Making a Murderer

[KeepRondo]

Some interesting points to add.

It is not possible to conclude that the DNA under the hood was in fact from sweat.

The nurse who filled the vial said she poked the needle through the cap to fill it. However there were blood smears on the outer part of the cap. Seems odd that there would be unless someone was trying to extract blood back out.

There was no log entry for why anyone would need to open the evidence box that was clearly tampered with.

There were no finger prints inside the car. If he was dripping blood, he couldn't had been wearing gloves and if he scrubbed the car down for finger prints, why leave the blood.

It would had taken a day or two to search that entire car lot yet the person who was asked to go look there found the car right away.

There was a picture of the victim with her keys on the same day and she had a ton of keys on her keychain. Why get rid of the other keys and leave that one. And why was only his DNA found on the key. Hard to believe her DNA wouldn't also be on the key.

The kid who was coerced to a confession is borderline mentally challenged. IQ of 70. He clearly had no idea what was happening during the process.

Also there was a mention on here the cops would have no motives to frame him. Steve Avery had to settle his first lawsuit for under a million to afford a lawyer. When he did this all the cops were exonerated from guilt.

[jpotter33]

Some interesting points to add.

It is not possible to conclude that the DNA under the hood was in fact from sweat.

The nurse who filled the vial said she poked the needle through the cap to fill it. However there were blood smears on the outer part of the cap. Seems odd that there would be unless someone was trying to extract blood back out.

There was no log entry for why anyone would need to open the evidence box that was clearly tampered with.

There were no finger prints inside the car. If he was dripping blood, he couldn't had been wearing gloves and if he scrubbed the car down for finger prints, why leave the blood.

It would had taken a day or two to search that entire car lot yet the person who was asked to go look there found the car right away.

There was a picture of the victim with her keys on the same day and she had a ton of keys on her keychain. Why get rid of the other keys and leave that one. And why was only his DNA found on the key. Hard to believe her DNA wouldn't also be on the key.

The kid who was coerced to a confession is borderline mentally challenged. IQ of 70. He clearly had no idea what was happening during the process.

Also there was a mention on here the cops would have no motives to frame him. Steve Avery had to settle his first lawsuit for under a million to afford a lawyer. When he did this all the cops were exonerated from guilt.

Yeah, that's the thing. There's just way too many inconsistencies to think there was no foul play at all there. I mean, Avery still very well could've done it, but I wouldn't rule out a police-backed framing of some sort either. $36M is a ridiculous amount of money for the county to have to pay back in that small of a county, so there's all kinds of motive for a set-up there. And I mean there's no doubt that Lenk and Colbourn were involved with planting evidence of some kind. With everything from the blood to the key to the car they were all involved when they weren't supposed to be involved at all due to the ethics of conflict of interest. They talked about avoiding a conflict of interest the entire time, but they never acted on that language. That in itself should've resulted in a mistrial.

[KeepRondo]

Here is some more info from his new lawyer -

https://www.yahoo.com/style/steven-averys-lawyer-rips-apart-213000067.html

Some key points -

DNA cannot be detected in sweat. So how do they know it's Avery's sweat.

And the key only having Avery's DNA was very suspicious.

[KeepRondo]

Some interesting points to add.

It is not possible to conclude that the DNA under the hood was in fact from sweat.

The nurse who filled the vial said she poked the needle through the cap to fill it. However there were blood smears on the outer part of the cap. Seems odd that there would be unless someone was trying to extract blood back out.

There was no log entry for why anyone would need to open the evidence box that was clearly tampered with.

There were no finger prints inside the car. If he was dripping blood, he couldn't had been wearing gloves and if he scrubbed the car down for finger prints, why leave the blood.

It would had taken a day or two to search that entire car lot yet the person who was asked to go look there found the car right away.

There was a picture of the victim with her keys on the same day and she had a ton of keys on her keychain. Why get rid of the other keys and leave that one. And why was only his DNA found on the key. Hard to believe her DNA wouldn't also be on the key.

The kid who was coerced to a confession is borderline mentally challenged. IQ of 70. He clearly had no idea what was happening during the process.

