Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

08-26-2016 , 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
The guilters ITT (who aren't obviously book salesman) seem to think that 2 documentarians chose some case at random that was an open and shut case with evil murderers caught red handed and sent away for life. And for some inexplicable reason, these 2 women decided they should actually put their own biased twist in their documentary to make it seem like SA and BD were actually innocent so that the raping, murdering, mutilating wisconsinites would get a shot at going free and their documentary would be a success.

Obviously the controversy existed well before the documentary was being produced or they wouldn't have chosen it as their subject and it wouldn't be the success it is.
This is something I've seen quite a number of people do - advance the absurd claim that the documentarians made a deliberate choice to skew the available material to make it appear that Brendan and Steve were treated unfairly to make the film marketable.

I've seen plenty of documentaries which are all about how competent police are, how diligent they are, and how great it is that they are able to identify and lock up bad guys. So it's not like there isn't a market for the hero cop/evil villain story. That's the theme of most detective stories, crime dramas, police procedurals, etc.
08-26-2016 , 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Who says there must be an alternative theory?

We are not obligated to assume anything (other than the presumption of innocence until the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

We're talking about Occam's razor, a heuristic for comparing competing hypotheses. If you don't accept that there are two competing hypotheses, then what are we discussing?

The police are obliged to investigate crimes. This process is done by making hypotheses and testing them. Because Halbach's last known whereabouts were at Avery's residence, they formed a hypothesis that he may have been involved in her murder. The evidence that they found supported this hypothesis.


The fact that there are so many unknowns in this case is why reasonable people have reasonable doubt.

FFS even the prosecution doubts its own case - one time speculating the murder occurred in the bedroom, another time speculating it took place in the garage.

One time speculating one and only one person committed the crime, another time speculating it was a conspiracy.

This is what I meant by loose ends. It's true that the exact circumstances of the killing are not known with certainty. But there will be loose ends in any case. For instance, OJ Simpson is definitely guilty of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, but there are still specifics about the murder that we don't know.

How is assuming all three witnesses saw the same car at that time and place 'more complex' than your assuming that two of the witnesses were lying and that there must have been a similar car observed by the third witness (or any of the half dozen other speculations to try to explain away what he saw)?

Because we're not evaluating the claim in a vacuum, but in the light of the other evidence. The theory that she left the property is supported by one witness - but it is contradicted by all the other evidence in the case.

You can't manage without speculating. If you don't accept the testimony of this witness, yes, you have to speculate about why he thought he saw her car, but if you accept it you have to speculate about a whole raft of other issues.


Yes, in the real world there are things we don't know.

A much more rational way to approach life than simply speculating and assuming things must be true because you can't stand the thought of admitting the fact that you don't know everything.

There are things that we know and things that we don't know. We can form and test hypotheses about things that we don't know using evidence that we do know. No one is talking about assuming anything, they are talking about making judgments based on evidence.

Based on the evidence in this case, I don't think anyone would deny that it is a reasonable judgment that Avery was involved in Halbach's murder. The debate is whether the evidence is sufficient to draw this conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.


Facts that your scenario cannot explain are not just 'loose ends' - they are evidence your hypothesis fails.

There are no facts contradicting the theory of Avery's guilt. That's the whole point I've been trying to make in this thread all along. You can argue that the evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's what the debate should be over. It's between "probably guilty" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

There's absolutely nothing pointing to another suspect or exonerating Avery. It's not like a rape case where you find the DNA of an unrelated person, but not of your suspect. It's a case with many pieces of evidence pointing to one person. I'll grant you that none of the pieces of evidence on their own amount to a "smoking gun" - but taking them all together, the case is pretty strong in my opinion (and in the opinion of the jury that found him guilty, apparently).


ll
08-26-2016 , 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Who says there must be an alternative theory?

We are not obligated to assume anything (other than the presumption of innocence until the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).


We're talking about Occam's razor, a heuristic for comparing competing hypotheses. If you don't accept that there are two competing hypotheses, then what are we discussing?
I was discussing the unstated and unsupported assumptions in your narrative.

Quote:
The police are obliged to investigate crimes. This process is done by making hypotheses and testing them. Because Halbach's last known whereabouts were at Avery's residence, they formed a hypothesis that he may have been involved in her murder. The evidence that they found supported this hypothesis.
Yes, the police are obliged to investigate crimes. That is their job.

Unfortunately, the evidence they found is incomplete at best.

The theories of the alleged crime used in the prosecutions of the suspects is deficient in some notable aspects.

