Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (2 Viewers)

[Joe T]

I don't think it is all that crazy that somebody found a car in a junkyard full of cars that was hidden by a few logs. It's not like they found a Nazi train full of gold in a mountain.

HEY JIM, KNOW WHAT I FOUND IN A JUNK YARD?

NO, WHAT SAM?

A ####### CAR!!!!!!!!!!!

take another sip of your drink.

 

[General Malaise]

I don't think it is all that crazy that somebody found a car in a junkyard full of cars that was hidden by a few logs. It's not like they found a Nazi train full of gold in a mountain.

HEY JIM, KNOW WHAT I FOUND IN A JUNK YARD?

NO, WHAT SAM?

A ####### CAR!!!!!!!!!!!

take another sip of your drink.

Come on! That was funny!

Somebody was going to find that car eventually. And in that part of the earth, all those people are somewhat related. Of all the things I find suspicious, this just isn't one of them. Not exactly hide-and-seek experts here, JoeT.

 

[cockroach]

HEY JIM, KNOW WHAT I FOUND IN A JUNK YARD THIS HAYSTACK?

NO, WHAT SAM?

A ####### CAR NEEDLE!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a more apt analogy.

And the combination of them finding it SO quickly on a 40 acre lot and her over the top testimony and the odd call Colburn made... there's a stench there.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I think when I combine all the issues I have about the case, my gut tells me that Avery and Brendan should be released.

Here are some of the issues:

1. Coerced confession from Brendan

2. Lenk and Coburn finding any evidence at all; anything they found should be thrown out (which happens to be all of the key evidence)

3. Coburn calling in the license plate a day or two before the car is found

4. Weird Pam lady finding the vehicle within 10 minutes of being on the property

5. Both the brother and ex-boyfriend hacking into Teresa's voicemail

If there were just one or two things that couldn't be explained, I think I'd be okay with the verdict. But the evidence that is compromised or questionable is overwhelming.

Why do you say this? I know its popular opinion to say that they had substantial financial risk, but that simply isn't true for Lenk. Not even close.

1. He didnt even work at the department when avery was arrested in 1985.

2. The only thing that was proven for certain at all regarding him was that he told his subordinate in 2003 to write a report when the phone call from Brown County was brought to his attention. That report was confiscated by somebody else.

3. He was not a named party in the lawsuit. In fact as far as I know only Vogel and Kocourek were named.

Lenk and all of the Manitowoc county sherriffs had an obvious conflict of interest as was stated at the beginning of the investigation. His department was being sued even if it was not him directly.

Then why mention him specifically? Why not stick with the whole department?

You guys act like it was a guarantee that if Avery didn't get framed that the whole department was going up in flames. It wasn't even a guarantee he was going to win. Then not only does he have to win, you have to be correct that the insurance company wouldn't cover it which seems to be at least partially untrue since the insurance company paid the 400k settlement. Then the judgment has to be enough that it would bankrupt the whole county and taxpayers for it to then affect the individual employees.

I think the basis of the claim that the insurance company wouldn't pay is based off of a motion filed by Kocourek's homeowners insurance company to be dismissed and that they refused to pay.

Otherwise ask yourself where have you seen proof that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it?

 

[Joe T]

Then why mention him specifically? Why not stick with the whole department?

You guys act like it was a guarantee that if Avery didn't get framed that the whole department was going up in flames. It wasn't even a guarantee he was going to win. Then not only does he have to win, you have to be correct that the insurance company wouldn't cover it which seems to be at least partially untrue since the insurance company paid the 400k settlement. Then the judgment has to be enough that it would bankrupt the whole county and taxpayers for it to then affect the individual employees.

I think the basis of the claim that the insurance company wouldn't pay is based off of a motion filed by Kocourek's homeowners insurance company to be dismissed and that they refused to pay.

Otherwise ask yourself where have you seen proof that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it?

Because Lenk was involved in finding most of the questionable evidence.

Let me try to simplify this:

If I'm suing a company or gov't agency, I wouldn't want someone that works at the that company or government agency investigating me with free reign over my house and property. It is basic common sense. I'm suing their employer, their livelihood, their friends. There is a potential for bias that needs to be avoided.

In the Avery case, they tried to avoid any potential for bias by turning the case over to the neighboring county. Only, that didn't work because Lenk and Coburn found all of the critical evidence anyway. That is why anything they found is spoiled in my eyes. They should not have been anywhere near the crime scene to avoid their potential bias coming up later.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Then why mention him specifically? Why not stick with the whole department?

You guys act like it was a guarantee that if Avery didn't get framed that the whole department was going up in flames. It wasn't even a guarantee he was going to win. Then not only does he have to win, you have to be correct that the insurance company wouldn't cover it which seems to be at least partially untrue since the insurance company paid the 400k settlement. Then the judgment has to be enough that it would bankrupt the whole county and taxpayers for it to then affect the individual employees.

I think the basis of the claim that the insurance company wouldn't pay is based off of a motion filed by Kocourek's homeowners insurance company to be dismissed and that they refused to pay.

