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

[Binky The Doormat]

They found the key on the 8th search but the first Lenk was present for I believe.

Just finished the series and am way behind on this thread. But this is incorrect.

Lenk found the key on I think the second or third time thru. It definitely wasn't the first because the defense set it up but qquestioning the other deputy tasked with watching Lenk.

Then they questioned a different deputy for the search when the key was found and he said it was possible that the key was planted by Lenk in the sense that it is possible aliens planted the key.

yeah and the defense attorney nailed him on that ridiculous statement.

 

[Sabertooth]

If that is the case, why did she go at all. Also one would think her family could have filed a wrongful death suit against Auto Trader.

She probably didn't think she was going to get murdered. As far as a suit, that isn't really at the forefront of most people's minds. Not sure why it is one of the first things you would think of.

Notice the date. http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2015/06/16/teresa-halbach-family-drops-wrongful-death-lawsuit/28816579/

 

[Sabertooth]

They found the key on the 8th search but the first Lenk was present for I believe.

Just finished the series and am way behind on this thread. But this is incorrect.

Lenk found the key on I think the second or third time thru. It definitely wasn't the first because the defense set it up but qquestioning the other deputy tasked with watching Lenk.

Then they questioned a different deputy for the search when the key was found and he said it was possible that the key was planted by Lenk in the sense that it is possible aliens planted the key.

Perhaps it was the 8th day or something?

 

[simey]

They found the key on the 8th search but the first Lenk was present for I believe.

Just finished the series and am way behind on this thread. But this is incorrect.

Lenk found the key on I think the second or third time thru. It definitely wasn't the first because the defense set it up but qquestioning the other deputy tasked with watching Lenk.

The key was found on the 7th search, and it was the first time Lenk was present during the search.

 

[gianmarco]

They found the key on the 8th search but the first Lenk was present for I believe.

Just finished the series and am way behind on this thread. But this is incorrect.Lenk found the key on I think the second or third time thru. It definitely wasn't the first because the defense set it up but qquestioning the other deputy tasked with watching Lenk.

The key was found on the 7th search, and it was the first time Lenk was present during the search.

No, Lenk had been there earlier but it was the first time he wasn't specifically being watched like the first 2-3 days.

 

[parasaurolophus]

If that is the case, why did she go at all. Also one would think her family could have filed a wrongful death suit against Auto Trader.

She probably didn't think she was going to get murdered. As far as a suit, that isn't really at the forefront of most people's minds. Not sure why it is one of the first things you would think of.

Notice the date. http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2015/06/16/teresa-halbach-family-drops-wrongful-death-lawsuit/28816579/

That's not a suit against autotrader.

 

[Sabertooth]

No, but they are pursuing wrongful death. Or were anyway. You asked why it came to my mind. That's why.

 

[Sabertooth]

Lenk is bad.

 

[SIDA!]

Omg end of episode 4 with the tampered blood evidence. This is insane. I feel bad for that kid who's clearly slow and nobody seems to realize. I'll bow out of this thread until I catch up.

On the blood vial; several Redditors have said that those types of vials are filled by puncturing the top. https://youtu.be/-XxiRSf6n8Q?t=3m39s

The seal was broken, so it's definitely possible that blood was drawn out through that hole, but evidently the hole being there is just SOP.

It was clearly stated that the company that handled this blood did not do that nor was that their protocol.

 

[SIDA!]

There really is no legitimate explanation as to how the key was not noticed earlier. I am 100% convinced it was planted, and on that belief alone, he should be retried in my opinion. He may still be guilty, but planting evidence can never be acceptable.

I am of this mindset as well. There is no doubt in my mind that the key was planted. But I take it one step further and believe any time a defendant has evidence planted then they should automatically very off without a retrial.

Planted evidence and corruption can not be tolerated under any circumstances and several of these civil servants should be in prison.

 

[Das Boot]

I just finished this today, I watched it over a few days and avoided this thread until I completed it.

I'm still kind of in shock at the way things ended up.

I'm looking forward to reading through this thread to see everyone's thoughts and comments.

The failure and corruption of the judicial process angered and sickened me.

 

[SIDA!]

Finally finished this.

Honestly, if I was on the jury and knew only what they knew, I would have convicted Brendan too. His repudiation of his confession didn't seem credible even in the sympathetic documentary, and the fact that he's creepy as hell makes the whole rape/murder story more believable. I still think his confession is one of the more stomach-turning things I've seen though, but of course the jury didn't get to see all of that.

Not sure why you are giving the jury an out here.

They knew based on the evidence (lack of it) that none of it corroborated the confession.

