It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Netflix's Docuseries Making a Murderer

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:03 AM

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I think he is right where he belongs in a karmic way. People who soak their pets in gas then throw them into a fire are only a short skip from doing it to sympathy from me but legaly he was clearly railroaded, and every legal entity involved in this pile of sheet should be sharing the same cell.

Yeah he is not a good guy - at all.
Don't know if he murdered her but he did a lot of bad stuff and was very unhinged and she was last seen alive at his place.
Burning animals to death for fun is a sure sign of someone who is disturbed.

Emotionally I think he deserves to be where he is but based purely on the rule of law and that awfully corrupt and disgraceful trial, then he should not be in jail.

posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 08:40 AM
I agree that he did some stupid things in his past, but such judgements on his character throughout a community could potentially have made it even easier to frame him. There were so many comments from people in the documentary where they automatically conclude that Stephen Avery was the perpetrator due to their perception of his character. Regardless of how accurate they are it is the fact that such a low level of objectivity was displayed and lead to such a botched case that is so disturbing.

posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:39 PM
a reply to: stargatetravels

Getting past my feeling on this guy I would have to agree. Im wondering where the hell was the judge during this mockery of a trial.

posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:29 PM
In episode 3 the prosecutor Kratz gives a detailed description of what happen that night according to the nephew and evidence, he states:

"the evidence we have uncovered establishes that Steven Avery at this point invites his 16 year old nephew to sexually assault this women he's had bound to the bed. During the rape Teresa is begging for help begging 16 year old Brendan to stop that you can stop this. 16 year old Brendan under the instruction of Steven Avery cuts Teresa Halbach's throat but she still doesn't die" episode 3 starts at about 27:30

so what evidence did they find that was so compelling they not only believed Brendan but were willing to release the details to the public before trial.

I didn't see or hear any evidence of the prosecutors description to the media during trial, did any of you? Cut her throat and no blood anywhere on the Avery property where she was allegedly murdered...

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 12:56 AM
a reply to: Sinfulknowledge

They had no physical evidence. Just the confession, which was almost certainly a false confession.

It's absolutely nuts that Dassey was convicted. Avery, who I believe is more than likely innocent too, has a lot more against him because there is some physical evidence, even though it's all highly questionable! But for Dassey to be convicted based on a confession which he maintains was not the truth just proves how screwed you are if you have public defenders trying to prove police misconduct.. Good luck with that!

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 03:39 AM
A very interesting and compelling counter argument to the accusation that the documentary left out lots of evidence.

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:41 AM

originally posted by: stargatetravels
A very interesting and compelling counter argument to the accusation that the documentary left out lots of evidence.

Was going to post it myself, read it a few hours ago. There is it seems a lot that the documentary left out in regards to both sides of the case. Their reasoning was that they could put in every single part of the case because it simply would not fit into the 10 episodes. Kratz the pervert is just using the line they left so much out in attempt to justify his own shady part of this debacle. I mean he went and held a press conference before the jury was picked thereby tainting the jury pool. It was for the intention of making sure Steven is going to be convicted before the trial even started.

edit on 482016482016bam11 by sosobad because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 05:05 AM
here is a link to a couple of Brendan's interviews, lots to go through.
If anyone finds anything interesting please post and share.

in this video the detectives leave, Brendan starts to finally tell his mother they "got into his head" and the detectives come in to save the day, how ironic. Just before this, one of the detectives received a call, not sure what he was being told but he did say "if we go in tomorrow and i think we need someone I'll call you okay" (speculation) but i wonder if it was someone at Manitowoc County trying to "help" in the investigation. This happens at about 57:57 and the detectives leave starting at about 59:13. Also if you go to the end Brendan plays one song in his headphones repeatedly K-Ci & JoJo - Crazy.....

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 05:17 AM
During the investigation, someone mailed an anonymous letter to Manitowoc police stating that body parts had been burned in the smelter.

Attorneys for Avery wanted to show jurors a letter mailed anonymously to the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department.

The letter suggested that body parts were burned in the smelter.

Defense attorney Jerome Buting said the letter was more proof that investigators ignored any evidence that didn't fit their theory of what happened to Halbach and Avery's involvement in her death.

"It shows investigative bias," Buting said.

But prosecutors said the accusations in the letter were ignored because by the time investigators received it, the smelter had already been ruled out as having any part of Halbach's death.