Otherwise ask yourself where have you seen proof that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it?

Because Lenk was involved in finding most of the questionable evidence.

Let me try to simplify this:

If I'm suing a company or gov't agency, I wouldn't want someone that works at the that company or government agency investigating me with free reign over my house and property. It is basic common sense. I'm suing their employer, their livelihood, their friends. There is a potential for bias that needs to be avoided.

In the Avery case, they tried to avoid any potential for bias by turning the case over to the neighboring county. Only, that didn't work because Lenk and Coburn found all of the critical evidence anyway. That is why anything they found is spoiled in my eyes. They should not have been anywhere near the crime scene to avoid their potential bias coming up later.

Then it should be easy to link to where there was proof that the department was liable and how it would affect their whole livelihood and their friends.

Let's say that you can't find that. Certainly there has to be one case that has occurred where the whole department lost their livelihood. Right?

I am actually seriously asking. I mean it seems like such a common thing that everybody just assumes is true, but it is one of the things in this case there hasn't been any documentation. Where did this incredibly widespread belief come from?

 

[cockroach]

3. Coburn calling in the license plate a day or two before the car is found

Now this one thing I don't think is that weird. I could think of reasonable reasons why he would. Maybe he was asked by a Calumet County officer to extend the BOLO to his county as well, and just wanted to verify he had the details right, so he called the dispatcher to confirm the plate.

What I thought, when I first saw that clip of testimony, was that it was unusual for him to already know the model year of the car on the phone call. If they were implying that he had found the car somewhere else, I don't see why he'd call in "Hey Dispatch, can you run a plate for me? 123XYZ? ...That comes back to a missing person, Theresa Halbach, right? 1999 Toyota Rav4?"

Him knowing the year of the car struck me as indicating that he wasn't just calling in some car he was looking at. That he was looking at a form or printout or something else instead... like he was filling out the BOLO request or something. I don't know how many cops call in the license plate, model, and year of a car, from sight.

Now, I'm not saying that it's not weird, but, to me, it's the least weird thing the cops did here. To me, it's got the most reasonable explanation: that he was filling out a form on a missing person case and was checking details. Not saying for sure that's what he was doing, but, it's not unusual to me, especially since somehow he knew the year of the car model.

Why then, in that sequence of events, did Colburn say on the stand that he didn't know the year... so they tell him he just said it, and he responds he didn't think it was him... so they play it back and it is him and he looks like he poops himself.

"...I should not have been and I wasn't looking at that license plate...."

With his body language and demeanor right there, I don't know how you can believe a word he's saying. There's no congruence between his words and his body language (saying Yes while shaking his head No for example... that's a sign of dishonesty)

Here's the sequence for reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uJq-YqxlmA

 

[Joe T]

Then why mention him specifically? Why not stick with the whole department?

You guys act like it was a guarantee that if Avery didn't get framed that the whole department was going up in flames. It wasn't even a guarantee he was going to win. Then not only does he have to win, you have to be correct that the insurance company wouldn't cover it which seems to be at least partially untrue since the insurance company paid the 400k settlement. Then the judgment has to be enough that it would bankrupt the whole county and taxpayers for it to then affect the individual employees.

I think the basis of the claim that the insurance company wouldn't pay is based off of a motion filed by Kocourek's homeowners insurance company to be dismissed and that they refused to pay.

Otherwise ask yourself where have you seen proof that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it?

Because Lenk was involved in finding most of the questionable evidence.

Let me try to simplify this:

If I'm suing a company or gov't agency, I wouldn't want someone that works at the that company or government agency investigating me with free reign over my house and property. It is basic common sense. I'm suing their employer, their livelihood, their friends. There is a potential for bias that needs to be avoided.

In the Avery case, they tried to avoid any potential for bias by turning the case over to the neighboring county. Only, that didn't work because Lenk and Coburn found all of the critical evidence anyway. That is why anything they found is spoiled in my eyes. They should not have been anywhere near the crime scene to avoid their potential bias coming up later.

Then it should be easy to link to where there was proof that the department was liable and how it would affect their whole livelihood and their friends.

Let's say that you can't find that. Certainly there has to be one case that has occurred where the whole department lost their livelihood. Right?

I am actually seriously asking. I mean it seems like such a common thing that everybody just assumes is true, but it is one of the things in this case there hasn't been any documentation. Where did this incredibly widespread belief come from?

I guess I'm not sure what you don't understand. There is a clear conflict of interest here that needed to be avoided.

Again, if I am suing a company or gov't agency, an employee of that company or gov't agency should not be allowed to investigate me due to any potential conflict of interest. Not sure how this is not clear.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Then why mention him specifically? Why not stick with the whole department?

You guys act like it was a guarantee that if Avery didn't get framed that the whole department was going up in flames. It wasn't even a guarantee he was going to win. Then not only does he have to win, you have to be correct that the insurance company wouldn't cover it which seems to be at least partially untrue since the insurance company paid the 400k settlement. Then the judgment has to be enough that it would bankrupt the whole county and taxpayers for it to then affect the individual employees.