Quote:
The fact that there are so many unknowns in this case is why reasonable people have reasonable doubt.

FFS even the prosecution doubts its own case - one time speculating the murder occurred in the bedroom, another time speculating it took place in the garage.

One time speculating one and only one person committed the crime, another time speculating it was a conspiracy.

This is what I meant by loose ends. It's true that the exact circumstances of the killing are not known with certainty. But there will be loose ends in any case. For instance, OJ Simpson is definitely guilty of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, but there are still specifics about the murder that we don't know.
There will always be things we don't know. Which is why the defense is under no obligation to answer questions along the lines of "Well, if the accused didn't do it, who did?"

When the prosecution cannot even decide how the alleged victim died, when this happened, or where the crime occurred, etc it looks to me like a slam dunk for 'reasonable doubt' because such vague accusations are inherently dubious.

Quote:
How is assuming all three witnesses saw the same car at that time and place 'more complex' than your assuming that two of the witnesses were lying and that there must have been a similar car observed by the third witness (or any of the half dozen other speculations to try to explain away what he saw)?

Because we're not evaluating the claim in a vacuum, but in the light of the other evidence. The theory that she left the property is supported by one witness - but it is contradicted by all the other evidence in the case.
How is Teresa leaving the property contradicted by any evidence whatsoever?

Any number of things could have happened between the time she is reported leaving the scene and several days later when 'evidence' starts popping up.

Quote:
You can't manage without speculating. If you don't accept the testimony of this witness, yes, you have to speculate about why he thought he saw her car, but if you accept it you have to speculate about a whole raft of other issues.
Or, if we don't know what happened, we could simply admit we don't know.

Really, it appears to me the best evidence against Steven points to the 'mutilation of a corpse' charge, which is one the jury didn't convict him of.

Quote:
Yes, in the real world there are things we don't know.

A much more rational way to approach life than simply speculating and assuming things must be true because you can't stand the thought of admitting the fact that you don't know everything.


There are things that we know and things that we don't know. We can form and test hypotheses about things that we don't know using evidence that we do know. No one is talking about assuming anything, they are talking about making judgments based on evidence.
Even if we have a suspicion that Steven is involved in the alleged murder of Teresa all the stuff about how this happened, where it happened, and when it happened is all guesswork.

Quote:
Based on the evidence in this case, I don't think anyone would deny that it is a reasonable judgment that Avery was involved in Halbach's murder. The debate is whether the evidence is sufficient to draw this conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.
Enough reasonable doubt to go around for anyone.

Quote:
Facts that your scenario cannot explain are not just 'loose ends' - they are evidence your hypothesis fails.

There are no facts contradicting the theory of Avery's guilt. That's the whole point I've been trying to make in this thread all along. You can argue that the evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's what the debate should be over. It's between "probably guilty" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
It might be that way for you. As I have pointed out, there are many inconvenient facts which are not accounted for by any 'guilty' scenario that can only be waved away with a mountain of unsupported assumptions. Which was my main point in calling bull**** on the abuse of Occam's Razor claims.

Quote:
There's absolutely nothing pointing to another suspect or exonerating Avery. It's not like a rape case where you find the DNA of an unrelated person, but not of your suspect. It's a case with many pieces of evidence pointing to one person. I'll grant you that none of the pieces of evidence on their own amount to a "smoking gun" - but taking them all together, the case is pretty strong in my opinion (and in the opinion of the jury that found him guilty, apparently).
Yes, there are a few pieces of rather dubious evidence which appear to make a circumstantial case against Steven.

Given that the prosecution couldn't settle their own doubts about the circumstances of the alleged crime, it is puzzling to me that observers can be more convinced than the DA was.
08-26-2016 , 12:38 PM
Motion to hold appeal in abeyance & suspend the briefing schedule.

http://m.wisn.com/blob/view/-/413840...w-Document.pdf

With 1 tweet yesterday from S.G. the media ran towards mantiowoc & let the town know the world is watching, now K.Z. & her team file a motion to hold the appeal in abeyance waiting for the A.G. next move in the B.D. case, maybe. some DNA testing also in the works.
Its a pity A.C. said they had to put back items on the table to get THAT photo done. FFS andy why did you write this down.
08-26-2016 , 04:41 PM
press conference from Zellner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoO22vK3i7A
not much concrete , just she is super confident and everything she said sound like what most understood from watching MAM seems pretty spot on
08-26-2016 , 04:56 PM
lol : first post on reddit :
Spoiler:
Oh wow. Bombshells on every page.
Police seized the RAV-4 on Nov 3.
Vehicle was moved to Avery property on Nov 4.
Vehicle discovered on Avery property on Nov 5.
Wow. Wow. Wow.


