'd like to see him get a new trial though just because of all the shenanigans that occurred. The "hide the children" press conference was so manipulative to the entire jury pool area.

Well of course. If all everyone is basing their decision on is this Netflix series, of course you would.

As I asked before (which you didnt answer) what was left out that changes what we "know". Did someone other than the dept that wasnt supposed to be involved find the key? Was there a #### ton of blood in his bedroom that they left out. Was Halbach's DNA all over the property and the show hid that?

I'd be interested too. I did notice it looked like they removed the panelling from behind the bed. Maybe it looked like a Jackson Pollock and the producers omitted it.

 

[Zow]

This may have already been mentioned, but I just finished the season and have not read the entire thread...there are multiple times where Detective Lenk's story was changed during the trial from his original statements made months earlier, so it would better fit with the prosecutor's timeline (e.g. the whole time log around the Rav 4 after discovery). Also, Coburn was still sniffing around evidence 4 months AFTER he was removed from the investigation for conflict of interest reasons.

How this does not scream reasonable doubt to the jury is beyond me, let alone, all of the other pieces of evidence that could be seen as reasonable doubt for Avery's case of innocence.

I have about a 25% gut feeling that he may have been guilty, as she was last saw on his property, but I also think evidence had to have been planted by the police to some degree. They search his trailer multiple times head to toe, and didn't find the key until like the 3rd day or something after already searching everything? Shady...

It was 7-4 in favor of not guilty when the jury first voted. The 4 were very stubborn and persuasive according to the dismissed juror.

This is what I want to know more about. How can the jury go from the majority saying he's not guilty, to a unanimous guilty? Just seems really odd.

I'd consider it odd but not incredibly rare*. Jurors are supposed to deliberate and discuss the evidence. Watch the movie "12 angry men" for a fictional but pretty decent portrayal of a wild jury deliberation.

I once had a jury deliberate for three days on a case of mine. They told me that during the first day the majority were actually in favor on not guilty but after they thoroughly reviewed the evidence and talked it through for a couple of days they all became firmly convinced that the correct verdict was guilty.

* Technically speaking before jury deliberations the vote should be a unanimous 12-0 in favor of not guilty because that's what the presumption of innocence rule requires. Of course, that's just ideal theory and probably not how it really works.

 

[Gustavo Fring]

This may have already been mentioned, but I just finished the season and have not read the entire thread...there are multiple times where Detective Lenk's story was changed during the trial from his original statements made months earlier, so it would better fit with the prosecutor's timeline (e.g. the whole time log around the Rav 4 after discovery). Also, Coburn was still sniffing around evidence 4 months AFTER he was removed from the investigation for conflict of interest reasons.

How this does not scream reasonable doubt to the jury is beyond me, let alone, all of the other pieces of evidence that could be seen as reasonable doubt for Avery's case of innocence.

I have about a 25% gut feeling that he may have been guilty, as she was last saw on his property, but I also think evidence had to have been planted by the police to some degree. They search his trailer multiple times head to toe, and didn't find the key until like the 3rd day or something after already searching everything? Shady...

It was 7-4 in favor of not guilty when the jury first voted. The 4 were very stubborn and persuasive according to the dismissed juror.

This is what I want to know more about. How can the jury go from the majority saying he's not guilty, to a unanimous guilty? Just seems really odd.

Well, according to producers on the today show today (link upthread) one of the jurors feared for their personal safety if they didn't convict. Can't blame them with Lenk out there. He's stone cold.

I saw that earlier this morning. Honestly, wouldn't surprise me if true.

True, can't blame them for fearing for their lives, especially if it started out in a favor of not guilty by most of the jurors. Part of me feels everything was setup initially by the county for Avery to go down for this. Why pull a jury panel from Manitowoc County or another close county (not sure how that whole process works tbh), when it is a small town where everyone knows everybody (including the type of cop that Lenk is). While not everyone on the panel was biased, but even if a few are, it can completely sway an outcome of the decision, which appears is what happened here.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

Len KachinskyAttorney Municipal Judge

Appleton, Wisconsin Law Practice Current

1. Sisson and Kachinsky Law Offices

Education

1. Hamline University School of Law

 

[Sabertooth]

When I was jury foreman last year, they majority wanted to convict because the guy was a loser. I said wait a minute...we went over the actual facts, and they all voted to not guilty. Wasn't that hard.