I think the basis of the claim that the insurance company wouldn't pay is based off of a motion filed by Kocourek's homeowners insurance company to be dismissed and that they refused to pay.

Otherwise ask yourself where have you seen proof that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it?

Because Lenk was involved in finding most of the questionable evidence.

Let me try to simplify this:

If I'm suing a company or gov't agency, I wouldn't want someone that works at the that company or government agency investigating me with free reign over my house and property. It is basic common sense. I'm suing their employer, their livelihood, their friends. There is a potential for bias that needs to be avoided.

In the Avery case, they tried to avoid any potential for bias by turning the case over to the neighboring county. Only, that didn't work because Lenk and Coburn found all of the critical evidence anyway. That is why anything they found is spoiled in my eyes. They should not have been anywhere near the crime scene to avoid their potential bias coming up later.

Then it should be easy to link to where there was proof that the department was liable and how it would affect their whole livelihood and their friends.

Let's say that you can't find that. Certainly there has to be one case that has occurred where the whole department lost their livelihood. Right?

I am actually seriously asking. I mean it seems like such a common thing that everybody just assumes is true, but it is one of the things in this case there hasn't been any documentation. Where did this incredibly widespread belief come from?

I guess I'm not sure what you don't understand. There is a clear conflict of interest here that needed to be avoided.

Again, if I am suing a company or gov't agency, an employee of that company or gov't agency should not be allowed to investigate me due to any potential conflict of interest. Not sure how this is not clear.

My argument is the conflict of interest is overblown. I disagree that their livelihood was on the line. I could be wrong, but you said it was. I am asking where you got that from. Where are you getting that their livelihood and their friends were in any jeopardy. That is a pretty firm stance to make. I would think there would be at least one prior example of where that happened from a wrongful conviction or where there was documentation in this case that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it.

 

[shuke]

Then why mention him specifically? Why not stick with the whole department?

You guys act like it was a guarantee that if Avery didn't get framed that the whole department was going up in flames. It wasn't even a guarantee he was going to win. Then not only does he have to win, you have to be correct that the insurance company wouldn't cover it which seems to be at least partially untrue since the insurance company paid the 400k settlement. Then the judgment has to be enough that it would bankrupt the whole county and taxpayers for it to then affect the individual employees.

I think the basis of the claim that the insurance company wouldn't pay is based off of a motion filed by Kocourek's homeowners insurance company to be dismissed and that they refused to pay.

Otherwise ask yourself where have you seen proof that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it?

Because Lenk was involved in finding most of the questionable evidence.

Let me try to simplify this:

If I'm suing a company or gov't agency, I wouldn't want someone that works at the that company or government agency investigating me with free reign over my house and property. It is basic common sense. I'm suing their employer, their livelihood, their friends. There is a potential for bias that needs to be avoided.

In the Avery case, they tried to avoid any potential for bias by turning the case over to the neighboring county. Only, that didn't work because Lenk and Coburn found all of the critical evidence anyway. That is why anything they found is spoiled in my eyes. They should not have been anywhere near the crime scene to avoid their potential bias coming up later.

Totally agree that they should not have been doing the searches. It definitely is one of the things that raises doubt in my mind, but probably not enough to add up to reasonable doubt in face of all the evidence.

But I love how all of the physical evidence against Avery is "questionable" or "tainted". Yet Avery's attorneys never entered anything into court that was physical evidence of linking any of their suspects to the frame job. It's all conjecture.

 

[Joe T]

Then why mention him specifically? Why not stick with the whole department?

You guys act like it was a guarantee that if Avery didn't get framed that the whole department was going up in flames. It wasn't even a guarantee he was going to win. Then not only does he have to win, you have to be correct that the insurance company wouldn't cover it which seems to be at least partially untrue since the insurance company paid the 400k settlement. Then the judgment has to be enough that it would bankrupt the whole county and taxpayers for it to then affect the individual employees.

I think the basis of the claim that the insurance company wouldn't pay is based off of a motion filed by Kocourek's homeowners insurance company to be dismissed and that they refused to pay.

Otherwise ask yourself where have you seen proof that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it?

Because Lenk was involved in finding most of the questionable evidence.

Let me try to simplify this:

If I'm suing a company or gov't agency, I wouldn't want someone that works at the that company or government agency investigating me with free reign over my house and property. It is basic common sense. I'm suing their employer, their livelihood, their friends. There is a potential for bias that needs to be avoided.

In the Avery case, they tried to avoid any potential for bias by turning the case over to the neighboring county. Only, that didn't work because Lenk and Coburn found all of the critical evidence anyway. That is why anything they found is spoiled in my eyes. They should not have been anywhere near the crime scene to avoid their potential bias coming up later.

Totally agree that they should not have been doing the searches. It definitely is one of the things that raises doubt in my mind, but probably not enough to add up to reasonable doubt in face of all the evidence.

But I love how all of the physical evidence against Avery is "questionable" or "tainted". Yet Avery's attorneys never entered anything into court that was physical evidence of linking any of their suspects to the frame job. It's all conjecture.