I am supposed to believe that this kid sliced her neck on a bed where she was also supposedly already stabbed and there is absolutely no blood on the mattress?

Other than his confession(s) which were clearly forced/suggested, what evidence did the jury have linking him to the murder?

 

[MattFancy]

Things that still don't make sense to me:

1) Why is there none of Halbach's DNA anywhere but her car? You're telling me Steven and Brendan were smart enough to scrub down everything in the house and garage with bleach? Also, if the key was Halbach's, why wasn't her DNA found on the key? Does she always wear gloves when she drives?

2) The open vial of blood is just way too nuts in this case. I would have loved to hear an explanation on why the box was opened and why there was a pin hole in the vial. I don't recall anyone from the police side of things explaining why that happened.

3) The way they found the car was just way too suspicious. And why would Steven have left it on his property? And also, if he did, did he really think a little piece of plywood on top would hide it? And why not use the car compactor that was on the property? You're telling me he's smart enough to scrub away all her DNA from his house/garage, but not smart enough to use the car compactor to destroy her car?

4) If Kachinsky is still practicing law, that is an embarrassment to all lawyers in this country.

5) How was Steven guilty of 1st degree murder, but not guilty of mutilating the body? That doesn't make sense to me. Yet, Brendan was found guilty of mutilating the body.

 

[avoiding injuries]

The only motive I saw was for the cops to make sure Avery was convicted of this crime.

Those cops have to be feeling some heat since this documentary came out.

 

[identikit]

Sorry if this has been posted already,

In the interest of having a more complete picture of things:

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

 

[Max Power]

Sorry if this has been posted already,

In the interest of having a more complete picture of things:

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

I think points 4 and 7 are worth talking about. The other 10 points are range from interesting to garbage and not worthy of making the documentary's final cut.

Answering the door in a towel, owning dirty magazines, using *67... I've done all of these...

As to point 7. I believe the judge ruled that evidence or testimony was inadmissible in court. I could be wrong here though. This evidence would go a lot further if there were names attached.

 

[avoiding injuries]

The only gratification for me came in episode 10 when Kratz got the boot for sexual harassment.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Things that still don't make sense to me:

1) Why is there none of Halbach's DNA anywhere but her car? You're telling me Steven and Brendan were smart enough to scrub down everything in the house and garage with bleach? Also, if the key was Halbach's, why wasn't her DNA found on the key? Does she always wear gloves when she drives?

2) The open vial of blood is just way too nuts in this case. I would have loved to hear an explanation on why the box was opened and why there was a pin hole in the vial. I don't recall anyone from the police side of things explaining why that happened.

3) The way they found the car was just way too suspicious. And why would Steven have left it on his property? And also, if he did, did he really think a little piece of plywood on top would hide it? And why not use the car compactor that was on the property? You're telling me he's smart enough to scrub away all her DNA from his house/garage, but not smart enough to use the car compactor to destroy her car?

4) If Kachinsky is still practicing law, that is an embarrassment to all lawyers in this country.

5) How was Steven guilty of 1st degree murder, but not guilty of mutilating the body? That doesn't make sense to me. Yet, Brendan was found guilty of mutilating the body.

Kachinsky is a part time judge now, elected. On his linkedin page.

Also, Kratz changed how Teresa died to fit each case which is also why he didn't call Brenden against Steven. Total fraud.

 

[MattFancy]

Things that still don't make sense to me:

1) Why is there none of Halbach's DNA anywhere but her car? You're telling me Steven and Brendan were smart enough to scrub down everything in the house and garage with bleach? Also, if the key was Halbach's, why wasn't her DNA found on the key? Does she always wear gloves when she drives?

2) The open vial of blood is just way too nuts in this case. I would have loved to hear an explanation on why the box was opened and why there was a pin hole in the vial. I don't recall anyone from the police side of things explaining why that happened.

3) The way they found the car was just way too suspicious. And why would Steven have left it on his property? And also, if he did, did he really think a little piece of plywood on top would hide it? And why not use the car compactor that was on the property? You're telling me he's smart enough to scrub away all her DNA from his house/garage, but not smart enough to use the car compactor to destroy her car?

4) If Kachinsky is still practicing law, that is an embarrassment to all lawyers in this country.

5) How was Steven guilty of 1st degree murder, but not guilty of mutilating the body? That doesn't make sense to me. Yet, Brendan was found guilty of mutilating the body.

Kachinsky is a part time judge now, elected. On his linkedin page.

Holy hell

 

[GOB]

Can we all agree that the Averys are amongst the most handsome individuals in Wisconsin?

Also, when is Wrestlemania? That poor kid.