One guy with an American Flag leather jacket on said "They're all bar trash" when we went around the table to get opinions. I volunteered to be foreman. Had I not, this guy would be sitting in prison. I felt I did the right thing instead of "just trying to get out of there."

 

[The Gator]

Steven and Brendan supposedly have very similar IQ scores.

http://news.yahoo.com/steven-avery-5-things-know-220330109.html

Shocking

I knew you looked familiar

That's Christo

 

[Sabertooth]

This may have already been mentioned, but I just finished the season and have not read the entire thread...there are multiple times where Detective Lenk's story was changed during the trial from his original statements made months earlier, so it would better fit with the prosecutor's timeline (e.g. the whole time log around the Rav 4 after discovery). Also, Coburn was still sniffing around evidence 4 months AFTER he was removed from the investigation for conflict of interest reasons.

How this does not scream reasonable doubt to the jury is beyond me, let alone, all of the other pieces of evidence that could be seen as reasonable doubt for Avery's case of innocence.

I have about a 25% gut feeling that he may have been guilty, as she was last saw on his property, but I also think evidence had to have been planted by the police to some degree. They search his trailer multiple times head to toe, and didn't find the key until like the 3rd day or something after already searching everything? Shady...

It was 7-4 in favor of not guilty when the jury first voted. The 4 were very stubborn and persuasive according to the dismissed juror.

This is what I want to know more about. How can the jury go from the majority saying he's not guilty, to a unanimous guilty? Just seems really odd.

Well, according to producers on the today show today (link upthread) one of the jurors feared for their personal safety if they didn't convict. Can't blame them with Lenk out there. He's stone cold.

I saw that earlier this morning. Honestly, wouldn't surprise me if true.

True, can't blame them for fearing for their lives, especially if it started out in a favor of not guilty by most of the jurors. Part of me feels everything was setup initially by the county for Avery to go down for this. Why pull a jury panel from Manitowoc County or another close county (not sure how that whole process works tbh), when it is a small town where everyone knows everybody (including the type of cop that Lenk is). While not everyone on the panel was biased, but even if a few are, it can completely sway an outcome of the decision, which appears is what happened here.

Strang said they decided not to move because the whole state was tainted. The fact that a Sheriff's father was on the jury would have been intimidated to somebody who feared the cops.

 

[Zow]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

That attorney is now a judge. SHOCKING!

I agree. Which almost makes me think that the documentary's portrayal of the attorney was spun and overly biased.

 

[Zow]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

Len KachinskyAttorney Municipal Judge

Appleton, Wisconsin Law Practice Current

1. Sisson and Kachinsky Law Offices

Education

1. Hamline University School of Law

Well that explains it.

ETA: He's also a municipal court judge. Not exactly the same as being elected or put into a Superior Court position where he can make major life-altering decisions.

 

[Gustavo Fring]

This may have already been mentioned, but I just finished the season and have not read the entire thread...there are multiple times where Detective Lenk's story was changed during the trial from his original statements made months earlier, so it would better fit with the prosecutor's timeline (e.g. the whole time log around the Rav 4 after discovery). Also, Coburn was still sniffing around evidence 4 months AFTER he was removed from the investigation for conflict of interest reasons.

How this does not scream reasonable doubt to the jury is beyond me, let alone, all of the other pieces of evidence that could be seen as reasonable doubt for Avery's case of innocence.

I have about a 25% gut feeling that he may have been guilty, as she was last saw on his property, but I also think evidence had to have been planted by the police to some degree. They search his trailer multiple times head to toe, and didn't find the key until like the 3rd day or something after already searching everything? Shady...

It was 7-4 in favor of not guilty when the jury first voted. The 4 were very stubborn and persuasive according to the dismissed juror.

This is what I want to know more about. How can the jury go from the majority saying he's not guilty, to a unanimous guilty? Just seems really odd.

Well, according to producers on the today show today (link upthread) one of the jurors feared for their personal safety if they didn't convict. Can't blame them with Lenk out there. He's stone cold.

I saw that earlier this morning. Honestly, wouldn't surprise me if true.

True, can't blame them for fearing for their lives, especially if it started out in a favor of not guilty by most of the jurors. Part of me feels everything was setup initially by the county for Avery to go down for this. Why pull a jury panel from Manitowoc County or another close county (not sure how that whole process works tbh), when it is a small town where everyone knows everybody (including the type of cop that Lenk is). While not everyone on the panel was biased, but even if a few are, it can completely sway an outcome of the decision, which appears is what happened here.