My very limited understanding is they weren't allowed to.

Admittedly, I could be very wrong here having not seen this in a month or so.

 

[cockroach]

I dunno. I'm only talking about the recording of the phone call. I don't know what scenario the conspiracy theorists have in mind here that Coburn calls in the plate knowing the year. Do they think Coburn found the car days before the car was "found" in the junkyard, and knew the year of the car by looking at it?

I also don't know why the lawyer assumed he must have been looking at the plate to get the year information.

I'm fairly certain most cops can give you the year of just about every make/model of car within a 1-2 year window with a 90+% accuracy rate. Maybe even higher for Toyota/Honda/Ford/Chevy

 

[shuke]

It's not the defendant's job to either 1) prove their own innocence, and 2) provide the real perpetrator. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Totally understand. I'm talking about all the conspiracy theorists who are so easy to dismiss everything pointing to Avery but have not problem supporting wild claims without evidence.

 

[shuke]

Then why mention him specifically? Why not stick with the whole department?

You guys act like it was a guarantee that if Avery didn't get framed that the whole department was going up in flames. It wasn't even a guarantee he was going to win. Then not only does he have to win, you have to be correct that the insurance company wouldn't cover it which seems to be at least partially untrue since the insurance company paid the 400k settlement. Then the judgment has to be enough that it would bankrupt the whole county and taxpayers for it to then affect the individual employees.

I think the basis of the claim that the insurance company wouldn't pay is based off of a motion filed by Kocourek's homeowners insurance company to be dismissed and that they refused to pay.

Otherwise ask yourself where have you seen proof that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it?

Because Lenk was involved in finding most of the questionable evidence.

Let me try to simplify this:

If I'm suing a company or gov't agency, I wouldn't want someone that works at the that company or government agency investigating me with free reign over my house and property. It is basic common sense. I'm suing their employer, their livelihood, their friends. There is a potential for bias that needs to be avoided.

In the Avery case, they tried to avoid any potential for bias by turning the case over to the neighboring county. Only, that didn't work because Lenk and Coburn found all of the critical evidence anyway. That is why anything they found is spoiled in my eyes. They should not have been anywhere near the crime scene to avoid their potential bias coming up later.

Totally agree that they should not have been doing the searches. It definitely is one of the things that raises doubt in my mind, but probably not enough to add up to reasonable doubt in face of all the evidence.

But I love how all of the physical evidence against Avery is "questionable" or "tainted". Yet Avery's attorneys never entered anything into court that was physical evidence of linking any of their suspects to the frame job. It's all conjecture.

My very limited understanding is they weren't allowed to.

Admittedly, I could be very wrong here having not seen this in a month or so.

I believe they were not allowed to without any evidence, of which they had none.

 

[parasaurolophus]

My very limited understanding is they weren't allowed to.

Admittedly, I could be very wrong here having not seen this in a month or so.

I believe they were not allowed to without any evidence, of which they had none.

I believe in Wisconsin in order to introduce other suspects you have to have more proof than just that it was possible. You can't introduce a guy just because he knew her. You can't name a suspect just because they also had access to something.

Not positive on this one, but I think this is a universal Wisconsin procedure, not just one that was used in this case. Had they been able to introduce some evidence pointing to somebody else then they could have introduced it.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

It's not the defendant's job to either 1) prove their own innocence, and 2) provide the real perpetrator. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Totally understand. I'm talking about all the conspiracy theorists who are so easy to dismiss everything pointing to Avery but have not problem supporting wild claims without evidence.

To me, I think there is enough pointing at Avery that he should have been a suspect. But, there is so much stuff that appears to be questionable on the police/prosecution side. If there's a "yeah, I think Avery could have done it, but not the way the prosecution sold their case and not with some of the questionable actions of some of the cops" camp, I'm probably there. I don't think I could find him guilty as a juror without a reasonable doubt based on what we know at this point.

I also think Dassey's first lawyer and his PI are disgusting for their actions. In a film full of slimy people, they are the worst.

In any event, I don't think the intent of the filmmakers was to try the case in this doc

 

[SFBayDuck]

Then why mention him specifically? Why not stick with the whole department?

You guys act like it was a guarantee that if Avery didn't get framed that the whole department was going up in flames. It wasn't even a guarantee he was going to win. Then not only does he have to win, you have to be correct that the insurance company wouldn't cover it which seems to be at least partially untrue since the insurance company paid the 400k settlement. Then the judgment has to be enough that it would bankrupt the whole county and taxpayers for it to then affect the individual employees.

I think the basis of the claim that the insurance company wouldn't pay is based off of a motion filed by Kocourek's homeowners insurance company to be dismissed and that they refused to pay.

Otherwise ask yourself where have you seen proof that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it?

Because Lenk was involved in finding most of the questionable evidence.

Let me try to simplify this:

If I'm suing a company or gov't agency, I wouldn't want someone that works at the that company or government agency investigating me with free reign over my house and property. It is basic common sense. I'm suing their employer, their livelihood, their friends. There is a potential for bias that needs to be avoided.