More bias from the investigation in regards to leaving out any evidence that didn't fit their summary of events.

Found here

Check out the first comments in that thread.

[-]sudden_crumpet 37 points 12 hours ago

Hermann salvage is just down the road. Has a smelter.


[–]bubsandscrubs 43 points 12 hours ago

Owned by the current sheriff no less...

edit on 152016152016bam11 by sosobad because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 11:49 AM
Glad to see there is already a thread for this....

I finished watching this over the weekend and by the finale, I was all but overwhelmed (possibly because I watched all ten episodes in two consecutive evenings).

Leaving the nephew's trial aside for a moment, I think there are two basic parts to this story. The evidence and the Avery trial itself. I'm distinguishing between the two because I'm hesitant to jump all over the jury for their verdict.

Based on what was presented by the documentary (and some of the other information posted on this thread and their associated links), it certainly seems like it is possible that some of the evidence could have been planted. The victim's car key, for example, seeming to appear out of nowhere and to be found by someone that worked on the previous rape case of course seems odd. Is it possible that the key was sort of "wedged" behind the dresser and fell out? I guess so. I remember, many years ago, my wife's wedding band had fallen off of a bedside table and we spent days searching for it. We knew it was around there somewhere but just could not find it. Then, a few days after we gave up searching, while cleaning the house I noticed it out of the corner of my eye, wedged in the baseboard heater. My point is that while the key seems really odd, it's not necessarily impossible.

Then there was the fact that the car was, in fact, found on the Avery estate. The events surround that woman who found the car certainly seemed odd. Why was she lent a camera? I didn't see the documentary go into that? Is it possible that she is one of those few people out there who doesn't own a smart phone? (Believe it or not, there are still people that use the old OLD flip phones that don't have a camera). She did seem to find that needle in a hey stack pretty darn fast (compared to the overall area of the estate). Did she know it was there or did she just get lucky by starting her search on that side of the property as opposed to the other? If she knew it was there, who told her it was there? If someone planted the car there, then that conspirator was certainly taking a chance by letting someone know.

This is the point where I started to become unsure if this was all a set-up. It's one thing to have a dirty cop or two plant a piece of evidence. It's something else when, as the documentary seem to implicate, you have many, many people inside and outside of law enforcement ALL involved in this conspiracy. This would also include some people working within the law/legal system that had nothing to do with the prior rape case and really didn't have a dog in this fight. Why would they join the conspiracy? I'm usually not a fence sitter on things, but this one has me absolutely baffled and I suspect we will never, ever know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In some of the links/posts on this thread, it seems that other Avery family members could have been suspects (and it is frustrating that, based on the information available to me, they were not scrutinized by the authorities). That being said, if it WERE one of the other family members, then that would go against all the "police set him up and planted evidence" theory, because that would mean she was, in fact, killed at the Avery estate. One can't have it both ways on this.

The Trial
As I mentioned earlier, I'm resisting saying that those on the jury were idiots or came to the wrong conclusion. The documentary wasn't particularly shy about the creators' opinion that Avery was set up (although overall I found the film to be relatively fair). One thing that jumped out at me was when one of the officers, while on the stand, listened to a recorded call between himself and dispatch(?) in which they discuss the license plate and car make/model BEFORE the car was found. It was completely surreal to me as I watched and it made me incredibly curious as to what the prosecutor would have asked as a follow-up to explain it away (or try to). The editing and selection of what made it into the documentary may not paint the entire picture.

In order for me to personally agree or disagree with the jury's findings, I would have to see the ENTIRE trial from beginning to end. I'm not sure if that is available anywhere.

Final random thoughts
If Avery didn't do it, then it was one helluva set-up. That would mean....
1) Someone would have wanted to kill this woman in the first place
2) Had known that she would be on the Avery property THAT day
3) Somehow have known that Avery would be having a bonfire THAT evening

I personally don't think that, even if Avery didn't do it, the police were the one's that killed her. If I'm right about that, then how could someone plant Avery's blood in the vehicle?

This whole thing is going to bother me for a while.