 

[matttyl]

Got through the entire series over the extended weekend. Had no idea what it was during the first episode as the wife just had it on one evening. I thought it was another of her shows that she just has on in the background while doing other stuff. Really sucked me in. Had no knowledge of the cases going in - and no idea of the ultimate decision of the juries. Very well put together documentary, but also definitely slanted one way. I think evidence was definitely planted, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Can't get over the blood sample being tampered with somehow, or the license plate phone call. Would not have voted guilt for either if on jury - way too many outstanding questions left unanswered.

 

[matttyl]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

 

[SIDA!]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

Not a DNA expert...but she would have left her DNA at her home/apartment and other places and I am sure they would just compare that profile with the profiles found at the scene(s) of the Avery compound.

 

[matttyl]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

Not a DNA expert...but she would have left her DNA at her home/apartment and other places and I am sure they would just compare that profile with the profiles found at the scene(s) of the Avery compound.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks. You'd think she'd have left her DNA on her car key, but apparently didn't.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

Not a DNA expert...but she would have left her DNA at her home/apartment and other places and I am sure they would just compare that profile with the profiles found at the scene(s) of the Avery compound.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks. You'd think she'd have left her DNA on her car key, but apparently didn't.

In fairness, the car key was a special receptacle that only held onto one person's DNA.

 

[McGarnicle]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

Not a DNA expert...but she would have left her DNA at her home/apartment and other places and I am sure they would just compare that profile with the profiles found at the scene(s) of the Avery compound.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks. You'd think she'd have left her DNA on her car key, but apparently didn't.

The sheriffs scrubbed the key & fob to remove their DNA before planting Avery's DNA, and in the process removed Halbach's DNA.

 

[SIDA!]

I wanted to revisit something that I feel needs to be expanded upon and that is the civil lawsuit against Manitowoc County and certain individuals.

Insurers for the county basically said...you guys are on your own.

This essentially meant that the taxpayers would be on the hook for any judgment. The documentary said that the individuals were also personally liable...but I honestly don't know if that is really true (in the sense of whether they would have ever collected any money or if that would have held up). I have never heard of a government employee being personally liable other than for financial fraud crimes...but I am not an expert in this area and I am sure others may have more knowledge on this subject.

Regardless, were Avery to win a civil lawsuit against the county and those individuals...the ramifications of that would have been HUGE.

First and foremost, the individuals would have basically had their career ended. Even if they would have never had to pay any damages themselves, they were going to be harmed financially one way or the other.

Thus, there was huge motivation to undermine the suit/screw over Avery.

Secondarily, Manitowoc isn't a huge county. I have no idea what their budget was then nor do I care to look it up, but it is apparently around 60 million a year today. A large monetary award greater than $10 million would have been damaging. Not only would the taxpayers have had to cough up the money they would have had to have done so via the reduction in services or higher taxes to get those funds.

In addition to all of this, it is quite possible that taxpayers would have clamored for the dismantling of the district attorney's office or sheriff department. I don't know Wisconsin at all...but it is not uncommon for jurisdictions to eliminate their departments and outsource them to other agencies for a variety of reasons...usually budgetary costs are a primary driver in that it is viewed as being cheaper for a city to have the county patrol it, etc.

Not sure if a county can be combined with another county...or how that works constitutionally in Wisconsin...but the voters would have been pissed.

So...when you factor in the ending of careers, political careers, financial ramifications from lawsuits and loss of jobs, and the potential for completely eliminating the existence of agencies, etc....there is a tremendous amount of incentive and motivation to prevent that all from happening.

What I didn't understand based on the documentary however, is why did the depositions in the civil case stop so abruptly. I understand the murder case was huge...but the civil case was entirely independent of that situation (in the sense that the murder case had no bearing on the facts/merits of the wrongful imprisonment).

Maybe I missed something in the documentary...but if any of you have any insights on that I would appreciate hearing it. It really pisses me off that the guy didn't get a chance to depo the other scumbags in the department who were scheduled to appear after the disappearance/murder of Teresa.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

Not a DNA expert...but she would have left her DNA at her home/apartment and other places and I am sure they would just compare that profile with the profiles found at the scene(s) of the Avery compound.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks. You'd think she'd have left her DNA on her car key, but apparently didn't.

The sheriffs scrubbed the key & fob to remove their DNA before planting Avery's DNA, and in the process removed Halbach's DNA.

So much for my theory.

 

[SIDA!]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

Not a DNA expert...but she would have left her DNA at her home/apartment and other places and I am sure they would just compare that profile with the profiles found at the scene(s) of the Avery compound.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks. You'd think she'd have left her DNA on her car key, but apparently didn't.

You would think. And that is why I and I am sure many others believes the key was planted.