Strang said they decided not to move because the whole state was tainted. The fact that a Sheriff's father was on the jury would have been intimidated to somebody who feared the cops.

Wow, I missed that part in the show where a Sheriff's father was on the jury. No idea how that can be allowed given the cops where being questioned from his first rape allegation charge.

 

[whoknew]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

That attorney is now a judge. SHOCKING!

I agree. Which almost makes me think that the documentary's portrayal of the attorney was spun and overly biased.

If you've not finished yet, wait until you see episode 10. Then come back and see how spun and overly biased it was. (Not trying to be combative - just pointing out that in episode 10 it gets surreal).

Not to mention - you've already seen that he set his investigator to deliver a forced confession to the cops. Then allowed his client to be interviewed by the cops without being present. How do you spin that in a good way? Its sickening.

 

[Cjw_55106]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

That attorney is now a judge. SHOCKING!

I agree. Which almost makes me think that the documentary's portrayal of the attorney was spun and overly biased.

If you've not finished yet, wait until you see episode 10. Then come back and see how spun and overly biased it was. (Not trying to be combative - just pointing out that in episode 10 it gets surreal).

Not to mention - you've already seen that he set his investigator to deliver a forced confession to the cops. Then allowed his client to be interviewed by the cops without being present. How do you spin that in a good way? Its sickening.

I was so shocked, I thought they were trying to prove how easily the kid was manipulated. I couldnt even comprehend that his lawyer screwed him over like that.

 

[General Malaise]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

That attorney is now a judge. SHOCKING!

Our introduction to him was him telling us that he was humbled finishing a distant third in a race for Judge, which is why he was a public defender. Every time I saw him, I thought of Dana Carvey portraying George Bush on SNL.

 

[SIDA!]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

That attorney is now a judge. SHOCKING!

I agree. Which almost makes me think that the documentary's portrayal of the attorney was spun and overly biased.

tough to spin sending in your own investigator who works for your client to force a confession and repeatedly badger your own client, then send him to meet with investigators for the prosecution without you being there...and saying you never said something on the stand only to have video from the newscast show that you actually said the thing you said you didn't say.

 

[Zow]

This may have already been mentioned, but I just finished the season and have not read the entire thread...there are multiple times where Detective Lenk's story was changed during the trial from his original statements made months earlier, so it would better fit with the prosecutor's timeline (e.g. the whole time log around the Rav 4 after discovery). Also, Coburn was still sniffing around evidence 4 months AFTER he was removed from the investigation for conflict of interest reasons.

How this does not scream reasonable doubt to the jury is beyond me, let alone, all of the other pieces of evidence that could be seen as reasonable doubt for Avery's case of innocence.

I have about a 25% gut feeling that he may have been guilty, as she was last saw on his property, but I also think evidence had to have been planted by the police to some degree. They search his trailer multiple times head to toe, and didn't find the key until like the 3rd day or something after already searching everything? Shady...

It was 7-4 in favor of not guilty when the jury first voted. The 4 were very stubborn and persuasive according to the dismissed juror.

This is what I want to know more about. How can the jury go from the majority saying he's not guilty, to a unanimous guilty? Just seems really odd.

Well, according to producers on the today show today (link upthread) one of the jurors feared for their personal safety if they didn't convict. Can't blame them with Lenk out there. He's stone cold.

I saw that earlier this morning. Honestly, wouldn't surprise me if true.

True, can't blame them for fearing for their lives, especially if it started out in a favor of not guilty by most of the jurors. Part of me feels everything was setup initially by the county for Avery to go down for this. Why pull a jury panel from Manitowoc County or another close county (not sure how that whole process works tbh), when it is a small town where everyone knows everybody (including the type of cop that Lenk is). While not everyone on the panel was biased, but even if a few are, it can completely sway an outcome of the decision, which appears is what happened here.

Strang said they decided not to move because the whole state was tainted. The fact that a Sheriff's father was on the jury would have been intimidated to somebody who feared the cops.

Wow, I missed that part in the show where a Sheriff's father was on the jury. No idea how that can be allowed given the cops where being questioned from his first rape allegation charge.