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:27 PM
a reply to: eluryh22

As far as the key, yes your right, it is possible it was there the whole time and they never saw. One thing you didn't touch on was the fact that when the key was tested for DNA ONLY Steve Avery's DNA was found. Think about that for a minute, an item that was used and in the hands of the victim for years failed to show any evidence of her DNA on it. To me that is completely ridiculous, take a look at your own car key or house key, i bet it is dirty and full of your DNA. Look at the groves of the key in the videos and pictures, to me that key is way to clean and shiny to be a key that was used daily by the victim.

As far as the car, there is no evidence that supports the theory that Avery put the car there him self, blood was found in the car but the fact that Avery's blood sample was tampered with in his old case kit is very troubling, and consider that they only found his blood in the car (the hood latch could have been contaminated after officers admitted to touching the car inside and then the hood without gloves and without proper forensic procedures) and no other physical evidence, no prints, no hair, no fibers, no shoe imprints, saliva, nothing else but Avery's blood.

I understand why you would doubt a conspiracy and why people would get involved but look at history, water gate, CIA coc aine smuggling, and other conspiracies that turned out to be true also where unbelievable at the time and the amount of people involved is ridiculous but certainly possible.

and lets clear this up for everyone since it seems to be happening often. The defense never accused anyone they were merely trying to prove that there were inconsistencies, and possible alternatives that may have included planting of evidence by a person or officer. The police never looked at anyone else not even the ex-boyfriend and the room mate. The defense couldn't prove foul play, but sure had enough evidence to give the jury Reasonable Doubt which was their goal because with reasonable doubt you shouldn't convict someone specifically because of the reasonable doubt. Avery giving a list of possible suspects, the theory that evidence could have been planted especially by a department that was being sued for 36 million are not two situations that Avery say's happened he is merely trying to establish reasonable doubt. Then again you say you cant have it both way's, your saying that it is not possible that someone else killed her and the police (not involved in killing her) found evidence didn't know who it was but thought it was most likely Avery and decided to make their jobs easy and point evidence at his direction. If your saying that is not in the realm of possibilities then you know a lot more then many of us and should share your theories and evidence.

The fact that the cop knew the plates year and model of the car before it was found is troubling and i agree i would like to see how the prosecution handled that situation but i haven't been able to find his trial videos, anyone have a link?
nonetheless not evidence of either or so still stuck in murky waters with this

Your final random thoughts:
1) Your Assuming she wasn't killed by some rapist or killer and left in her car and someone with motive to frame Avery found her and her car and planted evidence and burned the body to hide what really happen to her. Your assuming that the cop that called in her plates and described her car 2 days before hand had nothing to do with this, is it not possible he found the car and her body and decided to frame Avery?
2) One of the family members could have been the killer and seen her that day, or maybe someone had been watching the Avery's lot plotting to frame him.
3) And maybe they didn't know he had a bonfire that night, maybe someone merely knew he had a fire pit and decided to burn her body and throw the remains in his pit, remember she went missing the 31'st and found the 5th thats a couple days to burn body and plant it, like wise with the car.

not at all saying this happen, just demonstrating that there are a lot of possibilities and that only evidence should hold any weight and the fact that some of the evidence in his old case was tampered with, the fact that a department that was being sued by Avery was so eager to help after being told to stay out of it, the fact that the boy was coerced, the fact that they gave this detailed story of what happen to Teresa to the media before trial and during trial couldn't prove any of the statements made to the media even after Kratz has said to the media "the EVIDENCE establishes" what evidence established a tied women to the bed, with cut hair and a cut throat where is all the blood.

and did you really ask how Avery's blood got into the car? did you watch the whole series? The vial of blood that was tampered with? The magic EDTA test the FBI provided on top of their testimony of its accuracy, the defense bringing up another chemist specialist that disagrees with the FBI.
Think about it, the only cut Avery had was on his hand and if he is bleeding and leaving that all over i find it hard to believe he didn't leave any finger prints behind as well.

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 05:09 PM
Here is another thought and maybe I missed it but was the body that was disposed and burned really the victim? Was it actually proven it was her - 100%?

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 07:19 PM
a reply to: flyandi

No the bones were never 100% said to be Teresa's

Sherry Culhane testified she could not definitively conclude they were Teresa's

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 11:25 PM
So whats more disturbing is the sheer amount of proven police misconduct cases where the actual cops were never charged with criminal activity even those were 100% criminal. They had to pay - usually the insurer but those cops are still out there probably causing more issues for people.

