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

[Wrigley]

I wonder if there is full trial video out there

 

[Sabertooth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would the defense lawyers allow this during jury selection? Just seems

Strang explained in an interview that you only get six exclusions so you exclude the worst 6.

 

[matttyl]

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

Wait, what?!?!?! Did I miss that?

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

A family tree with only a single branch?

 

[parrot]

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

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

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

IIRC - last seen Oct 31. Reported missing Nov. 3, plate call Nov. 3, car found Nov. 5.

 

[Cjw_55106]

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

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

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

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2015/12/22/steven-avery-case-timeline/77742664/

 

[Cjw_55106]

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

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

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

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2015/12/22/steven-avery-case-timeline/77742664/

Sorry, I guess that doesnt have trial specifics.

 

[huskers15]

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

Holy ####! That's spot on.

 

[matttyl]

Didn't they find remains in 3 locations?

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

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

Huh?

Were the remains at the other two sites also burned?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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

I was thinking as I watched it that as horrible as that lawyer was, the judge couldn't grant the request based on the reason given. I suspect most public defenders (quite accurately) believe that most of their clients are guilty. That by itself can't stop them from effectively representing those clients.

 

[Zow]

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

I gotta admit, this case is so bizarre that I've really never encountered this issue before and don't have a clear answer for you. But here's some thoughts:

1. Fourth Amendment law (the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure) is a constitutional issue (meaning SCOTUS ultimately controls). However, each state still has their own caselaw on the issue so there's still a good amount of Wisconsin law probably on point here that I wouldn't know.

2. In my opinion the County was initially wise to "conflict out" the investigation to a neighboring county. They do so to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Here, we have such a just purely bizarre situation where a wrongly convicted man is being investigated for another serious crime that there really aren't any rules or guidelines on point for such a situation. Of course, after they made this call is definitely seems inappropriate for the deputies to continue the investigation and naturally when they don't it raises eyebrows.

3. In order for evidence to be thrown out as "tainted" or "unlawfully obtained", a judge must determine (usually before the trial actually starts) that the collection of the evidence by the state violated the fourth amendment/the defendant's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. So, the issue before the judge regarding the evidence isn't whether the police acted inappropriately, but whether they acted in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment and did so in bad faith and the discovery wasn't otherwise inevitable through lawful means. While the county probably didn't do the right thing by policy, it's unlikely that a defendant has a right to be completely free from an entire county conducting an investigation when there could be the appearance of impropriety. It's also possible that since these two agencies were working together the argument of inevitable discovery could be made.

4. There's a nuanced and important distinction between admissibility of evidence and the weight of evidence. Admissibility is the question of whether the jury can even hear about the evidence and is a legal question for the judge. "Weight" of the evidence or, put differently, how much credit one should give to the evidence to determine the defendant's guilt, is a factual question for the jury. In a situation like this it's likely that this discovered evidence didn't directly violate Avery's rights so it is admissible (and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the judge made this very decision). However, the defense, as they clearly did, can argue that the shadiness behind the discovery of the evidence suggests that the jury should not give much weight to the evidence when determining whether the state proved its case.

 

[Wrigley]

Didn't they find remains in 3 locations?

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

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

Were the remains at the other two sites also burned?

Yes

 

[Zow]

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

I was thinking as I watched it that as horrible as that lawyer was, the judge couldn't grant the request based on the reason given. I suspect most public defenders (quite accurately) believe that most of their clients are guilty. That by itself can't stop them from effectively representing those clients.

Yeah. The only part about that that I really found distasteful was his lawyer quipping up with the suggestion that the kid was being unduly influenced by family to make the motion. If I'm ever in that position where my appointed client wants to fire me and makes the request before the judge, I take the position that my duty to my client requires that I shut my mouth and let the judge decide that for himself.

Otherwise, I wasn't shocked by and had no problem with the judge's decision based on what the kid said.

 

[parasaurolophus]

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

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

Seems odd they wouldn't have found some of her DNA just from that

 

[matttyl]

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

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

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

IIRC - last seen Oct 31. Reported missing Nov. 3, plate call Nov. 3, car found Nov. 5.

Time of these two on that day? When was SA originally placed in custody (the phone call heard at the end of the first episode)?

 

[McGarnicle]

Didn't they find remains in 3 locations?

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

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

Huh?

Intended to move all of it, but missed some. We're talking about bone chips the size of a thumb and smaller, in a burn pile amongst ashes, rocks, dirt and other debris.

 

[matttyl]

Didn't they find remains in 3 locations?