He tells the court that he can be "fair and impartial" then the defense attorneys don't have enough strikes to go around. Per their comments in the documentary it sounds like that was a nightmarish jury pool. Also, in general, there is always a handful of people on a jury panel who are either related to or close friends with cops. We can't just strike them all for cause as the rule requires that the court find that the individual juror can't be fair and impartial.

 

[Zow]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

That attorney is now a judge. SHOCKING!

I agree. Which almost makes me think that the documentary's portrayal of the attorney was spun and overly biased.

If you've not finished yet, wait until you see episode 10. Then come back and see how spun and overly biased it was. (Not trying to be combative - just pointing out that in episode 10 it gets surreal).

Not to mention - you've already seen that he set his investigator to deliver a forced confession to the cops. Then allowed his client to be interviewed by the cops without being present. How do you spin that in a good way? Its sickening.

Oh I agree there. I wasn't overly shocked or appalled that he took the initial strategy of having the kid cut a deal with the state. Additionally, we'll never know what the kid told him during private consultations so I'd like to give the guy the benefit of the doubt that the kid gave him something to think that this route was the best (plus, the attorney probably coldly but correctly analyzed the case and realized this strategy was the surest way to keep his client out of prison for forever).

But I got nothing for the taping and disclosing of the overly coercive, veritable interrogation of the kid by the investigator and for the attorney letting his client be questioned by law enforcement alone. I honestly cannot think of any situation, no matter how far-fetched, where I'd do either of those two things.

 

[SIDA!]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied.

That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

That attorney is now a judge. SHOCKING!

Our introduction to him was him telling us that he was humbled finishing a distant third in a race for Judge, which is why he was a public defender. Every time I saw him, I thought of Dana Carvey portraying George Bush on SNL.

I think he mentions doing it for the publicity after losing the election. For sure got a "creep" vibe from him. I'm speculating they wanted Brendan to take a plea so he could count it as some kind of "win".

More than just a win...but it would be used against Avery..."the real prize"

 

[RUSF18]

This may have already been mentioned, but I just finished the season and have not read the entire thread...there are multiple times where Detective Lenk's story was changed during the trial from his original statements made months earlier, so it would better fit with the prosecutor's timeline (e.g. the whole time log around the Rav 4 after discovery). Also, Coburn was still sniffing around evidence 4 months AFTER he was removed from the investigation for conflict of interest reasons.

How this does not scream reasonable doubt to the jury is beyond me, let alone, all of the other pieces of evidence that could be seen as reasonable doubt for Avery's case of innocence.

I have about a 25% gut feeling that he may have been guilty, as she was last saw on his property, but I also think evidence had to have been planted by the police to some degree. They search his trailer multiple times head to toe, and didn't find the key until like the 3rd day or something after already searching everything? Shady...

It was 7-4 in favor of not guilty when the jury first voted. The 4 were very stubborn and persuasive according to the dismissed juror.

This is what I want to know more about. How can the jury go from the majority saying he's not guilty, to a unanimous guilty? Just seems really odd.

Well, according to producers on the today show today (link upthread) one of the jurors feared for their personal safety if they didn't convict. Can't blame them with Lenk out there. He's stone cold.

I saw that earlier this morning. Honestly, wouldn't surprise me if true.

True, can't blame them for fearing for their lives, especially if it started out in a favor of not guilty by most of the jurors. Part of me feels everything was setup initially by the county for Avery to go down for this. Why pull a jury panel from Manitowoc County or another close county (not sure how that whole process works tbh), when it is a small town where everyone knows everybody (including the type of cop that Lenk is). While not everyone on the panel was biased, but even if a few are, it can completely sway an outcome of the decision, which appears is what happened here.

Strang said they decided not to move because the whole state was tainted. The fact that a Sheriff's father was on the jury would have been intimidated to somebody who feared the cops.

Wow, I missed that part in the show where a Sheriff's father was on the jury. No idea how that can be allowed given the cops where being questioned from his first rape allegation charge.

He tells the court that he can be "fair and impartial" then the defense attorneys don't have enough strikes to go around. Per their comments in the documentary it sounds like that was a nightmarish jury pool. Also, in general, there is always a handful of people on a jury panel who are either related to or close friends with cops. We can't just strike them all for cause as the rule requires that the court find that the individual juror can't be fair and impartial.

The defense attorneys said (outside the show) that each side had the ability to disqualify six jurors, and these were the best of what they were left with.

