OnionAhaiReborn Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I think Steven Avery is guilty. I thought so while watching the documentary due to the enormous amount of evidence (key, bullet, car, bones, blood) we have to believe, based on no evidence but circumstantial suspicions, was planted by the police if he is innocent, and even more so after reading a bit afterward. One thing I've read since that stands out is the testimony of the state's arson investigator who says he saw Halbach's remains intermingled with the steel wire from the tires Steven Avery admits to burning there that night. That's devastating to the theory that the bones were dumped there.For Brendan Dassey I have much more skepticism, since I have no trouble believing he was coerced and confused into falsely confessing. His story changes so many times that I doubt, even if he was involved, that his final version was the "real" story. That said, there is some physical evidence that's consistent with him being involved, which I believe the documentary left out. He apparently returned home that night with bleach-stained pants, and told his mother he was cleaning Steven's garage, which she told the police later. He directs the police to exactly where they can find the pants during one of his interviews, and they were presented as evidence at trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 He directs the police to exactly where they can find the pants during one of his interviews, and they were presented as evidence at trial.I have to ask, is this sarcasm? Because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of it being suspicious that someone directed the police to their dresser. This would be like saying it's suspicious if he'd directed the police to a pair of scissors after being coerced into confessing that they'd cut the victim's hair. If any part of Brendan's confession is suspicious, it's the one that revealed DNA under the hood of the RAV4. and that's only because it added something new. I haven't read that particular transcript yet, so it might be the single interrogation that can't be described as coercing a false confession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I have to ask, is this sarcasm? Because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of it being suspicious that someone directed the police to their dresser. This would be like saying it's suspicious if he'd directed the police to a pair of scissors after being coerced into confessing that they'd cut the victim's hair. If any part of Brendan's confession is suspicious, it's the one that revealed DNA under the hood of the RAV4. and that's only because it added something new. I haven't read that particular transcript yet, so it might be the single interrogation that can't be described as coercing a false confession. It's nothing but a matter of fact statement of what he told the police and of the pants being presented as evidence at trial. What's suspicious is not that he knows the location of his pants (he tells them they're in the kitchen on a chair, not in his dresser), but that they are stained with bleach, which his mother had told police happened on or around the 31st, and which is consistent (but not absolutely dispositive) with him having been involved in cleaning blood from Steven Avery's garage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 It's nothing but a matter of fact statement of what he told the police and of the pants being presented as evidence at trial. What's suspicious is not that he knows the location of his pants (he tells them they're in the kitchen on a chair, not in his dresser), but that they are stained with bleach, which his mother had told police happened on or around the 31st, and which is consistent (but not absolutely dispositive) with him having been involved in cleaning blood from Steven Avery's garage.I guess that makes sense if one concludes that his confession was not in the least coerced and also doesn't examine the evidence as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastard of Boston Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 What's truly laughable is the idea that the convicted so meticulously cleaned the entire crime scene, but were lax enough to leave blood smeared in the RAV4, which would've been a helluva lot more conducive to cleaning. It's a lot smaller and tidier than a haphazard garage, filled with crap which would collect all manner of spatter. They'll clean every nook and cranny in a garage, yet leave blood smeared on a dash board? Psh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSumm Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 I realize this show is made with a clear bias. The only people I like are Avery's first female attorney and his two male attorneys. I'm definitely not convinced of Avery's innocence OR guilt, but it also has me absolutely DESPISING most of the people involved. The smiles and the giggles... my GOD. I want to throat punch these people. This show was so well-made I think the prize has to go to Brendan's first lawyer, who insisted on grinning whenever he wasn't talking despite the fact he's dealing with a murder charge. Have some fucking respect for the gravity of the situation, why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 What's truly laughable is the idea that the convicted so meticulously cleaned the entire crime scene, but were lax enough to leave blood smeared in the RAV4, which would've been a helluva lot more conducive to cleaning. It's a lot smaller and tidier than a haphazard garage, filled with crap which would collect all manner of spatter. They'll clean every nook and cranny in a garage, yet leave blood smeared on a dash board? Psh.It's also pretty curious why a guy with access to a car crusher would just leave a vehicle connected to a missing woman on his property to be found. I know Avery isn't bright, but c'mon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I think the prize has to go to Brendan's first lawyer, who insisted on grinning whenever he wasn't talking despite the fact he's dealing with a murder charge. Have some fucking respect for the gravity of the situation, why not.I found the crocodile tears of his expert over the church ribbon while he was testifying extremely unprofessional as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 *closes eyes*I am on episode 4 and very into this series. It has really opened my eyes to how things can be twisted and misconstrued. Very interesting. Can't wait to see the rest and then come back in here and talk about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Bauer 24 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 There's going to be a second season with a different case, or was this a one off mini series? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Not to sound patronizing, but I'm surprised so many are surprised. I think it'd be rare for the police to frame someone they thought was innocent, but massaging the evidence and/or being very selective about it in pursuit of someone they think is guilty is pretty common. There are countless cases which are overturned on review/with new technology, and those that even access that process are rare. Famous case up here, for a child killer, the police repeatedly covered up contradictory evidence, for example cigarette butts found at the body disposal scene because their prime suspect was a non-smoker. Served many years in prison before DNA exonerated him, only then did it come out about all the crap the cops pulled and sustained over original trial and re-trial due to judicial misconduct. (Just brushed up on facts; hadn't read about it for years.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Not to sound patronizing, but I'm surprised so many are surprised. You're right, I'm not all that surprised. The tiny amount of trust I had with law enforcement fades even more with each passing year and I know full well that there are huge numbers of innocent people in prisons and jails across the country. It's unlikely I would have had such a visceral reaction had the session with Brendan's lawyer's investigator not been included. That was a betrayal that cut deep into the feels. From what I've read elsewhere, episode 4 seems to be the turning point in the docuseries that really upped the shock and awe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The biggest suprise for me was not that police would frame someone (especially someone they thought was guilty), it was that the very same police Steven Avery was in the process of suing were allowed to be involved in the second case at all. The fact that they had to have another department brought in to watch them during the investigation says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I'm sorry, but that's some spineless shit. How could you sleep at night helping put a man you thought was innocent in prison for the rest of his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 So I haven't seen this and I know next-to-nothing about the case, but I'm curious, does this article change anyone's opinion or is it not-compelling/actually addressed in the series? It's supposedly a list of evidence the series ignored...— In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.— Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.— On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.— The bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, which always hung above his bed.— Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he’s purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he’d had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).— Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turinqui-Calima Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 A watched this over the weekend and can't stop thinking and reading about it. Considering the documentarians had 10 hours, I was a bit disappointed at the things they left out, such as the supposed hand print under the hood of the car. I have seen it mentioned in a bunch of places but still haven't seen the defense explanation of it. There is so much information out there now it's a bit hard to figure out what is accurate. For instance I keep hearing about 'the citizen' and 'the German' but I don't know where that theory originated. If it's true, I hope it is investigated further.I seriously wanted to throat punch Brendan's lawyer and the cops questioning him. This show made me cry, mostly when it came to his part of the story. Just so sad.I didn't cry until the final episode when Dolores Avery showed the house she picked out for her son.As for who did it, I'm trying to remember Dean Strang's "lack of humility" quote and not jump to any conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turinqui-Calima Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I'm sorry, but that's some spineless shit. How could you sleep at night helping put a man you thought was innocent in prison for the rest of his life.I am at work and can't watch videos. What was the announcement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I am at work and can't watch videos. What was the announcement?One of the jurors told the producers they didn't believe Avery had been proven guilty, but "would have feared for their life" if they had voted not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turinqui-Calima Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Fez - I think the wording on those is coming from prosecutor Kratz. It's very unreliable. For instance, I read the part of the confession where Dassey 'stated' that Avery had lifted the hood, and he is being led by the detectives just as with the 'what happened to her head' part. I believe Fassbender is the first to bring up the hood and Dassey just goes along with it as usual.Also, the calls to Halbach makes a lot of sense knowing Halbach had said she would arrive around 2.00pm and the calls were made after that between 2.12 and 2.24pm (her phone record). My guess is that he was calling to see why she was late/when she was arriving (this makes sense whether he is innocent or guilty). From what I understand, the complaint that Avery was creepy was more like a comment, including laughing, about the towel incident.That said, I'm really curious about the hand print and I really don't know who did it. One of the jurors told the producers they didn't believe Avery had been proven guilty, but "would have feared for their life" if they had voted not guilty. Thanks! Wow... that's a pretty serious claim. Looking forward to finding out more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.