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

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

Were the remains at the other two sites also burned?

Yes

Horrible question to ask - but were bones of different parts of her body found at each? For instance, was the top third found one place, the middle found in another, and her legs in the third? Or was it a "mixed bag" at each location?

 

[SIDA!]

Didn't they find remains in 3 locations?

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

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

Huh?

Intended to move all of it, but missed some. We're talking about bone chips the size of a thumb and smaller, in a burn pile amongst ashes, rocks, dirt and other debris.

Missed some or missed basically all of it?

It would make far more sense to move the bones from the secondary burn areas to the fire pit outside the trailer and miss the couple of pieces in the other locations. It doesn't make any sense to move two pieces here and there and leave the bulk of it in the fire pit next to the trailer.

 

[jurrassic]

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

I gotta admit, this case is so bizarre that I've really never encountered this issue before and don't have a clear answer for you. But here's some thoughts:

1. Fourth Amendment law (the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure) is a constitutional issue (meaning SCOTUS ultimately controls). However, each state still has their own caselaw on the issue so there's still a good amount of Wisconsin law probably on point here that I wouldn't know.

2. In my opinion the County was initially wise to "conflict out" the investigation to a neighboring county. They do so to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Here, we have such a just purely bizarre situation where a wrongly convicted man is being investigated for another serious crime that there really aren't any rules or guidelines on point for such a situation. Of course, after they made this call is definitely seems inappropriate for the deputies to continue the investigation and naturally when they don't it raises eyebrows.

3. In order for evidence to be thrown out as "tainted" or "unlawfully obtained", a judge must determine (usually before the trial actually starts) that the collection of the evidence by the state violated the fourth amendment/the defendant's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. So, the issue before the judge regarding the evidence isn't whether the police acted inappropriately, but whether they acted in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment and did so in bad faith and the discovery wasn't otherwise inevitable through lawful means. While the county probably didn't do the right thing by policy, it's unlikely that a defendant has a right to be completely free from an entire county conducting an investigation when there could be the appearance of impropriety. It's also possible that since these two agencies were working together the argument of inevitable discovery could be made.

4. There's a nuanced and important distinction between admissibility of evidence and the weight of evidence. Admissibility is the question of whether the jury can even hear about the evidence and is a legal question for the judge. "Weight" of the evidence or, put differently, how much credit one should give to the evidence to determine the defendant's guilt, is a factual question for the jury. In a situation like this it's likely that this discovered evidence didn't directly violate Avery's rights so it is admissible (and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the judge made this very decision). However, the defense, as they clearly did, can argue that the shadiness behind the discovery of the evidence suggests that the jury should not give much weight to the evidence when determining whether the state proved its case.

Really appreciate this perspective and knowledge. Thanks for the insight

 

[derek245583]

General question, but also the same question specifically to this case...

First thing lawyers ask their client in their initial meeting is "Did you do it?" right?

 

[Cjw_55106]

General question, but also the same question specifically to this case...

First thing lawyers ask their client in their initial meeting is "Did you do it?" right?

Not sure why you would ask that to be honest. I think if you knew someone did the crime, you are less likely to fight as hard as possible.

 

[Dickies]

Didn't they find remains in 3 locations?

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

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

Were the remains at the other two sites also burned?

Yes

Horrible question to ask - but were bones of different parts of her body found at each? For instance, was the top third found one place, the middle found in another, and her legs in the third? Or was it a "mixed bag" at each location?

It was just a few bone fragments at the other sites, but the vast majority were in the backyard. Seems odd. If you were going to move the bone fragments, you would think the bulk would get moved and only a few would be left behind.

 

[MattFancy]

Didn't they find remains in 3 locations?

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

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

Were the remains at the other two sites also burned?

Yes

Horrible question to ask - but were bones of different parts of her body found at each? For instance, was the top third found one place, the middle found in another, and her legs in the third? Or was it a "mixed bag" at each location?

It was just a few bone fragments at the other sites, but the vast majority were in the backyard. Seems odd. If you were going to move the bone fragments, you would think the bulk would get moved and only a few would be left behind.

Unless they were moved from somewhere else first...

 

[Dickies]

Didn't they find remains in 3 locations?

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

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

Were the remains at the other two sites also burned?

Yes

Horrible question to ask - but were bones of different parts of her body found at each? For instance, was the top third found one place, the middle found in another, and her legs in the third? Or was it a "mixed bag" at each location?

It was just a few bone fragments at the other sites, but the vast majority were in the backyard. Seems odd. If you were going to move the bone fragments, you would think the bulk would get moved and only a few would be left behind.