As for the location of the jury pool, someone a week or so ago in this thread said the defense ultimately thought Avery would have a better shot with the local jury because of their knowledge of how the cops screwed him over previously and why they would potentially want to plant evidence against him.

 

[General Malaise]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

 

[McGarnicle]

A question for Woz or any trial lawyer. Have you ever seen, or heard of, a defendant requesting a new public defender and get denied? Especially after the defendant told the judge that his lawyer thinks he's guilty? I found that shocking and am wondering if that's normal for a judge to decline that request.

Often. Based on what the kid said to the judge I was not surprised his request was denied. That said, I was absolutely shocked at the portrayed behavior this attorney. I'll have more to comment there when I finish the series.

That attorney is now a judge. SHOCKING!

Our introduction to him was him telling us that he was humbled finishing a distant third in a race for Judge, which is why he was a public defender. Every time I saw him, I thought of Dana Carvey portraying George Bush on SNL.

Jerry Lundegaard from Fargo imo.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/images/5/55/WI_Manitowoc.png

 

[McGarnicle]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

I did some research on the family, and there's quite a bit of shenanigans between nieces and nephews etc. Truly this is where evil resides in comfort. This is a one-branch family tree. Let's cut this tree down imo.

 

[Cjw_55106]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

Thats considered high in WI.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Is it true that Halbach had been to the property 18 times total?

 

[General Malaise]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

I did some research on the family, and there's quite a bit of shenanigans between nieces and nephews etc. Truly this is where evil resides in comfort. This is a one-branch family tree. Let's cut this tree down imo.

Yeah, that's my hunch. But like, even Avery's GF who had the drinking problems was probably sporting an IQ in the 65-75 range. And many of those cops struck me as pretty dumb too. Do they not have schools there?

 

[Cjw_55106]

Is it true that Halbach had been to the property 18 times total?

I dont recall the exact number, but it was a lot. I assume he sold cars pretty often?

 

[Cjw_55106]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

I did some research on the family, and there's quite a bit of shenanigans between nieces and nephews etc. Truly this is where evil resides in comfort. This is a one-branch family tree. Let's cut this tree down imo.

Yeah, that's my hunch. But like, even Avery's GF who had the drinking problems was probably sporting an IQ in the 65-75 range. And many of those cops struck me as pretty dumb too. Do they not have schools there?

I'm pretty sure the mom was borderline genius.

 

[Cjw_55106]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

I did some research on the family, and there's quite a bit of shenanigans between nieces and nephews etc. Truly this is where evil resides in comfort. This is a one-branch family tree. Let's cut this tree down imo.

Yeah, that's my hunch. But like, even Avery's GF who had the drinking problems was probably sporting an IQ in the 65-75 range. And many of those cops struck me as pretty dumb too. Do they not have schools there?

I'm pretty sure the mom was borderline genius.

I was referring to Avery's mom, but I think Brendan's mom was in the same lane.

 

[TobiasFunke]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/images/5/55/WI_Manitowoc.png

I was surprised when I first looked it up on a map. I figured it would be out in the middle of nowhere, some location befitting inbreds and injustice, but that seems like a pretty nice spot. What's that, an hour or so from Milwaukee and 2.5 hours from Chicago? Long coastline, and fairly close to Green Bay? Just from looking at a map I'd say that looks like a pretty good place to live if you don't mind the cold.

 

[GOB]

I'm sorry if this formatting is #### but I swear I had seen Kratz before, and I'm not a victim of domestic abuse.

Then I remembered

https://www.google.com/search?q=paul+bearer&oq=paul+bea&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0j5j0.11174j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=RqP6o0NhM8bNpM%3A

 

[McGarnicle]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

I did some research on the family, and there's quite a bit of shenanigans between nieces and nephews etc. Truly this is where evil resides in comfort. This is a one-branch family tree. Let's cut this tree down imo.

Yeah, that's my hunch. But like, even Avery's GF who had the drinking problems was probably sporting an IQ in the 65-75 range. And many of those cops struck me as pretty dumb too. Do they not have schools there?

Reminded me of a place I once lived called Elkton, MD. :shudder:

 

[MattFancy]

Seth Meyers Expertly Spoofed ‘Making A Murderer’ For The Return Of ‘Late Night’

 

[Cjw_55106]

Seth Meyers Expertly Spoofed ‘Making A Murderer’ For The Return Of ‘Late Night’

Ha. That wasnt bad at all.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Seth Meyers Expertly Spoofed Making A Murderer For The Return Of Late Night

Ha. That wasnt bad at all.

