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

09-13-2016 , 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
These are the photos I was looking for!

Colburn shakes bookshelf violently - key pops out of solid wood side of cabinet, but stack of coins on top remain undisturbed.

They're dealing from the bottom of the deck.
09-13-2016 , 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Well, if someone owns something, especially something they handle everyday, you know, with their hands, you'd expect there to be some DNA on that.
How does this relate to the likelihood of the key being planted?
09-13-2016 , 10:18 PM
And I mean, would you really expect the key to have Halbach's DNA? Under any scenario it would have been sitting around for a few days and been handled by at least one other person since she touched it. What's your estimate of how likely it is that it would still contain her DNA under these circumstances? Have you done any research to support that your estimate is well-informed? Can you provide citations?
09-13-2016 , 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
These are the photos I was looking for!

Colburn shakes bookshelf violently - key pops out of solid wood side of cabinet, but stack of coins on top remain undisturbed.

They're dealing from the bottom of the deck.
How about the dealer was already banned from the game.

Why would they even want the people who would draw the most suspicion locating evidence? They were so acutely aware of perception from the beginning, yet completely ignored their own sage advice. And they are now seemingly perplexed that there is the perception the investigation was not handled appropriately.
09-13-2016 , 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
How about the dealer was already banned from the game.

Why would they even want the people who would draw the most suspicion locating evidence? They were so acutely aware of perception from the beginning, yet completely ignored their own sage advice. And they are now seemingly perplexed that there is the perception the investigation was not handled appropriately.
I think they were rather cavalier when they thought a public defender like Len Kachinsky would be Steven's defense lawyer.

When lawyers of the caliber of Buting and Strang got in the game, I think that made things a little more difficult.

And they never bargained for a couple of intelligent documentary film makers to show up, either.

Now they've got the top lawyer specializing in overturning wrongful convictions on their trail.
09-13-2016 , 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
How about the dealer was already banned from the game.

Why would they even want the people who would draw the most suspicion locating evidence? They were so acutely aware of perception from the beginning, yet completely ignored their own sage advice. And they are now seemingly perplexed that there is the perception the investigation was not handled appropriately.
Thanks to JLWhitaker from reddit.....

More strange Kratz letters
Correspondence to Avery Defense
pg 3 - 10 April 06 "we did not seize the computer from Barb Janda" followed by "We will retain the hard drive...until you come pick it up." Talk about a non sequitur. Hard drive from a computer they didn't seize or from someone else's computer, or they seized the hard drive but not the Janda computer? This is nonsense.
pg 4 - 6 Sept 06 "Time System transmissions" - does anyone know what these are? Or what a 'time system' is?
pg 6 - 15 Dec 06 'lay and expert witnesses' list. We have lay people who will act like they are experts, but they really aren't, so do with that what you will.
Correspondence to Judge Patrick Willis
pg 1 - 18 January Discussion about the Avery Salvage Yard being used as bail assurance. After reading this, it appears there was no objection from the prosecution at that time.
pg 2 - 23 January Kratz reverses his position or clarifies it that they not use property mortgage as a bond. What happened in those 5 days? Tim Halbach?
pg 4 - 22 February Kratz wanting to be involved in the attorney choices of Avery! That is OUTRAGEOUS!
pg 6 - 19 April 2006 Remember our questions about how Kratz was appointed special prosecutor? Looky here - HE sent the forms to Willis fully 5 1/2 MONTHS after the crime and his involvement in it and all the communications he's been carrying with the case to date. Even MORE bizarro errors in this case. Does this mean KK had no official standing?
09-14-2016 , 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
I think they were rather cavalier when they thought a public defender like Len Kachinsky would be Steven's defense lawyer.

When lawyers of the caliber of Buting and Strang got in the game, I think that made things a little more difficult.

And they never bargained for a couple of intelligent documentary film makers to show up, either.

Now they've got the top lawyer specializing in overturning wrongful convictions on their trail.
I don't think they care about Buting and Strang. Too much of a home-court advantage anyway. After the press conference, his attorneys were left with jurors that had relatives in the department. They had very little chance and you could sense their defeatist attitude.