I am happy that Mrs Zellner took over this case, considering her track record - she probably has the most experience in these kind of cases.

These cops are like animals - it's not about the truth but about a "score" - convictions no matter what and if it turns out wrong - oh well "sorry" or "I am not convinced" - even it was proven that they were 100% innocent.

Cops already garnered a bad reputation in the United States but this far from just "Police brutality". This is controlling the law to their needs and their purpose.

Reading through some of these cases, I am not even convinced anymore that this framing an "individual". It's about getting "their way" under any circumstances - law enforcement can't lose and citizen who are going against it, well they are on the s*** list and will feel the full force of their strength. Cops can't be in a bad light and "police misconduct" is a declaration of war for them. I am not anti-cop but I am definitely not pro-cop either.

Sorry but the judicial system is absolutely rigged and I would have never read about these other cases if I wouldn't have watched this documentary and it's really bad - I mean really bad!

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 11:43 PM
I can only hope that Mrs Zellner finds the real truth and she uses all her power to go after those who wrongfully convicted both of them.

HOW THE # DID they convict Brandon?????

No physical evidence
No nothing!


It's insanity - it's unbelievable!

I want hunt down these jurors and ask them personally why!

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 11:50 PM
Yeah I am watching the sentencing..

It's unbelievable this Judge Willis! WTF is wrong with this guy!

How dare he says that Steven's life was full of criminal activity! He was sitting 18 years in prison of a wrongfully conviction and this judge has the guts to say that he seeked a financial reward and that he was predisposed to commit this murder!

WTF is wrong with this Justice system?????

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:56 AM
Ive only watched a few episodes thus far...but it is truly disappointing to see such a gross failure of the justice system.

The one big thing that I always pay attention to is body language and verbal cues. Having been in the military and operating more VCP's than I care to remember..body language has always been a key determinant for me. Even in my current occupation...I must be aware of how a client carries themselves so that i can address those issues medically. The subtleties of the human body are kind of my thing.

That being said... I believe that S.A. is innocent. It is almost TOO obvious in the first trial that there was a cover-up and blatant disregard for evidence. The interview with Vogel and the rest of those to be deposed were so telling. One doesn't even have to be skilled in body language interpretation to see the lies.

I have not watched far enough to really get to the meat of the murder trial...but so far SA looks to me to be telling th e truth when he says he didn't do it....

edit on 12-1-2016 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 08:55 AM
What is really telling to me is the entire story about he being tied up and raped for hours, stabbed, hair cut off, neck slashed and they do not find a single but of evidence? Not a single hair? No DNA from swear or blood?

When you ad up all the things done wrong here starting with the cops who had a huge conflict of interest being involved when they were not supposed to be and no evidence fitting the scenario they claim it is shocking.

Now do I know the guy is innocent? No. He could be guilty but, with the taint on so the limited physical evidence, the confession by the boy who would have agreed aliens took her away if they had suggested it to him, and the lack of even looking at another suspect and you have real problems.

How do they not even look at anybody else like the ex boyfriend. They never even asked him where he was at the time. They never asked anybody else. The entire thing just stinks.

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:47 PM
Finished watching the documentary. I am getting slowly to an understanding.

It's very simple: Anyone in this trial had a benefit of putting Steven and Brandon into prison - no matter if they are innocent or not.

Katz and the special investigators had to keep their track record up by winning every case - I read through Katz history as prosecutor and he didn't loose one trial. It later turned out that Katz misused his position for personal benefit and that was just in one case. It's not that people suddenly decide to put their career on the line for one single case. If it goes that far, there is usually a system in place for years. It might have started right at Avery's trial - don't underestimate the feeling of having power and being untouchable. What really bothered me that Katz just resigned without any other repercussions. Heck he didn't even loose his law license and is running a law firm today. I bet Fassbender and the other guy had no idea of the implication of their initial interview with Brandon and didn't anticipate that it will go as far using that "confession" as the base for the trial. My feeling is that they were cornered and had no other option that go with it and defend their positions even it meant to put someone innocent in prison. Otherwise they would have risked to be questioned on their methods which for an special investigator can be career ending.