So much material to make more. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Cjw_55106]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

I did some research on the family, and there's quite a bit of shenanigans between nieces and nephews etc. Truly this is where evil resides in comfort. This is a one-branch family tree. Let's cut this tree down imo.

Yeah, that's my hunch. But like, even Avery's GF who had the drinking problems was probably sporting an IQ in the 65-75 range. And many of those cops struck me as pretty dumb too. Do they not have schools there?

I'm pretty sure the mom was borderline genius.

I was referring to Avery's mom, but I think Brendan's mom was in the same lane.

They're no MC Gas Money.

Interestingly enough, Steve Avery is pretty much exactly how I pictured MC. Not the long bearded Avery, but the look he had at the trial. No idea why?

 

[cockroach]

How come so many of these people have IQs in the low 70s?

I did some research on the family, and there's quite a bit of shenanigans between nieces and nephews etc. Truly this is where evil resides in comfort. This is a one-branch family tree. Let's cut this tree down imo.

Yeah, that's my hunch. But like, even Avery's GF who had the drinking problems was probably sporting an IQ in the 65-75 range. And many of those cops struck me as pretty dumb too. Do they not have schools there?

I'm pretty sure the mom was borderline genius.

Invalid

 

[Gustavo Fring]

This may have already been mentioned, but I just finished the season and have not read the entire thread...there are multiple times where Detective Lenk's story was changed during the trial from his original statements made months earlier, so it would better fit with the prosecutor's timeline (e.g. the whole time log around the Rav 4 after discovery). Also, Coburn was still sniffing around evidence 4 months AFTER he was removed from the investigation for conflict of interest reasons.

How this does not scream reasonable doubt to the jury is beyond me, let alone, all of the other pieces of evidence that could be seen as reasonable doubt for Avery's case of innocence.

I have about a 25% gut feeling that he may have been guilty, as she was last saw on his property, but I also think evidence had to have been planted by the police to some degree. They search his trailer multiple times head to toe, and didn't find the key until like the 3rd day or something after already searching everything? Shady...

It was 7-4 in favor of not guilty when the jury first voted. The 4 were very stubborn and persuasive according to the dismissed juror.

This is what I want to know more about. How can the jury go from the majority saying he's not guilty, to a unanimous guilty? Just seems really odd.

Well, according to producers on the today show today (link upthread) one of the jurors feared for their personal safety if they didn't convict. Can't blame them with Lenk out there. He's stone cold.

I saw that earlier this morning. Honestly, wouldn't surprise me if true.

True, can't blame them for fearing for their lives, especially if it started out in a favor of not guilty by most of the jurors. Part of me feels everything was setup initially by the county for Avery to go down for this. Why pull a jury panel from Manitowoc County or another close county (not sure how that whole process works tbh), when it is a small town where everyone knows everybody (including the type of cop that Lenk is). While not everyone on the panel was biased, but even if a few are, it can completely sway an outcome of the decision, which appears is what happened here.

Strang said they decided not to move because the whole state was tainted. The fact that a Sheriff's father was on the jury would have been intimidated to somebody who feared the cops.

Wow, I missed that part in the show where a Sheriff's father was on the jury. No idea how that can be allowed given the cops where being questioned from his first rape allegation charge.

He tells the court that he can be "fair and impartial" then the defense attorneys don't have enough strikes to go around. Per their comments in the documentary it sounds like that was a nightmarish jury pool. Also, in general, there is always a handful of people on a jury panel who are either related to or close friends with cops. We can't just strike them all for cause as the rule requires that the court find that the individual juror can't be fair and impartial.

That would make sense then. I'm not even close to an expert on jury selection, so thanks for your insight on this. I could definitely understand if a jury member was related to a cop or close friends with a cop (and that be allowed), but when said cop is working in the same county where all of this went down, seems like it would bring an element of bias for that particular juror, even if he tells the court he will be fair and impartial.

 

[matttyl]

I believe the Dassey confession was months after the initial search when his cousin fingered him to the authorities.

I knew this family was weird, but damn.....

 

[Billy Bats]

Didn't they find remains in 3 locations?

From one of the links posted on page one or two of this thread, I read they found remains miles from the Avery compound.