It is illogical to me to think that only one person's DNA would be on the key...that she never coughed on it or sneezed on it or near it in all the years she had her vehicle. I mean...a DNA expert can "mentor/talk" to other new trainees while doing a test on the most important case in the county and still get her DNA profile in the blood sample....

 

[Cjw_55106]

I wanted to revisit something that I feel needs to be expanded upon and that is the civil lawsuit against Manitowoc County and certain individuals.

Insurers for the county basically said...you guys are on your own.

This essentially meant that the taxpayers would be on the hook for any judgment. The documentary said that the individuals were also personally liable...but I honestly don't know if that is really true (in the sense of whether they would have ever collected any money or if that would have held up). I have never heard of a government employee being personally liable other than for financial fraud crimes...but I am not an expert in this area and I am sure others may have more knowledge on this subject.

Regardless, were Avery to win a civil lawsuit against the county and those individuals...the ramifications of that would have been HUGE.

First and foremost, the individuals would have basically had their career ended. Even if they would have never had to pay any damages themselves, they were going to be harmed financially one way or the other.

Thus, there was huge motivation to undermine the suit/screw over Avery.

Secondarily, Manitowoc isn't a huge county. I have no idea what their budget was then nor do I care to look it up, but it is apparently around 60 million a year today. A large monetary award greater than $10 million would have been damaging. Not only would the taxpayers have had to cough up the money they would have had to have done so via the reduction in services or higher taxes to get those funds.

In addition to all of this, it is quite possible that taxpayers would have clamored for the dismantling of the district attorney's office or sheriff department. I don't know Wisconsin at all...but it is not uncommon for jurisdictions to eliminate their departments and outsource them to other agencies for a variety of reasons...usually budgetary costs are a primary driver in that it is viewed as being cheaper for a city to have the county patrol it, etc.

Not sure if a county can be combined with another county...or how that works constitutionally in Wisconsin...but the voters would have been pissed.

So...when you factor in the ending of careers, political careers, financial ramifications from lawsuits and loss of jobs, and the potential for completely eliminating the existence of agencies, etc....there is a tremendous amount of incentive and motivation to prevent that all from happening.

What I didn't understand based on the documentary however, is why did the depositions in the civil case stop so abruptly. I understand the murder case was huge...but the civil case was entirely independent of that situation (in the sense that the murder case had no bearing on the facts/merits of the wrongful imprisonment).

Maybe I missed something in the documentary...but if any of you have any insights on that I would appreciate hearing it. It really pisses me off that the guy didn't get a chance to depo the other scumbags in the department who were scheduled to appear after the disappearance/murder of Teresa.

I have to assume that was all wrapped into the agreement for the 400K.

 

[SIDA!]

I wanted to revisit something that I feel needs to be expanded upon and that is the civil lawsuit against Manitowoc County and certain individuals.

Insurers for the county basically said...you guys are on your own.

This essentially meant that the taxpayers would be on the hook for any judgment. The documentary said that the individuals were also personally liable...but I honestly don't know if that is really true (in the sense of whether they would have ever collected any money or if that would have held up). I have never heard of a government employee being personally liable other than for financial fraud crimes...but I am not an expert in this area and I am sure others may have more knowledge on this subject.

Regardless, were Avery to win a civil lawsuit against the county and those individuals...the ramifications of that would have been HUGE.

First and foremost, the individuals would have basically had their career ended. Even if they would have never had to pay any damages themselves, they were going to be harmed financially one way or the other.

Thus, there was huge motivation to undermine the suit/screw over Avery.

Secondarily, Manitowoc isn't a huge county. I have no idea what their budget was then nor do I care to look it up, but it is apparently around 60 million a year today. A large monetary award greater than $10 million would have been damaging. Not only would the taxpayers have had to cough up the money they would have had to have done so via the reduction in services or higher taxes to get those funds.

In addition to all of this, it is quite possible that taxpayers would have clamored for the dismantling of the district attorney's office or sheriff department. I don't know Wisconsin at all...but it is not uncommon for jurisdictions to eliminate their departments and outsource them to other agencies for a variety of reasons...usually budgetary costs are a primary driver in that it is viewed as being cheaper for a city to have the county patrol it, etc.

Not sure if a county can be combined with another county...or how that works constitutionally in Wisconsin...but the voters would have been pissed.

So...when you factor in the ending of careers, political careers, financial ramifications from lawsuits and loss of jobs, and the potential for completely eliminating the existence of agencies, etc....there is a tremendous amount of incentive and motivation to prevent that all from happening.