Also there was a mention on here the cops would have no motives to frame him. Steve Avery had to settle his first lawsuit for under a million to afford a lawyer. When he did this all the cops were exonerated from guilt.

Yeah, that's the thing. There's just way too many inconsistencies to think there was no foul play at all there. I mean, Avery still very well could've done it, but I wouldn't rule out a police-backed framing of some sort either. $36M is a ridiculous amount of money for the county to have to pay back in that small of a county, so there's all kinds of motive for a set-up there. And I mean there's no doubt that Lenk and Colbourn were involved with planting evidence of some kind. With everything from the blood to the key to the car they were all involved when they weren't supposed to be involved at all due to the ethics of conflict of interest. They talked about avoiding a conflict of interest the entire time, but they never acted on that language. That in itself should've resulted in a mistrial.

Yep. They were allowed on the property a number of times.

[Evantime34]

Dude was super guilty (or do you think the cops murdered a woman, burned her body, and dumped the bones on Avery's property?).

And the police probably falsified evidence / testimony to make sure they got him.


I think the nephew was coerced into a false confession.

I don't think he did it, I think it was someone in his family (probably the Dassey brother that testified in court during Avery's trial).

I don't think the cops killed the woman, but that is just about the only type of crime I don't think they are capable of.

[KeepRondo]

Dude was super guilty (or do you think the cops murdered a woman, burned her body, and dumped the bones on Avery's property?).

And the police probably falsified evidence / testimony to make sure they got him.


I think the nephew was coerced into a false confession.

I don't think he did it, I think it was someone in his family (probably the Dassey brother that testified in court during Avery's trial).

I don't think the cops killed the woman, but that is just about the only type of crime I don't think they are capable of.

I think he's innocent also. Another thing that his lawyer mentioned that in all this time, with all of his calls being monitored and tapped, he has never said anything that would had implicated himself.

I do think the police could had killed this woman. It would had been much more difficult to kill Steve Avery since there was a lawsuit against them at the time. They would had been looked at as guilty from the media from the start. No way they would had chose this option.

[PhoSita]

"I didn't have a fair trial" is not the same thing as "I'm innocent."


Also, "I have some questions or misgivings about the way this case was investigated and prosecuted" is not the same thing as "I have reasonable doubts about the accused's guilt."


I think if I were a juror on the case, I'd have my doubts about how the investigation went down, and I'd think it was theoretically possible that somebody else committed the murder.

Still, that doesn't mean I would have a doubt I'd consider "reasonable."  By far the most likely and plausible explanation for Teresa Halbach's death, given all of the physical evidence found on Steven Avery's property, and the lack of any evidence tying somebody other than Steven Avery to her death, is that Steven Avery is guilty.


All of that said, I don't like the idea of forcing a defense team to work within the confines of the state's case, when the state may have chosen deliberately from an early point in the investigation not to look into alternative suspects.  I have to wonder what the defense team might have been able to put forward if they'd been allowed to argue third party liability.

Still, I'm not a criminal attorney.  I imagine that when defendants are allowed to explore third party liability, you can go down a really deep and mysterious rabbit hole where all kinds of theories are thrown out there hodge podge in an effort to confuse and overwhelm the jury, even in cases where the facts are fairly straightforward.

[PhoSita]

I do think the police could had killed this woman. It would had been much more difficult to kill Steve Avery since there was a lawsuit against them at the time. They would had been looked at as guilty from the media from the start. No way they would had chose this option.

You really think it'd be simpler for the police to murder a woman and orchestrate this whole thing, as opposed to pulling Steve Avery over in his car, provoking him into a confrontation, beating him to death during arrest, or later while he's in holding, and later falsifying reports about his resisting arrest or whatever?

Then again ... Steve Avery isn't black.

[KeepRondo]

I do think the police could had killed this woman. It would had been much more difficult to kill Steve Avery since there was a lawsuit against them at the time. They would had been looked at as guilty from the media from the start. No way they would had chose this option.

You really think it'd be simpler for the police to murder a woman and orchestrate this whole thing, as opposed to pulling Steve Avery over in his car, provoking him into a confrontation, beating him to death during arrest, or later while he's in holding, and later falsifying reports about his resisting arrest or whatever?