http://www.stevenaverycase.org/miscellaneous-records/
08-26-2016 , 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
lol : first post on reddit :
Spoiler:
Oh wow. Bombshells on every page.
Police seized the RAV-4 on Nov 3.
Vehicle was moved to Avery property on Nov 4.
Vehicle discovered on Avery property on Nov 5.
Wow. Wow. Wow.


http://www.stevenaverycase.org/miscellaneous-records/
Wow, indeed.
08-26-2016 , 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Wow, indeed.
"Individual B accessed the property using a false name. Individual B misrepresented that the victim’s blinker light was broken months before and that she had made an insurance claim for it. On November 3, 2005, Individual B placed three calls to the Cingular Customer Service account and password assistance line. Individual B received approximately 22 calls from law enforcement on November 4, 2005, prior to the victim’s vehicle being moved onto the property. Individual B accessed the Avery property twice on November 7, 2005 and once on November 8, 2005 after the property was closed to the public. Mr. Avery contends that the victim’s key and bones were planted on November 7, 2005 and were discovered on November 8, 2005."


It sickening to think that M.H. covered for Individual B. Btw B, K.Z. has got all your phone records from 2005 from cingular, Just saying.

Last edited by smacc25; 08-26-2016 at 07:19 PM.
08-26-2016 , 07:10 PM
Cannot wait for the shills to appear and explain that conspiracy against poor law enforcement from evil show creator and evil lawyer
08-26-2016 , 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Wow, indeed.
All interesting.

Now a lot of this is still a story.

It sounds good, in theory, that Steve Avery, especially if he is bearing the cost, has a right to request that all the evidence used against him is re-tested with the latest means available.

Would this open up the proverbial Pandora's box of every prisoner wanting all evidence used against them re-tested? And if it doesn't match conclusively to the original trial evidence, will we choose to re-try every defendant?

If there are 100 pieces of evidence used at a trial and now, for example, 2 come back differently, does that pass the threshold of being material enough to grant a re-trial or exoneration?

Ludicrous that the victim's ex-boyfriend of many years was allowed to walk side by side with law enforcement on the crime scene in a homicide investigation. In any case. In any part of the world.
08-26-2016 , 07:14 PM
Seems like she got paperwork to go with the story I quoted. Reddit had found that info from a database a while ago and people didnt know if was accurate and suspected a typo now they have the matching paperwork matching the infamous call to dispatch
08-26-2016 , 07:50 PM


These photo's have now been removed from the F.B. page........ Welcome to K.Z. she says Hi TO THE CLERKS WHO ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN.
Yup & when redditors get your photo your gonna make front page news.



Reporter" Who's the film crew following you"
K.Z." I don't know, they seem to be everywhere, just look" Gawd she's good

Last edited by smacc25; 08-26-2016 at 08:02 PM. Reason: I really do hope this photo of the key is a fake.
08-26-2016 , 08:09 PM








#ticktock
08-26-2016 , 08:19 PM
EM, a Wisconsin reporter who followed the case back in 2005 was on the scene today and asked the following question with the most condescending, sarcastic expression at 7:58, EM "And if the tests come back and it shows that that blood IS from 2005?" Zellner, "Gee, that'll be the risk that we're taking...I tell them you wanna be innocent when you hire me because I'll get to the bottom of it with the testing. And, so Mr. Avery has encouraged us to do all of these tests...he has no hesitation about it."

A face to the name.......
08-26-2016 , 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
lol : first post on reddit :
Spoiler:
Oh wow. Bombshells on every page.
Police seized the RAV-4 on Nov 3.
Vehicle was moved to Avery property on Nov 4.
Vehicle discovered on Avery property on Nov 5.
Wow. Wow. Wow.


http://www.stevenaverycase.org/miscellaneous-records/
Thanks eddymitchel

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...ic-Testing.pdf

Thanks to-Needless-Things from reddit for this & all the other input into this case...... THANK YOU Kindly.

A Quick Compilation of Information Found in Zellner's August 26th Motion for Post-Conviction Scientific Testing.