What I didn't understand based on the documentary however, is why did the depositions in the civil case stop so abruptly. I understand the murder case was huge...but the civil case was entirely independent of that situation (in the sense that the murder case had no bearing on the facts/merits of the wrongful imprisonment).

Maybe I missed something in the documentary...but if any of you have any insights on that I would appreciate hearing it. It really pisses me off that the guy didn't get a chance to depo the other scumbags in the department who were scheduled to appear after the disappearance/murder of Teresa.

I have to assume that was all wrapped into the agreement for the 400K.

Not sure what you mean by this.

At the end of the day, the guy settled for 400K while in prison and in desperate need of a defense attorney for the murder case. And as part of the 400K settlement...the county admitted to doing nothing wrong.

ETA: I re-read it. I think you are saying that as part of the 400K settlement...Avery agreed not to depo the others? I don't think that settlement happened that quickly. The depositions were scheduled for a couple weeks after the killing. Avery didn't settle and get the funds until well after that period I believe.

 

[Dickies]

What I can't get over is:

1) the evidence box being broken and the vial of SA's blood being punctured, with his blood conveniently appearing in the car and nowhere else

2) the phone call that had Colburn describing Theresa's car without having any way of knowing it unless he was looking at it, he was blatantly caught lying about it

3) the key being discovered in plain view eight days after the search began

It's extremely difficult to look at those three instances as not the work of Manitowowc County, specifically Lenk.

From there it seems to me like all bets are off. It's like the cops realized there wasn't any evidence and had to create it. If SA really did what he was charged of, I can't fathom there being a need to create evidence, it should have been everywhere.

IIRC

1) FBI experts testified that the blood found did not contain a certain substance ( I forget the name of the substance) that would be present in the blood samples collected if it were to come from a vial

3) The key was on the floor but only after the investigating officer shook a bookcase and it fell out

This has already been touched on, and I am way behind this thread, but I will respond

1: The FBI "expert" testified that the blood did not contain the substance, but the defense had a scientist that testified saying that the test cannot "prove" that the substance was not there. They could either get a positive result showing that the substance was definitively there, or they would get a negative which simply means they could not detect the substance. You cannot rule out that the substance was present with the test performed.

3: The bookcase had been cleared of all belongings in the previous searches.

 

[GOB]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

Yeah I've had this same concern.It's why I go around spreading my DNA around with as many women as possible.

 

[parasaurolophus]

What I can't get over is:

1) the evidence box being broken and the vial of SA's blood being punctured, with his blood conveniently appearing in the car and nowhere else

2) the phone call that had Colburn describing Theresa's car without having any way of knowing it unless he was looking at it, he was blatantly caught lying about it

3) the key being discovered in plain view eight days after the search began

It's extremely difficult to look at those three instances as not the work of Manitowowc County, specifically Lenk.

From there it seems to me like all bets are off. It's like the cops realized there wasn't any evidence and had to create it. If SA really did what he was charged of, I can't fathom there being a need to create evidence, it should have been everywhere.

IIRC

1) FBI experts testified that the blood found did not contain a certain substance ( I forget the name of the substance) that would be present in the blood samples collected if it were to come from a vial

3) The key was on the floor but only after the investigating officer shook a bookcase and it fell out

This has already been touched on, and I am way behind this thread, but I will respond

1: The FBI "expert" testified that the blood did not contain the substance, but the defense had a scientist that testified saying that the test cannot "prove" that the substance was not there. They could either get a positive result showing that the substance was definitively there, or they would get a negative which simply means they could not detect the substance. You cannot rule out that the substance was present with the test performed.

3: The bookcase had been cleared of all belongings in the previous searches.

Pretty convincing.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

Yeah I've had this same concern.It's why I go around spreading my DNA around with as many women as possible.

I am asking for a friend... Hypothetically speaking if you took a dump on a somebody's chest, would that leave DNA?

 

[matttyl]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

Not a DNA expert...but she would have left her DNA at her home/apartment and other places and I am sure they would just compare that profile with the profiles found at the scene(s) of the Avery compound.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks. You'd think she'd have left her DNA on her car key, but apparently didn't.

You would think. And that is why I and I am sure many others believes the key was planted.

It is illogical to me to think that only one person's DNA would be on the key...that she never coughed on it or sneezed on it or near it in all the years she had her vehicle. I mean...a DNA expert can "mentor/talk" to other new trainees while doing a test on the most important case in the county and still get her DNA profile in the blood sample....

Or you know, touched it.

 

[matttyl]

I wanted to revisit something that I feel needs to be expanded upon and that is the civil lawsuit against Manitowoc County and certain individuals.

Insurers for the county basically said...you guys are on your own.