The DNA expert was the worst. She was the one who identified Avery in the rape case which turned out to be completely bogus. Then she admitted that she already had evidence in 1994 putting Avery out of the question but that would have meant that she failed her duties in the first place and on top after an independent lab confirmed that it was not Avery's DNA she stalled the confirmation of the DNA results for over a year. Then she spoiled the entire DNA sample from the second case and she had no issues with admitting that in court. Her entire professional conduct was never questioned and that was her biggest fear - if it would have come to that point, her entire career could have been on the line and heck she did everything that this would never come to light. She was probably the most obvious character that just screwed up one thing after another to protect her career. As an expert you are almost indemnified and can say whatever you want.

The FBI admitted in court that they had a bias motive to make sure that the cops didn't place the evidence. The expert admitted that in the very first sentence and it was not just to protect these cops but make sure that nobody would question that there is a possibility of cops placing evidence.

The brother in law Scott had an extreme dislike for Steven Avery. You can tell by his behavior and how he acted towards Steven Avery. Probably his main motive was that he anticipated to take over the junk yard once Steven was out of the picture. I think his motive was purely financial motivated.

The Sheriff of Manitowoc had a personal feud with Avery - clearly - I mean he had the guts to say on national TV that "it would have been easier to kill him than frame him" - there was real hate towards Avery - probably because of two reasons: 1) He disliked him to be in the community due to some questionable things in the past - probably he saw him as a troublemaker and he had no interest of dealing with him and 2) As a brother to the competition junk yard in the town it was just convenient to put him out of the picture. Overall he misused his position numerous times to advance personal gains. He even admitted that in court multiple times including still questioning Avery's exoneration in the rape case even it was proven that he never committed that crime in the first place.

The cops of Manitowoc - well where to start - they had the most to loose from a financial perspective. The 36 million lawsuit brought against the department was seriously troubling these cops considering that the insurance dropped out due to false imprisonment. So they were personally liable including the department itself. Avery probably would have won the entire lawsuit and these cops were about to be shifted in national focus - that was a serious threat to them - something they couldn't allow. So these cops lied and violated numerous clear rules not to intervene in the ongoing investigation. On top they were the one's finding "evidence" after they went to Avery's property by themselves after multiple searches were already finished .. come on .. btw no repercussions for these cops - even they violated police conduct and falsified evidence. If everything comes down and all other people can be explained away on their actions - this one can't. Clearly these cops had the strongest motive to frame Steven and even they didn't - they acted in a way that was at best illegal. They should have been put on administrative leave after their misconduct and ignoring specific instructions.

Judge Willis & Fox - both of them had a past of extremely community friendly - meaning they put the community before the individual. Not only had they to protect their reputation but also their "oath" to the community. If you look at their past trials and trials after Steven and Brandon - you can see that they did some very questionable decisions that were later overturned by higher courts - but the key is that they were always "community friendly" putting people who don't really fit into the community far away from the community. Both had the motive to keep their reputation up and allowed very questionable proceedings in both trials. My believe is that there extremely bias and didn't want Avery be back in the community - especially Willis which characterized Steven as a person who progressed in their criminal career and failed to acknowledge his wrongfully conviction in his sentencing really shows his true nature and motive.

The jurors - well - let's see one of the jurors was related to the someone of the Manitowoc Police Department - and most of them lived in either county. Considering how small that population it's not far fetched that the jurors were pretty known to everyone within the communities. The people in both counties were angry - not only because of Avery but also that they were in the spotlight for years. Think about, all of these jurors would have been marked if they would have let them go free - the public mind was already shaped by Katz and others who published horrendous details which were not true before the actual trial. The excused juror was very specific that 7 where for innocent and 3 for guilty while the rest was undecided. Somehow the 3 made sure that the others would change their mind - there is no recording in the Juror room - so who knows who was for guilty but it I can assume that they made pretty convincing statements towards the others - maybe even in the form of that if they don't charge him with guilty - "they" (the people) would come after them and their families .. plus it took them 4 days to get there - which is a long time. They were tired and the potential threats to them and their families was higher than putting an innocent man in prison for the rest for his life.

So all and all - every important position in this trial had an genuine interest for a guilty verdict. Not one had nothing too lose in either outcome.

I don't get why the State courts of WI didn't realize that... and rejected every motion filed by Steven and Brandon.

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 06:58 PM
Don't know if it's been posted or if anyone is aware....but the entire 4 hour interview/"confession" of Brendan Dassey is available on youtube(it comes in 3 parts)...I'm currently watching it so can't really comment fully....


top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in