Well this has been an exciting day. Just imagine how exciting it will be when Zellner presents her third party theory in the Post-Conviction Petition that she will file once she obtains the new test results.
Holy heck.
The Motion

Mr. Avery asserts he is innocent and that additional scientific testing can, once again, prove he did not commit the crime for which he has been convicted.
Once again...
Love it.
Mr. Avery is requesting, and is willing to pay for, the most comprehensive thorough, and advanced forensic testing ever requested by a criminal defendant in the State of Wisconsin.
By doing this additional and totally comprehensive testing, a guilty defendant would risk conclusively establishing his guilt. In contrast Mr. Avery is requesting the comprehensive, thorough, and most advanced forensic testing currently known for one simple reason: he is completely innocent of the murder of Teresa Halbach.
Voicemail deletions..

Ms. Halbach's voicemail box had a twenty-message capacity.
Five voicemail deletions occurred on October 31st, 2005 and eleven additional deletions were made prior to 7:12 a.m on November 2, 2005,
Ms. Halbach's disappearance was not reported until November 3, 2005.
Colburn taking the car into evidence on Nov 3. Enough said.

Teeth and Blood and Bullets

Most of Ms. Halbach's bones and 29 of her teeth were not found in Mr. Avery's burn pit.
One of the most compelling scientific facts pointing to planted blood evidence is that there was no mixture of Ms. Halbach's and Mr. Avery's blood despite the State's claim that the bleeding Mr. Avery threw Ms. Halbach in the rear cargo area of her vehicle.
No presumptive blood testing was performed on the bullet or fragment nor was any scientific testing done to determine the organ (i.e., heart, liver, brain) from which Ms. Halbach's cells, from the bullet fragment, originated.
"Sweat" DNA

On April 3, 2006, based upon Dassey's coerced confession, a swab was taken from the hood latch of the victim's car. The good latch swab allegedly had "sweat DNA" from Mr. Avery's Hand.
It is undisputed that there is no such thing as "sweat DNA."
Again, no presumptive blood test was performed on the swab. Again, no bloody fingerprint of Mr. Avery was discovered on the latch.
Additionally, according to the state, Mr. Avery disconnected the battery cable. Yet, the cable was never tested for DNA.
On August 12, 2016, Dassey's conviction was vacated. Dassey v. Dittman. The court found that the investigators used "deceptive interrogation techniques" to obtain the confession from Dassey.
We know exactly who she means:

Non-Law enforcement individuals were also allowed to enter the property after the property was closed to the general public. Two of those individuals were untruthful in their police interviews.
Wait, Ryan called what assistance line?

Individual B (Ryan) accessed the property using a false name. Individual B, On November 3, 2005, placed three calls to Cingular Customer Service account and password assistance line
Wait, Ryan got how many calls from LE the day before the car was found??

Individual B (Ryan) received approximately 22 calls from law enforcement on November 4, 2005.
'Mr. Avery will present his third party theory in his post conviction petition that he will file once he obtains the new test results'

Someone is sweating a profuse amount

The defense claimed the motive for the frame-up was retaliation because Mr. Avery had sued the Manitowoc Police Department for a previous wrongful conviction and wrongful imprisonment.
Concerning Marc Lebeau:

The State's expert's opinion was based on unsubstantiated and unreliable data, but no other forensic testing was widely available or known by either side to determine the age of Mr. Avery's blood found in the victim's vehicle.
New testing could conclusively prove Mr. Avery's innocence, and thus, he is entitled to it under State v. O'Brien, "a defendant has a right to post-conviction discovery when the sought-after evidence is relevant to an issue of consequence."
New Testing for Sources of DNA

Mr. Avery's trial transcripts reveal that certain relevant evidence collected in his case was never subjected to prior DNA testing. If these items (such as the blinker light, hood prop, and battery cable) are tested, they could conclusively demonstrate Mr. Avery's innocence by identifying the real perpetrator's DNA.
Mr. Avery is requesting DNA and trace evidence testing on the blinker light found in the victim's car.
So they did plant the underwear

Item CV - a pair of women's purple thong panties recovered from the white trailer near the Mercury station wagon where the victim's license plates were found.
Similar thong panties were recovered from the victim's residence (items CM, CN, and CO). Mr. Avery is requesting to perform new and improved DNA testing on these panties to determine if they belonged to the victim and if they contain a male DNA profile.
Body Identification

Mr Avery is requesting DNA testing on all the alleged human pelvic bones recovered from the quarry property southwest of Avery Salvage Yard in order to conduct more advanced DNA testing to determine the origin of these bones.
So let's hurry this **** up!