This essentially meant that the taxpayers would be on the hook for any judgment. The documentary said that the individuals were also personally liable...but I honestly don't know if that is really true (in the sense of whether they would have ever collected any money or if that would have held up). I have never heard of a government employee being personally liable other than for financial fraud crimes...but I am not an expert in this area and I am sure others may have more knowledge on this subject.

Regardless, were Avery to win a civil lawsuit against the county and those individuals...the ramifications of that would have been HUGE.

First and foremost, the individuals would have basically had their career ended. Even if they would have never had to pay any damages themselves, they were going to be harmed financially one way or the other.

Thus, there was huge motivation to undermine the suit/screw over Avery.

Secondarily, Manitowoc isn't a huge county. I have no idea what their budget was then nor do I care to look it up, but it is apparently around 60 million a year today. A large monetary award greater than $10 million would have been damaging. Not only would the taxpayers have had to cough up the money they would have had to have done so via the reduction in services or higher taxes to get those funds.

In addition to all of this, it is quite possible that taxpayers would have clamored for the dismantling of the district attorney's office or sheriff department. I don't know Wisconsin at all...but it is not uncommon for jurisdictions to eliminate their departments and outsource them to other agencies for a variety of reasons...usually budgetary costs are a primary driver in that it is viewed as being cheaper for a city to have the county patrol it, etc.

Not sure if a county can be combined with another county...or how that works constitutionally in Wisconsin...but the voters would have been pissed.

So...when you factor in the ending of careers, political careers, financial ramifications from lawsuits and loss of jobs, and the potential for completely eliminating the existence of agencies, etc....there is a tremendous amount of incentive and motivation to prevent that all from happening.

What I didn't understand based on the documentary however, is why did the depositions in the civil case stop so abruptly. I understand the murder case was huge...but the civil case was entirely independent of that situation (in the sense that the murder case had no bearing on the facts/merits of the wrongful imprisonment).

Maybe I missed something in the documentary...but if any of you have any insights on that I would appreciate hearing it. It really pisses me off that the guy didn't get a chance to depo the other scumbags in the department who were scheduled to appear after the disappearance/murder of Teresa.

I have to assume that was all wrapped into the agreement for the 400K.

Not sure what you mean by this.

At the end of the day, the guy settled for 400K while in prison and in desperate need of a defense attorney for the murder case. And as part of the 400K settlement...the county admitted to doing nothing wrong.

ETA: I re-read it. I think you are saying that as part of the 400K settlement...Avery agreed not to depo the others? I don't think that settlement happened that quickly. The depositions were scheduled for a couple weeks after the killing. Avery didn't settle and get the funds until well after that period I believe.

And in the period in between, the county said the Avery family couldn't put up their land as collateral for bond (or something like that). Is that odd in a case like this?

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

didn't read the thread yet, but because I saw a preview and immediately added this to my Netflix list... right after Jess Jones, which I had already started

 

[NJ]

Warning - incoming stupid question.

How do they know they were her bones, or her DNA in the back of the RAV4? Did someone have record of her DNA prior to her being killed? Sure they had his DNA due to his prior conviction.

If I end up missing tomorrow, and a week from know a rib bone is found on the side of the road somewhere, how could they tell it was mine if they don't have my DNA on file today?

Not a DNA expert...but she would have left her DNA at her home/apartment and other places and I am sure they would just compare that profile with the profiles found at the scene(s) of the Avery compound.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks. You'd think she'd have left her DNA on her car key, but apparently didn't.

Even when they don't have something of the victim's like a hair brush or something like that to test, I'm fairly certain that they can take DNA samples from the parents and determine if the victim is their child or not. I mean you can get a paternity test done for like 50 bucks these days....uhh I mean...at least that's what my friend told me...

 

[cockroach]

Things that still don't make sense to me:

1) Why is there none of Halbach's DNA anywhere but her car? You're telling me Steven and Brendan were smart enough to scrub down everything in the house and garage with bleach? Also, if the key was Halbach's, why wasn't her DNA found on the key? Does she always wear gloves when she drives?

2) The open vial of blood is just way too nuts in this case. I would have loved to hear an explanation on why the box was opened and why there was a pin hole in the vial. I don't recall anyone from the police side of things explaining why that happened.

3) The way they found the car was just way too suspicious. And why would Steven have left it on his property? And also, if he did, did he really think a little piece of plywood on top would hide it? And why not use the car compactor that was on the property? You're telling me he's smart enough to scrub away all her DNA from his house/garage, but not smart enough to use the car compactor to destroy her car?

4) If Kachinsky is still practicing law, that is an embarrassment to all lawyers in this country.

5) How was Steven guilty of 1st degree murder, but not guilty of mutilating the body? That doesn't make sense to me. Yet, Brendan was found guilty of mutilating the body.