Also, this is one of the things I am having the hardest time wrapping my head around. If the body was burned off site, it makes zero sense for him to bring them back and dump them in his fire pit. It also makes zero sense to leave them there when you live on acreage and could take the bones anywhere and bury them. For someone who cleaned up the DNA evidence so well that none was found at the scene of the crime and proceeded to burn the body to get rid of it, then why dump the bone pile 10 yards outside your back door?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Nancy Grace does not approve.

Makes me think they are both innocent.

 

[matttyl]

The obvious answer would be that the bones were put there, just like the key, the car, and the lone bullet.

 

[Max Power]

So there is a guy roaming around Manitowoc looking for answers. He started a blog that has a couple interesting posts. He is convinced the ex-boyfriend did it.

It was interesting up until he posted his own extensive criminal history. Now I'm just concerned for the welfare of some people in this series. Internet is full of crazy pissed off people.

http://ideape.blogspot.com/?view=timeslide

 

[Zow]

General question, but also the same question specifically to this case...

First thing lawyers ask their client in their initial meeting is "Did you do it?" right?

Obligatory

I've worked on probably 10k plus cases and have never asked nor felt the need to ask.

 

[derek245583]

General question, but also the same question specifically to this case...

First thing lawyers ask their client in their initial meeting is "Did you do it?" right?

Not sure why you would ask that to be honest. I think if you knew someone did the crime, you are less likely to fight as hard as possible.

Something heinous I suppose like this, but something not so bad like soliciting a prostitute or something....

 

[derek245583]

General question, but also the same question specifically to this case...

First thing lawyers ask their client in their initial meeting is "Did you do it?" right?

Obligatory

I've worked on probably 10k plus cases and have never asked nor felt the need to ask.

Really?

Me- Did you do it?

Perp- Ya

Me- Welp, this is going to be harder than I thought

 

[avoiding injuries]

General question, but also the same question specifically to this case...

First thing lawyers ask their client in their initial meeting is "Did you do it?" right?

Obligatory I've worked on probably 10k plus cases and have never asked nor felt the need to ask.

What % of cases did you think they were guilty? Know? Just curious.

 

[Sabertooth]

So there is a guy roaming around Manitowoc looking for answers. He started a blog that has a couple interesting posts. He is convinced the ex-boyfriend did it.

It was interesting up until he posted his own extensive criminal history. Now I'm just concerned for the welfare of some people in this series. Internet is full of crazy pissed off people.

http://ideape.blogspot.com/?view=timeslide

Yeah, that's pretty crazy. Interesting photo of the scratches on ex BF Ryan's hands during the search timeframe.

 

[matttyl]

So there is a guy roaming around Manitowoc looking for answers. He started a blog that has a couple interesting posts. He is convinced the ex-boyfriend did it.

It was interesting up until he posted his own extensive criminal history. Now I'm just concerned for the welfare of some people in this series. Internet is full of crazy pissed off people.

http://ideape.blogspot.com/?view=timeslide

Yeah, that's pretty crazy. Interesting photo of the scratches on ex BF Ryan's hands during the search timeframe.

Very much so. And lets say those scratches did come from him. His DNA is now under her nails. How do you get rid of that and still frame SA? Burn the body.....

 

[Don Quixote]

General question, but also the same question specifically to this case...

First thing lawyers ask their client in their initial meeting is "Did you do it?" right?

Obligatory

I've worked on probably 10k plus cases and have never asked nor felt the need to ask.

Really?

Me- Did you do it?

Perp- Ya

Me- Welp, this is going to be harder than I thought

A lawyer can't say anything in court that he/she knows is false. If the client says "yes," it limits what you can present as evidence.

 

[General Malaise]

I used to think the Simpson's characterization of the Springfield Police Department was a little.....unfair. But boy, watching this, I'd say it is spot freaking on.

 

[joffer]

I used to think the Simpson's characterization of the Springfield Police Department was a little.....unfair. But boy, watching this, I'd say it is spot freaking on.

Lou: Here’s your man, chief.

Wiggum: Cecil? I think not. This looks like the work of crazy old Sideshow Bob.

Lisa: No, Chief, Bob’s innocent, it’s the truth!

Wiggum: Truth, hah? That sounds like the testimony of crazy old Lisa Simpson.

Lou: Cecil just voluntarily confessed, Chief.

Wiggum: That’s some good work, Lou. You’ll make sergeant for this.

Lou: Uh, I already am sergeant, Chief.