In the Avery case, they tried to avoid any potential for bias by turning the case over to the neighboring county. Only, that didn't work because Lenk and Coburn found all of the critical evidence anyway. That is why anything they found is spoiled in my eyes. They should not have been anywhere near the crime scene to avoid their potential bias coming up later.

Then it should be easy to link to where there was proof that the department was liable and how it would affect their whole livelihood and their friends.

Let's say that you can't find that. Certainly there has to be one case that has occurred where the whole department lost their livelihood. Right?

I am actually seriously asking. I mean it seems like such a common thing that everybody just assumes is true, but it is one of the things in this case there hasn't been any documentation. Where did this incredibly widespread belief come from?

I guess I'm not sure what you don't understand. There is a clear conflict of interest here that needed to be avoided.

Again, if I am suing a company or gov't agency, an employee of that company or gov't agency should not be allowed to investigate me due to any potential conflict of interest. Not sure how this is not clear.

My argument is the conflict of interest is overblown. I disagree that their livelihood was on the line. I could be wrong, but you said it was. I am asking where you got that from. Where are you getting that their livelihood and their friends were in any jeopardy. That is a pretty firm stance to make. I would think there would be at least one prior example of where that happened from a wrongful conviction or where there was documentation in this case that the insurance company wouldn't have covered it.

Like many thoughts on both sides of all of these issues, you seem to be assuming rational behavior by all parties involved - that the individual police officers were analyzing the likelihood of the lawsuit affecting their livelihood, and that they would likely have come to the conclusion that it would not so they would having nothing to gain by framing S. Avery. But rational behavior just so often isn't the case in real life. I'd take Joe T's point a bit further in that we're talking about a small town sheriff's department, men who are not used to having their authority questioned. Police officers in general "protect their own" way more than just a normal employee does his coworkers or company. It's who they are, a way of life, not just a job, "a brotherhood", all that stuff.

Add all of that together and it leaves me with little doubt that a lawsuit questioning the department's motives, competency, etc would have those officers in a mindset to do damn near anything to make Avery go away.

Not saying that's what happened, but imho they had more than enough motivation to do so, and as such I agree that anything that came as a result of their participation in the investigation should absolutely be considered questionable at best and possibly tainted.

 

[Franknbeans]

To further that point, I thought the insurance company would not cover paying Avery for the first f up by the sheriffs dept so that the lawsuit could hold individuals liable for settlement. Unless I am misremembering that part.

 

[parasaurolophus]

To further that point, I thought the insurance company would not cover paying Avery for the first f up by the sheriffs dept so that the lawsuit could hold individuals liable for settlement. Unless I am misremembering that part.

This was put out there, but there is no documentation that I have seen and so far nobody has posted any. The insurance company paid the $400k settlement which seems to shoot that down.

Vogel and Kocourek were named in the suit so I could see that they could be held, but they weren't even with the department anymore.

This is kind of the point that I think Shuke was trying to make. Everything pro-avery is kind of just accepted. Everything anti-avery gets scrutinized to the Nth degree and pretty much discarded.

 

[Franknbeans]

For good reason since the department that botched the case the first time "found" the key evidence this time.

 

[shuke]

Like many thoughts on both sides of all of these issues, you seem to be assuming rational behavior by all parties involved - that the individual police officers were analyzing the likelihood of the lawsuit affecting their livelihood, and that they would likely have come to the conclusion that it would not so they would having nothing to gain by framing S. Avery. But rational behavior just so often isn't the case in real life. I'd take Joe T's point a bit further in that we're talking about a small town sheriff's department, men who are not used to having their authority questioned. Police officers in general "protect their own" way more than just a normal employee does his coworkers or company. It's who they are, a way of life, not just a job, "a brotherhood", all that stuff.

Add all of that together and it leaves me with little doubt that a lawsuit questioning the department's motives, competency, etc would have those officers in a mindset to do damn near anything to make Avery go away.

Not saying that's what happened, but imho they had more than enough motivation to do so, and as such I agree that anything that came as a result of their participation in the investigation should absolutely be considered questionable at best and possibly tainted.

That's fair. But then in the same vein, we should stop questioning why Avery would commit this act when he was facing a huge payout from his civil case.

 

[eoMMan]

Hey Dorks, turn on NBC now....Dateline talking about it.

 

[shuke]

For good reason since the department that botched the case the first time "found" the key evidence this time.

Did the Manitowac county police department find the cremains of Teresa Halbach on Avery's property and her car with her and Avery's blood in it on his property?

 

[shuke]

Hey Dorks, turn on NBC now....Dateline talking about it.

And sit through commercial?

 

[The Gator]

For good reason since the department that botched the case the first time "found" the key evidence this time.

Did the Manitowac county police department find the cremains of Teresa Halbach on Avery's property and her car with her and Avery's blood in it on his property?