Kachinsky is a part time judge now, elected. On his linkedin page.

Holy hell

When you do your evil master's bidding, you are rewarded.

 

[kaso]

What I can't get over is:

1) the evidence box being broken and the vial of SA's blood being punctured, with his blood conveniently appearing in the car and nowhere else

2) the phone call that had Colburn describing Theresa's car without having any way of knowing it unless he was looking at it, he was blatantly caught lying about it

3) the key being discovered in plain view eight days after the search began

It's extremely difficult to look at those three instances as not the work of Manitowowc County, specifically Lenk.

From there it seems to me like all bets are off. It's like the cops realized there wasn't any evidence and had to create it. If SA really did what he was charged of, I can't fathom there being a need to create evidence, it should have been everywhere.

IIRC

1) FBI experts testified that the blood found did not contain a certain substance ( I forget the name of the substance) that would be present in the blood samples collected if it were to come from a vial

3) The key was on the floor but only after the investigating officer shook a bookcase and it fell out

This has already been touched on, and I am way behind this thread, but I will respond

1: The FBI "expert" testified that the blood did not contain the substance, but the defense had a scientist that testified saying that the test cannot "prove" that the substance was not there. They could either get a positive result showing that the substance was definitively there, or they would get a negative which simply means they could not detect the substance. You cannot rule out that the substance was present with the test performed.

3: The bookcase had been cleared of all belongings in the previous searches.

Pretty convincing.

The substance was EDTA, which is used to ensure the blood sample remains valid/good in the tube.

The other element of that FBI testimony was that the expert couldn't or didn't (don't recall which it was) specify the test's threshold to validate if EDTA was present. As a non-scientist I took that to mean that the sample could have been 95% EDTA, but if the threshold required a 97% level, it would have resulted in a negative result.

 

[SIDA!]

What I can't get over is:

1) the evidence box being broken and the vial of SA's blood being punctured, with his blood conveniently appearing in the car and nowhere else

2) the phone call that had Colburn describing Theresa's car without having any way of knowing it unless he was looking at it, he was blatantly caught lying about it

3) the key being discovered in plain view eight days after the search began

It's extremely difficult to look at those three instances as not the work of Manitowowc County, specifically Lenk.

From there it seems to me like all bets are off. It's like the cops realized there wasn't any evidence and had to create it. If SA really did what he was charged of, I can't fathom there being a need to create evidence, it should have been everywhere.

IIRC1) FBI experts testified that the blood found did not contain a certain substance ( I forget the name of the substance) that would be present in the blood samples collected if it were to come from a vial

3) The key was on the floor but only after the investigating officer shook a bookcase and it fell out

This has already been touched on, and I am way behind this thread, but I will respond1: The FBI "expert" testified that the blood did not contain the substance, but the defense had a scientist that testified saying that the test cannot "prove" that the substance was not there. They could either get a positive result showing that the substance was definitively there, or they would get a negative which simply means they could not detect the substance. You cannot rule out that the substance was present with the test performed.

3: The bookcase had been cleared of all belongings in the previous searches.

Pretty convincing.

The substance was EDTA, which is used to ensure the blood sample remains valid/good in the tube.

The other element of that FBI testimony was that the expert couldn't or didn't (don't recall which it was) specify the test's threshold to validate if EDTA was present. As a non-scientist I took that to mean that the sample could have been 95% EDTA, but if the threshold required a 97% level, it would have resulted in a negative result.

Exactly. If I farted while sitting near you you might very well smell it. But just because you didn't smell it doesn't mean I didn't fart.

An FBI guy saying he can speak authoritatively about the other three blood stains in the van he did not have swabs for was pretty awesome.

He's like, I only tested three and did not detect any preservatives. So. ..um...obviously there aren't any preservatives in the others, either. Duh!

 

[blend]

Here you go:

14 pieces of troubling evidence Netflix' "Making a Murderer" left outhttp://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

7. Avery had drawn a torture chamber while in prison and was violent to other womenAccording to an Appleton Post Crescent article from March 9, 2006, "While he was in prison, Steven Avery planned the torture and killing of a young woman, new documents released Wednesday indicate. The allegations are included in 22 pages of court documents accompanying additional charges filed by Calumet County Dist. Atty. Ken Kratz. ... Kratz also included in Wednesday's filings statements from prisoners who served time with Avery at Green Bay Correctional Institution. They said Avery talked about and showed them diagrams of a torture chamber he planned to build when he was released."