Now they certainly didn't foresee the (inter)national attention this would garner. Even if you think the documentary was 100% slanted and biased, it still does not remove some basics. Contradicting their own edicts and just simple stuff, like allowing a civilian ex-boyfriend to enter an active crime scene investigation. That was not a mistake. He signed his name. He, statistically, is suspect #1. It does not mean at all that he is guilty, but there was no way to rule him out as a suspect so quickly.
09-14-2016 , 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
I don't think they care about Buting and Strang. Too much of a home-court advantage anyway. After the press conference, his attorneys were left with jurors that had relatives in the department. They had very little chance and you could sense their defeatist attitude.

Now they certainly didn't foresee the (inter)national attention this would garner. Even if you think the documentary was 100% slanted and biased, it still does not remove some basics. Contradicting their own edicts and just simple stuff, like allowing a civilian ex-boyfriend to enter an active crime scene investigation. That was not a mistake. He signed his name. He, statistically, is suspect #1. It does not mean at all that he is guilty, but there was no way to rule him out as a suspect so quickly.
I agree - I don't think a lot of the bad practices were 'mistakes'.

You don't block the County Coroner from executing her duties in examining the crime scene by accident.
09-14-2016 , 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
And I mean, would you really expect the key to have Halbach's DNA? Under any scenario it would have been sitting around for a few days and been handled by at least one other person since she touched it. What's your estimate of how likely it is that it would still contain her DNA under these circumstances? Have you done any research to support that your estimate is well-informed? Can you provide citations?
Pretty sure an expert testified that DNA testing will often not find everyone who handled an item, it will sometimes only identify the most recent person to have touched it.

Not that facts will derail team Conspiracy. Key was planted, car was planted, blood was planted, DNA was planted, bones were planted, etc., etc.
09-14-2016 , 08:43 AM
I'm not sure if you guys have stopped responding to me or not, but let me just clarify what I was trying to do with my previous posts.

Basically, if you make a claim that X is evidence of Y you have to be able to back that up with solid reasoning to show why Y is more probable in the case of X than it would in the case of not-X. You are not doing reasoning of this type, you're just making a snap judgement based on whether something seems "off" to you. In many cases in life that's just fine - when you talk to your wife on the phone, you make a snap judgement based on her tone of voice about what kind of mood she's in, when you see a guy approaching you in a dark alley you make a quick judgment of whether he's a threat or not. But for trying to determine the truth in a criminal case, "It seems suspicious to me" simply doesn't cut it.

For the specific example of Halbach's DNA on the key, there are way too many variables that involve pure guesses to draw any reasonable conclusions:
- How likely is it in general for car keys to have the DNA of people who have handled the key recently?
- How likely would it be for the key to still have Halbach's DNA after being handled by her killer (and possibly others)?
- How likely is it that the police would have planted Halbach's DNA on the key if they planted it?
For the first question, if you really want to you can probably do some research and come up with a good estimate. For the second, you might be able to make an educated guess although it's not possible to know if anyone cleaned the key or dropped it in the mud or what effect the environmental conditions wherever it was stored would have had on the preservation of DNA. The third question would be pretty much a pure shot in the dark.

In sum, I don't think there's any way anyone could even reasonably guess whether this piece of information is indicative of planting or not. And even if it was determined to be evidence of planting, there are so many unknown variables that could affect it that any evidentiary value it might have would be extremely tiny.

Basically all the points you guys raise run into similar issues to the above. I'm not saying you're right or wrong about your conclusion that Avery was framed, but at the very least I don't think you have provided much evidence in support of your position.
09-14-2016 , 08:54 AM
Dude I think you think you are pretty intelligent but you are a moron


Stop evaluating each variable individually that's your problem. They are connected and as you said "sure you can infer" - well after coincidence and coincidence and coincidence the changes of an actual coincidence are much lower
09-14-2016 , 09:01 AM
Have you ever forgot where you parked in a parking lot?

How long does it take to fund the car, and that's with having an idea of the area it's in PLUS having a key fob that makes your car beep when you're close enough.


Now multiply the size of the parking lot 10 fold, and you have no idea where the car is, and you have no key fob, and it's not even your personal car that you can quickly recognize, AND you aren't even looking for a car specifically you are looking for a missing person.


Cmon now, you have to admit that is a suspiciously fast time to find something and you add that in with all the other factors it only gets more suspicious.




Like with your theory... You think it's more likely that halbach was shot by Avery in her garage 11 times and yet the garage was perfectly cleaned to leave no trace of her outside of a SINGLE bullet with so little DNA that it could only be tested once and that test was corrupted.