Yes, Lenk did

 

[SFBayDuck]

Like many thoughts on both sides of all of these issues, you seem to be assuming rational behavior by all parties involved - that the individual police officers were analyzing the likelihood of the lawsuit affecting their livelihood, and that they would likely have come to the conclusion that it would not so they would having nothing to gain by framing S. Avery. But rational behavior just so often isn't the case in real life. I'd take Joe T's point a bit further in that we're talking about a small town sheriff's department, men who are not used to having their authority questioned. Police officers in general "protect their own" way more than just a normal employee does his coworkers or company. It's who they are, a way of life, not just a job, "a brotherhood", all that stuff.

Add all of that together and it leaves me with little doubt that a lawsuit questioning the department's motives, competency, etc would have those officers in a mindset to do damn near anything to make Avery go away.

Not saying that's what happened, but imho they had more than enough motivation to do so, and as such I agree that anything that came as a result of their participation in the investigation should absolutely be considered questionable at best and possibly tainted.

That's fair. But then in the same vein, we should stop questioning why Avery would commit this act when he was facing a huge payout from his civil case.

Totally agree. I think he probably did it. I also think the police likely tampered and probably straight up planted evidence.

Based upon what I've seen I also have reasonable doubt that he did it. But we as viewers and now over-analyzers of every aspect of this story have way more information than the jury had.

 

[Joe T]

Update from the dateline show:

Kratz is still a giant slimeball.

 

[Das Boot]

Update from the dateline show:

Kratz is still a giant slimeball.

But, but... he admits that he used to be a jerk.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Update from the dateline show:

Kratz is still a giant slimeball.

But, but... he admits that he used to be a jerk.

I am not sure who it was more painful to watch, Kratz or Zellner.

His voice is so strange. Her face looks like Mickey Rourke mated with Lauren Graham and had a stroke.

 

[shuke]

Haven't watched dateline yet. Same stuff we've been talking about in here? There's another special tonight on Investigational Discovery.

 

[shuke]

For good reason since the department that botched the case the first time "found" the key evidence this time.

Did the Manitowac county police department find the cremains of Teresa Halbach on Avery's property and her car with her and Avery's blood in it on his property?

Yes, Lenk did

Lenk did not find her car on his property.

Was he the first one to investigate inside of car?

 

[shuke]

Haven't watched dateline yet. Same stuff we've been talking about in here? There's another special tonight on Investigational Discovery.

Just watched both. Waste of time.

 

[The Gator]

For good reason since the department that botched the case the first time "found" the key evidence this time.

Did the Manitowac county police department find the cremains of Teresa Halbach on Avery's property and her car with her and Avery's blood in it on his property?

Yes, Lenk did

Lenk did not find her car on his property.

That's not what his call into dispatch before the car was officially found leads me to believe.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think it was Colbourn.

 

[The Gator]

Oops, yeah...that guy

 

[Mr. Pickles]

So shady.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

You don't care that someone might go to prison for life even though no one knows if he is guilty? Because of your opinion of Avery as a person?

Isn't that really supposed to be the moral of this whole thing, that everyone deserves the right to a fair judicial process, regardless of personal opinions about them?

 

[Politician Spock]

Interview with Jodi (does not involve Nancy Grace).

Thanks for sharing this. If everyone watches this I have a strong feeling this thread will turn to..... :crickets:

Still waiting for these reports of abuse to be linked

I guess you'll keep waiting. Are you under the impression that anyone is obligated to do your homework for you? Further, are you implying that the HLN just made it up that they confirmed that these police reports exist?

Do I think Avery is guilty? I don't know. None of us will ever know. Am I going to lose sleep knowing Avery is in prison? Not a wink. The Brendan trial bothers me a bit, but I'm not going to write any letters or make any phone calls because of what I saw in the documentary. They showed us a biased account of what happened IMO.

You don't care that someone might go to prison for life even though no one knows if he is guilty? Because of your opinion of Avery as a person?

Isn't that really supposed to be the moral of this whole thing, that everyone deserves the right to a fair judicial process, regardless of personal opinions about them?

Can you imagine people getting banned from this website even though no one knows if they're guilty?

 

[Wrigley]

Wife watches a crap load of these kind of shows.

His new attorney is kind of a bad ###

 

[parasaurolophus]

As if this case couldnt get any weirder but wtf is going on now with this Zellner lady saying that she had 7 tweets mysteriously deleted?

 

[MattFancy]

Both the Dateline and ID stories didn't tell us anything we hadn't already discussed in here.

What still sticks out the most to me in all of this, is why they never found any of Avery's fingerprints anywhere. Every time they find something, it's always his DNA. Keys? DNA. Hood latch? DNA. Inside the car? DNA. There's not one mention of his fingerprints being anywhere. If he was wearing gloves, then how did a cut from his finger provide all the blood we see in the car? If we're assuming he cleaned up all the fingerprints, then why leave his blood? It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[shuke]

Both the Dateline and ID stories didn't tell us anything we hadn't already discussed in here.

What still sticks out the most to me in all of this, is why they never found any of Avery's fingerprints anywhere. Every time they find something, it's always his DNA. Keys? DNA. Hood latch? DNA. Inside the car? DNA. There's not one mention of his fingerprints being anywhere. If he was wearing gloves, then how did a cut from his finger provide all the blood we see in the car? If we're assuming he cleaned up all the fingerprints, then why leave his blood? It just doesn't make sense to me.