Furthermore, reported the newspaper, "The filings also include statements from a woman, now 41, who said she was raped by Avery, who told her 'if she yelled or screamed there was going to be trouble.' There also is an affidavit from a girl who said she was raped by Avery. 'The victim's mother indicated that the victim does not want to speak about the sexual assault between her and Steven Avery because Steven Avery told her if she 'told anyone about their activities together he would kill her family,'" the filing said. According to the newspaper article, "The affidavit said Avery admitted to his fiancee that he had sexually assaulted the girl."

Note the part where it says From court filings

Did we hear anything about the second paragraph about the woman who claims she was raped by Avery? And the affidavit that says Avery admitted that he had sexually assaulted the girl?

Sure paints a different picture of Avery doesn't it?

You should check the article out. Maybe even keep an open mind about it.

I think there probably should be a #15: Avery was the real life mentor of Dexter. Avery taught the fictional character how to remove/prevent all blood splatter from a garage that looked like hoarders and from getting drops of blood from a vicious bedroom murder.

 

[Sabertooth]

Here you go:

14 pieces of troubling evidence Netflix' "Making a Murderer" left outhttp://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

7. Avery had drawn a torture chamber while in prison and was violent to other womenAccording to an Appleton Post Crescent article from March 9, 2006, "While he was in prison, Steven Avery planned the torture and killing of a young woman, new documents released Wednesday indicate. The allegations are included in 22 pages of court documents accompanying additional charges filed by Calumet County Dist. Atty. Ken Kratz. ... Kratz also included in Wednesday's filings statements from prisoners who served time with Avery at Green Bay Correctional Institution. They said Avery talked about and showed them diagrams of a torture chamber he planned to build when he was released."

Furthermore, reported the newspaper, "The filings also include statements from a woman, now 41, who said she was raped by Avery, who told her 'if she yelled or screamed there was going to be trouble.' There also is an affidavit from a girl who said she was raped by Avery. 'The victim's mother indicated that the victim does not want to speak about the sexual assault between her and Steven Avery because Steven Avery told her if she 'told anyone about their activities together he would kill her family,'" the filing said. According to the newspaper article, "The affidavit said Avery admitted to his fiancee that he had sexually assaulted the girl."

Note the part where it says From court filings

Did we hear anything about the second paragraph about the woman who claims she was raped by Avery? And the affidavit that says Avery admitted that he had sexually assaulted the girl?

Sure paints a different picture of Avery doesn't it?

You should check the article out. Maybe even keep an open mind about it.

I think there probably should be a #15: Avery was the real life mentor of Dexter. Avery taught the fictional character how to remove/prevent all blood splatter from a garage that looked like hoarders and from getting drops of blood from a vicious bedroom murder.

Did they ever find the torture chamber? Or the filings? Or name the inmates? Or are we just taking "The Prize's" word for it?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm on episode four. I had to stop watching and come post how awesome the moment is at the seven-minute mark of that episode.

An Associated Press reporter calls Avery to interview him while he's in custody, and begins the interview: "First off, how are you?"

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I'm on episode four. I had to stop watching and come post how awesome the moment is at the seven-minute mark of that episode.

An Associated Press reporter calls Avery to interview him while he's in custody, and begins the interview: "First off, how are you?"

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

2- Lets say one juror held out and said "not guilty, no way I am changing my mind". What happens? So 11 jurors say guilty and 1 says not guilty...

They do the trial all over again (unless the prosecution decides to just let him go free).

 

[SIDA!]

I'm on episode four. I had to stop watching and come post how awesome the moment is at the seven-minute mark of that episode.

An Associated Press reporter calls Avery to interview him while he's in custody, and begins the interview: "First off, how are you?"

I get a similarly weird feeling whenever I am watching The First 48 and they are heading out to do a family notification. They almost always knock on the door and say something to the effect of:

"Hello, how are you?"

They aren't going to be doing the obligatory "good" in about 30 seconds after you drop the bomb on them.

 

[SIDA!]

Question for attorneys:

Assume for whatever reason you are on the jury and you do not believe the prosecutions claim that the murder went down as they said it did...but you believe the defendant is guilty, anyway.

Are you still allowed to vote guilty even if you essentially have more than reasonable doubt that the crime happened the way the prosecution said it did?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I get a similarly weird feeling whenever I am watching The First 48 and they are heading out to do a family notification. They almost always knock on the door and say something to the effect of:

"Hello, how are you?"

They aren't going to be doing the obligatory "good" in about 30 seconds after you drop the bomb on them.

I did the same thing by accident a few weeks ago. I was working on a proposed transaction, and the other party's lawyer was out of the office for a few days because his dad had just died. The first time I spoke to him, I reflexively asked, "Hey, how's it going?" He paused and said "good," and I felt like a complete idiot.