And the same man left blood streaks blatantly in the open on a car dashboard. How can x = y or whatever the **** you were talking about here?
09-14-2016 , 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Dude I think you think you are pretty intelligent but you are a moron
I think lka and revots are two of the smartest posters ITT; at the very least, they are taking a much more logical approach to the case than you are, in my opinion.


Quote:
Stop evaluating each variable individually that's your problem. They are connected and as you said "sure you can infer" - well after coincidence and coincidence and coincidence the changes of an actual coincidence are much lower
https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAvery..._coincidences/

1) It is a coincidence SA called TH three times the day she died requesting her in person and leaving his sisters details.
2) It is a coincidence her SUV was found on his property.
3) It is a coincidence her burned remains were found in a pit he admitted burning a bonfire in.
4) It is a coincidence her burned phone and other personal items where found in a barrel witnesses saw SA burn stuff in.
5) It is a coincidence SA has fresh cuts on his hand.
6) which just happens to be in the same position that blood is found on the ignition dashboard indentation.
7) It is a coincidence SA bought handcuffs and chains before SA was murdered.
8) It is a coincidence TH was burned up the same way SA burned up a cat.
9) It is a coincidence a bullet found in SA garage had TH's DNA on it.
10) It is a coincidence the same bullet was linked to SA's gun.
11) It is a coincidence that the practice of disconnecting batteries so junkyard cars can't be stolen also happened to TH's SUV.
12) It is a coincidence the latch of the SUV hood contained SA's DNA.
13) It is a coincidence that the tools used to cut TH's body up where also in the burn pit.
14) It is a coincidence that forensics teams just happened to support the conspirators in the conspiracy.
15) It was a coincidence that in addition to planting of evidence there was contamination of evidence by the forensic team gathering said planted evidence!
16) What about the coincidence that he uses *67 to block his caller id twice
17) What about the coincidence that he and dassey are cleaning the garage floor on Halloween night
18) What about the coincidence that he took the day off, (spontaneously, didn't tell anyone he wasn't returning to work.)
19) Coincidence that the last phone call TH made was right after she told autotrader she was on her way to Avery's.
20) it a coincidence that Avery's dog, Bear, allowed the cops to put the bones in the firepit, but wouldn't allow them to take them out. <-- Classic!
21) it is a coincidence that the furniture in the bedroom was swapped around after Jodi went to jail.
Added...
22) Coincidence that the exact spot where Brendan said TH was killed, there was the 3x4 spot that was cleaned in the garage, and lit up with luminol.
23) Coincidence that multiple other people allege that Avery forcibly raped them.
24) Coincidence that Earl Avery gave permission for the Sturms to search the salvage yard, which set the whole investigation and discovery of all the evidence in motion
25) Coincidence that The very rifle that was used to fire the bullet that killed TH hung over Avery's bed, and that not one print or bit of testable DNA remained on that rifle.
26) Coincidence that a bullet was found with TH's DNA after a search warrant was issued for the garage, which was gotten only after Brendan stated that the murder had occurred there.
27) Coincidence that right after being seen alive for the last time outside Avery's trailer, there was approximately 2 hours of inactivity on THs cellphone, which corresponded with approximately 2 hours of inactivity on Avery's cellphone, which is the time Avery states she had left.
28) Coincidence that Kayla Avery spoke to a school counselor about a cousin having told her he had helped Avery move a body (and asking about blood coming up thru concrete)which Brendan eventually confessed to doing. This happened long before any of Brendan's confessions.
29) Coincidence that Brendan spoke to his mom and admitted to having done "some of it", and also told her, "you know I did it."
30) Coincidence that Brendan had bleach on the jeans he was wearing that night, and Barb verified it.
31) Coincidence that SA and BD decided to clean a "fluid spill" with bleach, gasoline and paint thinner.
32) Coincidence that Jodi was stuck in jail, Avery calls up his nephew's girlfriend for sex the night before, and then the next day a call to Auto Trader is made and Teresa Halbach is requested by Avery, to photograph a van the owner didn't want to sell.
33) Coincidence that multiple people claim that Avery threatened to kill them.
34) Coincidence that Avery was talking about other evidence the cops would find after the rav-4 discovery, but before any other evidence was even found.
35) Coincidence that Brendan began lying to cops before implicating himself or Avery at all.
36) Coincidence that both Avery and Brendan lied about, and later admitted to, having a bonfire that night.
37) Coincidence that everyone says that Steven was able to make Brendan do things, and Brendan tells his mother that Steven made him do it.
38) Coincidence that the phone call that was supposed to alibi Brendan(Kornely), there are no records of.
39) Coincidence that Jodi states that Avery told her that "all bitches owed" him.
more......
40) It's a coincidence that there was a dick pic on his desk dated 10-10-05, the exact same date of her previous visit, which also may have been the day he greeted her wearing a towel.
41) It's a coincidence that he began requesting Teresa to photograph cars on a frequent basis after Jodi was arrested.
42) It's a coincidence that he had blood drops in his own car similar to those in Teresa's RAV4.
43) Many family members, including some close to him, believe he was capable of, and had committed the murder.
44) It is a coincidence that every alibi witness who saw him, saw him doing something related to the crime, like having a bonfire or cleaning his garage floor or using the burn barrel.
45) It's a coincidence that he decided to get cleaned up and have a late afternoon change of clothing that very afternoon.
46) Coincidence that Avery allegedly said to a deputy, during the trial, that he couldn't believe it took them 8 tries to find the key.
47) Coincidence that Jodi's Huber rights were cancelled the day before TH was killed, so Avery wouldn't have carnal relations once a week when he drove her to her meetings.
48) It is a coincidence that he allegedly told prison inmates that he knew how to get rid of a body by burning it.
49) It is a coincidence that Robert Fabian and Earl Avery thought SA was acting weird that afternoon.
50) It is a coincidence that Bobby lied about seeing TH walking to SA's trailer.
51) Coincidence that if LE framed Avery, that they would had to have wagered that the defense wouldn't test the blood for EDTA, and they didn't.
52) Coincidence that Avery didn't take a polygraph, despite having done so for the '85 wrongful conviction, and stating he would for this case.
53) Avery said the clothes he had worn the night of 10/31 would be in the laundry room, but they were not.
54) Avery had his snowmobile/sled in front of garage. Brendan said (unprompted) that Steve probably used the sled to move her body to the fire pit. Earl and RF also said that Avery was acting weird and tending to the sled when they dropped by that afternoon, after TH had supposedly left.
09-14-2016 , 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Have you ever forgot where you parked in a parking lot?