As for the blood in the car, depends on what kind of gloves he had on and how bad the cut was bleeding.

The bigger mystery is the key. It's possible that he could have scrubbed the key clean, removing all fingerprints and DNA (including Teresa's). I think Kratz said that while doing so, a drop of sweat could have landed on there. But sweat doesn't carry DNA, and I know Zellner is making a big deal about this. But it can carry skin cells, which carry DNA. However, why would someone go to all the effort of scrubbing a key clean only to hide it behind a cabinet in his own bedroom?

 

[MattFancy]

Both the Dateline and ID stories didn't tell us anything we hadn't already discussed in here.

What still sticks out the most to me in all of this, is why they never found any of Avery's fingerprints anywhere. Every time they find something, it's always his DNA. Keys? DNA. Hood latch? DNA. Inside the car? DNA. There's not one mention of his fingerprints being anywhere. If he was wearing gloves, then how did a cut from his finger provide all the blood we see in the car? If we're assuming he cleaned up all the fingerprints, then why leave his blood? It just doesn't make sense to me.

As for the blood in the car, depends on what kind of gloves he had on and how bad the cut was bleeding.

The bigger mystery is the key. It's possible that he could have scrubbed the key clean, removing all fingerprints and DNA (including Teresa's). I think Kratz said that while doing so, a drop of sweat could have landed on there. But sweat doesn't carry DNA, and I know Zellner is making a big deal about this. But it can carry skin cells, which carry DNA. However, why would someone go to all the effort of scrubbing a key clean only to hide it behind a cabinet in his own bedroom?

How much does Avery sweat? Kratz must think he sweats a ton.

The key is a good point. Why not just put it back in the car or even burn it? Nah. I'll just hide it here in this night stand. No one will find it. Makes no sense.

And also, it seems like the hole at the top of the blood vile is explained. But, why was the seal broken? I haven't figured that one out.

 

[Don't Noonan]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

 

[MattFancy]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

 

[General Malaise]

Haven't watched dateline yet. Same stuff we've been talking about in here? There's another special tonight on Investigational Discovery.

Watched it last night. It was a waste of an hour. Just recapped what we knew, focused in on the blood a little more, introduced his new lawyer (who I'm sure he's sleeping with). At one point, Dateline patted themselves on the back for reporting on this case years ago. Really dumb show.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

I'm back to the transcripts, and in looking at the defense's opening statements, he mentions a smelter on the property. I had not read about this anywhere else previously, but found it interesting.

You are going to find out that

4 there are better places, even on the Avery

5 salvage yard property, in which to incinerate a

6 body. The burn area is relatively flat and

7 scooped out a little bit, but it's relatively

8 flat and open. It's a burn area, like many farms

9 or rural homes have, just folks have burn

10 barrels.

11 It doesn't have well developed sides to

12 focus heat back inward on the fuel or things

13 being burned. Neither does it have a ready

14 external source of fuel. But the aluminum

15 smelter, the aluminum smelter at the Avery Auto

16 Salvage property does. Big propane jets, an

17 enclosed area, it will take an aluminum

18 transmission down to liquid in a few minutes.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I'm back to the transcripts, and in looking at the defense's opening statements, he mentions a smelter on the property. I had not read about this anywhere else previously, but found it interesting.

You are going to find out that

4 there are better places, even on the Avery

5 salvage yard property, in which to incinerate a

6 body. The burn area is relatively flat and

7 scooped out a little bit, but it's relatively

8 flat and open. It's a burn area, like many farms

9 or rural homes have, just folks have burn

10 barrels.

11 It doesn't have well developed sides to

12 focus heat back inward on the fuel or things

13 being burned. Neither does it have a ready

14 external source of fuel. But the aluminum

15 smelter, the aluminum smelter at the Avery Auto

16 Salvage property does. Big propane jets, an

17 enclosed area, it will take an aluminum

18 transmission down to liquid in a few minutes.

How do you think a smelter works?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

there was three appointments made for TH that day, the police say that SA was the last but what about if it wasn't her last, she goes to I forget their name( in the transcripts they cross examined the wife who made the appointment name ends in erer.) but the husband put a bullet in TH head for trespassing cause he was a weed grower,(by the way father and son both had police records) shoved her body in the back of a her vehicle then put it in a field somewhere, where officer Colburn then finds and calls with his cell the license plate. So they have the body they just need to frame SA which they did.

You've hit upon another very interesting Reddit theory/possibility that I just read last night regarding her order of visits, the thread in the link has more discussion regarding some of the strengths and weaknesses of this line of thinking:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/42e9ff/who_really_saw_teresa_halbach_last_evidence_that/

Who Really Saw Teresa Halbach Last? Evidence That It May Not Have Been Steven Avery self.MakingaMurderer

Submitted 1 day ago * by CarlCarpenter

I was going over a timeline for October 31st and going over official records to verify times and I noticed something.