Wiggum: Perhaps you are, but I say Bob goes back to jail.

Bob: [stammering] But surely–I mean, I. Caught. Cecil.

Wiggum: Maybe so, but Lou here says you were resisting arrest.

Lou: No I didn’t Chief.

Wiggum: Quiet Lou! Or I will bust you down to Sergeant so fast it’ll make your head spin!

 

[Zow]

General question, but also the same question specifically to this case...

First thing lawyers ask their client in their initial meeting is "Did you do it?" right?

Obligatory I've worked on probably 10k plus cases and have never asked nor felt the need to ask.

What % of cases did you think they were guilty? Know? Just curious.

I'm going to give a very frustrating answer here. And the reason I need to do that is because "guilty" isn't a very black and white concept. In fact, in most cases, it's very gray.

Rare is the case like Avery's here where the guy is either totally guilty or totally innocent. In most cases, the defendant was very likely doing something pretty stupid to put himself in a situation to get in trouble. For example, a person driving a vehicle gets arrested and blows a .08% and a .081% may be guilty or may be not, but either way it was a pretty dumb decision to do that. A person possessing an ounce of meth may or may not be doing so with the intent to sell the drug, but either way it's pretty dumb to possess it. Another common example is a couple getting wasted together and begin fighting. One could shout, one could slap, one could punch back and the other calls the cops. Whether one person actually committed an assault or disturbed the peace of the other person could be debatable, but both parties were acting stupidly. For a final example, say a person buys a Rolex off some dude on the street for a really low price -- it's pretty gray whether the person knew or should have known it was stolen but we can all probably agree that was a bad idea. Lots of cases are like this. Or, similarly, the person may be guilty of a few things, but maybe it's not so clear that he's guilty of EVERY charge the state has charged him with or maybe he's guilty of a lesser included charge and the state has overreached to try to get a harsher sentence than they should. Regardless, these situations are quite common and, undoubtedly, allow a defense attorney to say that in the majority of cases his clients did something pretty stupid -- but will likely never know whether the defendant is literally guilty of everything accused because it's just not that simple. And, frankly, that's perfectly fine by me because it allows me to focus on making sure the person is simply treated fairly and appropriately within the system.

Another less prevalent but common example is situations where my client is very likely guilty, but the state collected the evidence unlawfully. This is most common in drug cases resulting from vehicle searches. There, it's pretty clear that the officer found pounds of an illegal drug but the sole focus in the case is whether the state can withstand a motion to suppress. In these cases the defendant's guilt is obvious but, in reality, irrelevant. In all candor I really like these cases because because there's more "lawyering" to be done on them and the pre-trial motion practice and plea negotiations are pivotal.

Finally, in the incredibly rare case where it is black and white, I'm never going to ask about guilt because, as pointed out above, doing so may put my client in a worse situation because I may be prevented from ethically advancing a defense I otherwise could. Also, selfishly, I really don't want to know (and the majority probably wouldn't tell me any if they had) because I'm human and don't want to knowingly get a person off. In that same vein, the cases that I find the most difficult and stressful are actually the ones where I don't believe my client is guilty because, in the event I lose at trial, I'd feel terrible or, similarly, in the event I get into a situation where I find it in my client's best interests for me to recommend a plea agreement, I'd also feel badly for telling an innocent person to plead guilty.

Going back to the show though, the work done by Avery's defense attorneys is absolutely commendable. They aren't kidding when they say that no defense attorney ever wants a case where the best evidence is government corruption.

 

[matttyl]

Rare is the case like Avery's here where the guy is either totally guilty or totally innocent.

Wouldn't that be the case in every murder trial, though?

 

[Zow]

Rare is the case like Avery's here where the guy is either totally guilty or totally innocent.

Wouldn't that be the case in every murder trial, though?

Correct, save for the complicated self defense cases like the George Zimmerman case.

But for most practicing criminal defense attorneys murder cases are few and far between.

 

[derek245583]

General question, but also the same question specifically to this case...

First thing lawyers ask their client in their initial meeting is "Did you do it?" right?

Obligatory

I've worked on probably 10k plus cases and have never asked nor felt the need to ask.

Really?

Me- Did you do it?

Perp- Ya

Me- Welp, this is going to be harder than I thought

A lawyer can't say anything in court that he/she knows is false. If the client says "yes," it limits what you can present as evidence.

I did not know that. So no lawyer ever asks that question. Good to know.

 

[Mors Venit]

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

Too much dairy

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Attorney: So I think we've got a good case here. There really isn't any evidence to put you at the sce...