How long does it take to fund the car, and that's with having an idea of the area it's in PLUS having a key fob that makes your car beep when you're close enough.


Now multiply the size of the parking lot 10 fold, and you have no idea where the car is, and you have no key fob, and it's not even your personal car that you can quickly recognize, AND you aren't even looking for a car specifically you are looking for a missing person.


Cmon now, you have to admit that is a suspiciously fast time to find something and you add that in with all the other factors it only gets more suspicious.




Like with your theory... You think it's more likely that halbach was shot by Avery in her garage 11 times and yet the garage was perfectly cleaned to leave no trace of her outside of a SINGLE bullet with so little DNA that it could only be tested once and that test was corrupted.

And the same man left blood streaks blatantly in the open on a car dashboard. How can x = y or whatever the **** you were talking about here?
ask god for help to locate your car you noob
09-14-2016 , 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
I agree - I don't think a lot of the bad practices were 'mistakes'.

You don't block the County Coroner from executing her duties in examining the crime scene by accident.
This was way before the documentary:

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/linge...roduction.html
***Although the involvement of Calumet County was to avoid conflict of interest, at least three Manitowoc County officers were active in the search. Two of these volunteered to search areas where crucial items were later discovered.

On 10 November, the area officially changed from a search to a crime scene after the discovery of bones around a burn pit.

The Manitowoc County Coroner, Debra Kakatsch, learned of the homicide via evening televised news. She attempted contact with the lead investigators. They did not respond with any usable information or direction. Meanwhile, she began assembling a forensic team comprised of local experts from surrounding counties. Manitowoc County Executive Dan Fischer and Corporation Counsel Steven J. Rollins, ordered her to stop any involvement. They later claimed the conflict of interest.

But, the direct involvement of Manitowoc County Officers in the search and investigation is contrary to that claim. And, the forensic team being assembled was still capable of assistance since they were not from Manitowoc County. The simple solution was to appoint one of the team as the lead coroner. But, the State already had people in mind. Who decided to eliminate local experts from the case?***
09-14-2016 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
This was way before the documentary:

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/linge...roduction.html
***Although the involvement of Calumet County was to avoid conflict of interest, at least three Manitowoc County officers were active in the search. Two of these volunteered to search areas where crucial items were later discovered.