Looking at the times, I think that Teresa went to the Avery’s BEFORE going to the Zipperer photo shoot.

Here's Why...

Teresa leaves Steven Schmitz’s residence in New Holstein around 1:40 PM (about 10 minutes after arriving at 1:30). She’s on her way to take pictures at both Geroge Zipperer’s residence and at the Avery Salvage yard. She’s taken pictures at the Avery’s many times before and is familiar with the place.

Here's A Map ==>> http://i.imgur.com/DnthYIX.png

On her way there (at 2:12 PM) she calls the Zipperer’s and leaves a message that she can’t find their house and is running late.

Steven Avery calls her at (at 2:24 PM) and leaves a 7 second message.

Teresa would probably be going North on Highway B at this time around 10 minutes away from the Avery’s. She probably makes the decision to by-pass the Zipperer’s home and head straight for the Avery’s.

She knows exactly where it is and knows she can knock the photo out fast because the Avery’s know the procedure. And the Zipperer’s house is on her way back home.

Plus, the Avery’s are bigger clients and they have started calling because she’s late. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

She’s already told the Zipperer’s that she’s running late so a few extra minutes won’t matter much.

She calls the Auto Trader (at 2:27 PM) and tells them that she’s going to the Avery’s. This is just 3 minutes after Steve has called her.

Steven calls Teresa again (at 2:35 PM) but she doesn’t pick up. In fact it doesn’t even go to voicemail probably because she’s pulling in the driveway at that time.

Since Steve has been calling her every 10 minutes, why would he have stopped unless she showed up? If she had gone to the Zipperer’s first then Steven would have kept calling.

Bobby Dassey also says he woke up between 2:00 and 2:30 and when he looked out his window before taking a shower he saw Teresa taking pictures.

Teresa spends 10 to 15 minutes taking pictures, and leaves. This would place her at the Zipperer’s around 3:00 PM, which is the time JoEllen Zipperer testifies she thinks Teresa arrives. She does say that it was mid-afternoon and 3:00 is her best guess but it could even be as late as 3:30 “or even a little later”.

This means that a witness places Teresa at the Avery’s home at just after 2:35 PM and then another witness places her at her next assignment at around 3:00 PM. This makes you wonder… Was Steven Avery the Last Known Person To See Teresa Alive?

Kratz did a good job on re-cross and got JoEllen Zipperer to say maybe 2:00 to 2:30.

To make this timeline even more interesting…

JoEllen Zipperer testified that she never saw Teresa leave.

Her adult grandson lives with her.

Corporal Lemieux from Calumet County Sheriff's Department called George Zipperer (JoEllen Zipperer’s Husband) at 5:00 PM on 11/3/05 and he became "belligerent".

Investigator John Dedering of the Calumet County Sheriff's Department called George Zipperer at 9:4:00 PM on 11/3/05 and George was "extremely belligerent".

And then in the court transcripts Strang says”

George Zipperer told, first, Corporal Lemieux and, then, Investigator Dedering, a series of lies about his own activities; about Jason's activities; about whether the Auto Trader photographer was a trespasser on the property. Threatened to have the dog eat anyone who would come on the property; wanting Teresa Halbach arrested even after being told that she was a missing person; denying that he had contacted Auto Trader or arranged for photographs of the car.

And yet this was NEVER investigated.

To Summerize:

Bobby Dassey Testifies Teresa arrived at Avery Salvage at a little after 2:30 PM

JoEllen Zipperer Testifies Teresa Was At Her Home Around 3:00 PM

JoEllen Testifies She Never Saw Teresa Leave

George Zipperer Says He Never Asked AutoTrader To Send A Photographer

George Zipperer Becomes Beligereint With Police When Asked About Teresa

George Zipperer Lied To Police About Circumstances Around The Time Teresa Disappears

but the bus driver testified that she saw theresa at avery's at 3:40.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

it's almost pointless to speculate.

Then why are we even in this thread?

True. Everybody has a line they draw between what's meaningful and pointless though.

You normally apply straightforward logic to your opinions and I agree with most of them on other topics. I'm not sure why you feel pretty strongly that SA did it other than you disagree with some of the things that say he didn't do it. What do you consider the strongest evidence against Steven that makes you feel he did it?

Number one reason, ballistics report showing bullet with Halbach DNA came from Avery's rifle.

All of the physical evidence that matches up with Dassey's first confession, some of which was purposely left out of the documentary.

Avery's DNA found in the Rav 4.

Avery's DNA found on the key.

For the umpteenth time, I am not sure the case presented enough to convict. The story was sensational. Kratz is a sleazeball. Colburn and Lenk seem shady. Kachinski came off as the most incompetent POS ever, but probably in his heart felt he was doing the right thing for his client, based on the client's confession and the physical evidence.

I am just asking people to admit that the documentary is extremely biased.

That vial of blood with the puncture hole?

Strang and/or Buting said later as they came up on the trial (or after the trial) that it turned out that the blood vial was not such a great piece of evidence in their favor.