Client: AM I BEING DETAINED?

 

[The Kerminator]

If we are to believe that the car and key were planted, where did they come from? How does Lenk get the key?

Maybe they were left in the car?

My problem is, if I think the police planted the evidence and set SA up, I'm having to assume they killed Theresa. Unless they found the car abandoned with the keys in it, but by then, they had already started the process to frame SA. That's as hard to believe as the stuff against SA.

I can believe they set up evidence without assuming the police killed her.

If it was her actual key, why wasn't her DNA on it? You'd think there would be prints or something of hers on the key, correct?

Nobody knew what her everyday keys looked like? I'd think if they wanted to find the real killer, and those weren't her actual keys, someone would have spoken up.

No idea. But how else could you explain only his DNA on the keys and not hers? Just seems odd that there was none of her DNA on her own set of keys.

Maybe he cleaned it and then later accidentally touched it again without realizing it.

 

[The Kerminator]

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

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

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

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

In addition to a car crusher, I thought I heard them say they also have a smelter, which I could imagine make a lot of stuff go away.

Remember hearing that as well. It just goes back to me thinking, there's no way he did this.

You're telling me he was smart enough to clean all the blood from the house and garage, but wasn't smart enough to think to use the car crusher and smelter?

Maybe he had planned on crushing the car later but didn't have time to do it when nobody else was around.

 

[The Kerminator]

If we are to believe that the car and key were planted, where did they come from? How does Lenk get the key?

Maybe they were left in the car?

My problem is, if I think the police planted the evidence and set SA up, I'm having to assume they killed Theresa. Unless they found the car abandoned with the keys in it, but by then, they had already started the process to frame SA. That's as hard to believe as the stuff against SA.

It seems very likely that Colburn was looking at the car when he called in the plates two days before it was found.

Completely agree. At that point, they've already spent a few days gathering the evidence against SA. The gift of the car and key just land in their lap? Maybe they found the car, and then got the spare key. But now you're having to assume the victim's family is involved. Which maybe they are if they were tipped off on where to find the vehicle in the salvage yard.

Why? I'd assume in a missing person's case (which this originally was), the police would search the residence of the missing person for evidence.

Well, family/friend/roommate. Somebody knew what her keys looked like. And when this discovery was made, you would hope the investigators asked them if they were the ones she used.

Or they found those keys in the vehicle when they called the plates in. Or "they" found the keys on her body.

Lets say the police did find her body after she was killed. It would possibly have the DNA of her killer attached somewhere. How would one destroy that evidence? Burn the body...... Hmm

So you are suggesting the body was found elsewhere by the police and moved to the burning pit and burned by them? Evidence shows that the body was burned in the Avery burn pit and not elsewhere. The bones were intertwined with steel straps from the tires.

 

[SIDA!]

If we are to believe that the car and key were planted, where did they come from? How does Lenk get the key?

Maybe they were left in the car?

My problem is, if I think the police planted the evidence and set SA up, I'm having to assume they killed Theresa. Unless they found the car abandoned with the keys in it, but by then, they had already started the process to frame SA. That's as hard to believe as the stuff against SA.

I can believe they set up evidence without assuming the police killed her.

If it was her actual key, why wasn't her DNA on it? You'd think there would be prints or something of hers on the key, correct?

Nobody knew what her everyday keys looked like? I'd think if they wanted to find the real killer, and those weren't her actual keys, someone would have spoken up.

No idea. But how else could you explain only his DNA on the keys and not hers? Just seems odd that there was none of her DNA on her own set of keys.

Maybe he cleaned it and then later accidentally touched it again without realizing it.

Did he also break out of jail and place the key in his room several days after his trailer had already been searched a few times?

 

[SIDA!]

KingPrawn:

Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe there is ZERO CHANCE that Avery killed Teresa in the trailer or the garage. Do you agree with this statement?

 

[Johnnymac]

KingPrawn:

Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe there is ZERO CHANCE that Avery killed Teresa in the trailer or the garage. Do you agree with this statement?

I dont know if he does but I absolutely agree with you. No way it happened the way the prosecutor said it did.

 

[The Kerminator]

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

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

Simply amazing

Next time quote the posts you're trying to troll.

He'd have to quote the whole thread

 

[The Kerminator]

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

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

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

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

I may have missed it. Did this dismissed juror mention anything about the jury feeling threatened as the makers of the show are now claiming? You would think he would mention it if it were true. Seems almost as important as the initial vote that was taken.

 

[The Kerminator]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yet the dismissed juror never mentioned this? Seems strange.