On 10 November, the area officially changed from a search to a crime scene after the discovery of bones around a burn pit.

The Manitowoc County Coroner, Debra Kakatsch, learned of the homicide via evening televised news. She attempted contact with the lead investigators. They did not respond with any usable information or direction. Meanwhile, she began assembling a forensic team comprised of local experts from surrounding counties. Manitowoc County Executive Dan Fischer and Corporation Counsel Steven J. Rollins, ordered her to stop any involvement. They later claimed the conflict of interest.

But, the direct involvement of Manitowoc County Officers in the search and investigation is contrary to that claim. And, the forensic team being assembled was still capable of assistance since they were not from Manitowoc County. The simple solution was to appoint one of the team as the lead coroner. But, the State already had people in mind. Who decided to eliminate local experts from the case?***
...and apparently Kakatsch was not allowed to testify because it might 'confuse the jury'.

Stacked deck.
09-14-2016 , 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I think lka and revots are two of the smartest posters ITT; at the very least, they are taking a much more logical approach to the case than you are, in my opinion.
How do you go about ascertaining smart?

Is it IQ, degrees, specific experience, SAT, LSAT or GMAT scores?

Often, the "smarter" lawyer wins the case.

Regardless of your opinion on SA/BD's guilt, they sure didn't do the best job, perception wise, removing reasonable doubt.
09-14-2016 , 06:16 PM
Yeah revots is brilliant. His whole reasoning is that he believe the jury verdict. Even if both defendant got sentenced with 2 different narrative of the same murder.
What a genius.
09-14-2016 , 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
52) Coincidence that Avery didn't take a polygraph, despite having done so for the '85 wrongful conviction, and stating he would for this case.
You put together a ridiculous list. But this one intrigued me. I never knew he took a polygraph test before and agreed to a new one as well. But that he didn't actually take one.

If I recall, BD had one that came back inconclusive but his own investigator said was 98% positive.

So, it seems you have some belief in polygraph tests. Why don't we give polygraph tests to everyone involved including law enforcement and other suspects? Additional information that may or not be valuable and would be up to a jury to use that to come to any decision.
09-14-2016 , 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
BD said lots of stuff. He cut her hair, he forgot that she was shot, she was shot twice, shot 11 times, had sex with her, had some soda, stabbed her in the neck, stabbed her in the stomach, nothing happened, etc.

You can certainly prosecute someone with a pile of bones. Or without a weapon. Or without even bones.

The prosecution did make a case where she was killed. They didn't say we have no idea. They used two different stories. And they charged only one with rape. Who was found guilty. Ok. Will accept that.

To go around to law enforcement conferences and state that Steve Avery raped TH when he wasn't even charged or convicted for that offense? It appears that has no consequences. I say we charge him with a lot of unsolved crimes too. Now they are solved.
I didn't say what BD said was true or not I'm saying that is why he was found guilty of rape.

And I said prosecute rape with a pile of bones not prosecute in general.
09-14-2016 , 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Yeah revots is brilliant. His whole reasoning is that he believe the jury verdict. Even if both defendant got sentenced with 2 different narrative of the same murder.
What a genius.
Not believing ridiculous, baseless conspiracy theories doesn't make you a genius. It just makes you smarter than people who believe them.
09-14-2016 , 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
You put together a ridiculous list.
Which ones are ridiculous?
09-14-2016 , 09:29 PM
@ZellnerLaw: Wisc. App. Ct. grants our motion to stay appeal and return record to trial court to decide testing motion.
#Stepstofreedom

Spoiler:

Last edited by smacc25; 09-14-2016 at 09:41 PM.
09-14-2016 , 09:38 PM
CWCY Spotlight

September 14, 2016
On September 14, 2016, we filed a motion asking the Court to release Brendan on bond during the State of Wisconsin's appeal. We will not be publicly commenting on this motion at this time. As in the past, we ask Brendan's supporters to refrain from contacting the judge or prosecutors about this motion. As always, Brendan, his family, and his attorneys remain grateful for your support.

09-14-2016 , 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Not believing ridiculous, baseless conspiracy theories doesn't make you a genius. It just makes you smarter than people who believe them.

      
m