Mr. Avery is entitled to mandatory DNA testing of all blood stains found in or the victim's vehicle pursuant to the prior trial court order entered on April 4, 2007.
8 Latent Fingerprints

Mr. Avery is requesting the previously-obtained fingerprints of Officers Colborn and Lenk for comparison to the unidentified prints discovered on the victim's vehicle.
Idiots. Frackin Idiots.

Items BM: Mr. Avery is requesting to examine items BM, described as a Motorola Razr phone and Box from the victim's dining room (Calumet County inventory no. D7802)
The inability of the State to produce the Motorola phone located in the Victim's residence (Item BM) would demonstrate that it was the phone placed in the burn barrel by law enforcement.
Good God. No wonder we weren't allowed access to some files. They found a phone in her house, took it into evidence, and then planted it, subsequently taking it into evidence again as a seperate item.
Idiots.
Oh.. So that's what all that was about the last couple days..

Mr. Avery's counsel has confirmed on August 24, 2016 that all of the forensic evidence in Mr. Avery's case was transferred to the Calumet County Sheriff's Department and is being held there.
EDIT: Added some info about 'individual B'
08-26-2016 , 10:16 PM
Imo Lostinthesaus was correct to say that this went all the way to the top of Mantiowoc....
Some more disciveries...

'On November 4, later evening, RAV4 has been moved to Avery's lot' (after fly-over);

of course, problem with Barrels discovery...lol...ooops, sorry;

RAV4 technical evidence reported by Analyst Groffy (odometer, driver seats position and so on);

Search diagram?;- Interesting to see if there is 1 for the Avery yard.

result of memory card taken from RAV4;

'in/out' sign-in list including SB presence;

I get that mondays are usually boring & mundane for most pl including 25 yr old's but not 1 phone call recorded to or from any friends of T.H. all day & night, especially how she was such an out going person & worked a job with no oversight & driving most of the day.
At least we now know that L.E. found T.H. other phone at her home address, or ..... To be continued.


Last edited by smacc25; 08-26-2016 at 10:29 PM.
08-27-2016 , 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by esad Making a Murderer
Dassey will be back in jail within 5 years for some other violent crime.

GJ everyone.
By everyone I assume you mean Wisconsin's legal and judicial system who might have taken someone and wrongfully convicted and incarcerated them to the point of them becoming a criminal when they are released from said wrongful conviction.

It is interesting to see a judge make such a common sense ruling on the facts in such a rare situation for release. But you are right, the state of Wisconsin along with Calumet and Mantiwoc counties increased the odds he commits a crime in the future by 37,900%.
08-27-2016 , 12:31 AM
Quote:
The new motion's biggest bombshell is a Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department report that documents the seizure of the murder victim's car on November 3, 2005, two days before it was officially found. "That was a huge discovery because the car doesn’t appear on the Avery property until November 5," Zellner tells Newsweek. "It's a problem when some of [the investigators] are planting evidence and others are honestly doing their job and documenting their malfeasance.”
08-27-2016 , 12:39 AM
You mean Zellner didn't drop this case like a hot potato?
08-27-2016 , 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
So in other words, it is your contention that if this doc was never made this judge would still make this decision? Guess we will never know but I will respectfully disagree with you.
We will ignore that the judge had this case for a long time before the documentary came out or that it literally takes only common sense to know the Dassey confession was not kosher.

But yeah it was propaganda that pushed him to reach obvious legal conclusions based on the arguments put forth by two sides in his court.
08-27-2016 , 12:52 AM
Oh man down the rabbit hole I go again
08-27-2016 , 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Not that obvious, since a prior appeals court found it wasn't. And when this finally reaches the federal court in Chicago they may or may not find the same. Nice to see you guys celebrating a win for your team though, poor Brendan Dassey and his harmless teddy bear of an uncle.
A Wisconsin appeals court. We all (-mantiwoc three) know the entire system in Wisconsin is broken, so it's not surprising a federal court was required to set things straight.

It's amusing you think another court outside of Wisconsin might flip things back.
08-27-2016 , 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Oh man down the rabbit hole I go again
haha, yes.

Quote:
5. On November 3, 2005, Officer Colborn discovered the victim's vehicle and called dispatch, on a personal line, to confirm the victim's license plate number. On November 3, 2005, according to the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department reports, Ms. Halbach's vehicle was seized.


love that we are back at this call. best moment of the show. i always laugh at 'uh, i thought she said that??' and strang just silently playing it again.


      
m