 

[Zow]

This may have already been mentioned, but I just finished the season and have not read the entire thread...there are multiple times where Detective Lenk's story was changed during the trial from his original statements made months earlier, so it would better fit with the prosecutor's timeline (e.g. the whole time log around the Rav 4 after discovery). Also, Coburn was still sniffing around evidence 4 months AFTER he was removed from the investigation for conflict of interest reasons.

How this does not scream reasonable doubt to the jury is beyond me, let alone, all of the other pieces of evidence that could be seen as reasonable doubt for Avery's case of innocence.

I have about a 25% gut feeling that he may have been guilty, as she was last saw on his property, but I also think evidence had to have been planted by the police to some degree. They search his trailer multiple times head to toe, and didn't find the key until like the 3rd day or something after already searching everything? Shady...

It was 7-4 in favor of not guilty when the jury first voted. The 4 were very stubborn and persuasive according to the dismissed juror.

This is what I want to know more about. How can the jury go from the majority saying he's not guilty, to a unanimous guilty? Just seems really odd.

Well, according to producers on the today show today (link upthread) one of the jurors feared for their personal safety if they didn't convict. Can't blame them with Lenk out there. He's stone cold.

I saw that earlier this morning. Honestly, wouldn't surprise me if true.

True, can't blame them for fearing for their lives, especially if it started out in a favor of not guilty by most of the jurors. Part of me feels everything was setup initially by the county for Avery to go down for this. Why pull a jury panel from Manitowoc County or another close county (not sure how that whole process works tbh), when it is a small town where everyone knows everybody (including the type of cop that Lenk is). While not everyone on the panel was biased, but even if a few are, it can completely sway an outcome of the decision, which appears is what happened here.

Strang said they decided not to move because the whole state was tainted. The fact that a Sheriff's father was on the jury would have been intimidated to somebody who feared the cops.

Wow, I missed that part in the show where a Sheriff's father was on the jury. No idea how that can be allowed given the cops where being questioned from his first rape allegation charge.

He tells the court that he can be "fair and impartial" then the defense attorneys don't have enough strikes to go around. Per their comments in the documentary it sounds like that was a nightmarish jury pool. Also, in general, there is always a handful of people on a jury panel who are either related to or close friends with cops. We can't just strike them all for cause as the rule requires that the court find that the individual juror can't be fair and impartial.

That would make sense then. I'm not even close to an expert on jury selection, so thanks for your insight on this. I could definitely understand if a jury member was related to a cop or close friends with a cop (and that be allowed), but when said cop is working in the same county where all of this went down, seems like it would bring an element of bias for that particular juror, even if he tells the court he will be fair and impartial.

I can tell you as a defense attorney in a rural county I will often make this argument to try to get a strike for cause but, again, unless the facts are that the person cannot be fair and impartial (probably meaning that the cop was a testifying witness in the case) the judge is not going to strike him for cause. That said, it's perfectly fine then to use a peremptory strike on that juror (but, as we see in the case, a defendant only gets X amount of strikes and you're always going to want to strike x + y potential jurors so it puts you in a tough spot).

 

[Wrigley]

Didn't they find remains in 3 locations?

From one of the links posted on page one or two of this thread, I read they found remains miles from the Avery compound.

Why would SA burn the body 10 feet out his back door, and then move a small amount of the remains to two separate locations

Huh?

 

[ericttspikes]

It was kind of funny that the County dressed Avery in that old timey striped prison uniform that looked like the Monopoly Get Out Of Jail card guy.

 

[Billy Bats]

Thanks for answering my first question Woz. Got another one for you about the investigation. So Manitowoc prosecutors turn the investigation over to Calumet County. The two dopes from Calumet specifically state that the only involvement from Manitowoc County is to supply equipment needed onsite for the investigation. Three/four days into the property search, the crooked cops from Manitowoc who aren't supposed to be involved, suddenly find the car key. Wouldn't that be considered a tainted search/investigation and grounds for a mistrial? I haven't seen the trial episodes yet, but I'm hoping Avery's lawyers hammer that point home.

 

[matttyl]

Right. It is 4 days though. She went missing on Halloween. Parents reported her missing November 3. Per this

http://news.yahoo.com/steven-avery-5-things-know-220330109.html

Link doesn't have a timeline. I'm very interested in seeing a full timeline if anyone has one. What day was she last seen? When was she reported missing? When was that license plate call made? When did ex-bf (and brother?) get into her voicemail? When was the first search of the property? Yada yada....