Then again ... Steve Avery isn't black.

Considering that there was a 36 million dollar lawsuit in question yes. That seems pretty obvious to me.

Also, I'm thinking your comment about blacks and police was in general but if it was directed at me, since I'm republican, I can tell you I am all for fair treatment. It's always been my belief that a certain number of cops are power driven scumbags. I hope and honestly pray that Steve Avery was guilty because it's an awful thought that someone could be behind this but to think its not possible is being naive. There will always be bad cops capable of acts like this.

[celts55]

The way I see it is, Avery is not the brightest person. Somehow he managed to removed ALL his DNA and her blood from the crime scene, yet left visible blood in her car? He would have to be a mastermind to be able to remove all that blood, but yet he left her key on his bedroom floor, to be found in clear sight around the fourth time they searched the house? I don't know, as I've never hidden a murder, but if I put in so much effort to clean every little space on this whole big property,
why would I leave her phone and other id in my fire pit?
I guess i can't possibly see how it could have happened as the police described it. No way they raped this woman, slashed her throat, shot her, and there is no blood anywhere. Not on the mattress, walls, floor?
Maybe he could have done it, but not in the way they are saying.
Lastly I feel partially bad for his nephew. It's quite apparent he would say anything he thought they wanted to hear.
Just my opinion.
       

[KeepRondo]

"I didn't have a fair trial" is not the same thing as "I'm innocent."


Also, "I have some questions or misgivings about the way this case was investigated and prosecuted" is not the same thing as "I have reasonable doubts about the accused's guilt."


I think if I were a juror on the case, I'd have my doubts about how the investigation went down, and I'd think it was theoretically possible that somebody else committed the murder.

Still, that doesn't mean I would have a doubt I'd consider "reasonable."  By far the most likely and plausible explanation for Teresa Halbach's death, given all of the physical evidence found on Steven Avery's property, and the lack of any evidence tying somebody other than Steven Avery to her death, is that Steven Avery is guilty.


All of that said, I don't like the idea of forcing a defense team to work within the confines of the state's case, when the state may have chosen deliberately from an early point in the investigation not to look into alternative suspects.  I have to wonder what the defense team might have been able to put forward if they'd been allowed to argue third party liability.

Still, I'm not a criminal attorney.  I imagine that when defendants are allowed to explore third party liability, you can go down a really deep and mysterious rabbit hole where all kinds of theories are thrown out there hodge podge in an effort to confuse and overwhelm the jury, even in cases where the facts are fairly straightforward.

I agree somewhat with your last points however we have to admit that this was a very unique case that perhaps a more open minded judge would had allowed these requests from the defendants.

[KeepRondo]

The way I see it is, Avery is not the brightest person. Somehow he managed to removed ALL his DNA and her blood from the crime scene, yet left visible blood in her car? He would have to be a mastermind to be able to remove all that blood, but yet he left her key on his bedroom floor, to be found in clear sight around the fourth time they searched the house? I don't know, as I've never hidden a murder, but if I put in so much effort to clean every little space on this whole big property,
why would I leave her phone and other id in my fire pit?
I guess i can't possibly see how it could have happened as the police described it. No way they raped this woman, slashed her throat, shot her, and there is no blood anywhere. Not on the mattress, walls, floor?
Maybe he could have done it, but not in the way they are saying.
Lastly I feel partially bad for his nephew. It's quite apparent he would say anything he thought they wanted to hear.
Just my opinion.
       

I agree with you. But I do want to lay out a possibility since it's only fair. Steve had to remove the engine from the car before being able to use the car crusher that his family owned. So there is a reason why he needed to hold onto the key. Unless he was planning on towing the car to the cruncher.

Also they said they shook a cabinet with shelves abd the key supposedly fell. Seems unlikely but that was the story.

The two problems I have with this is the lady they sent, to video the search in the car lot, found the car right away. They showed a picture of the salvage yard and showed how it would take a day or two to look through that entire lot. A bit odd it was found that quick and why was only one person assigned to look there if it was such a big salvage yard.

The second is the fact that only Steve's DNA was on the key. The only way that could happen is if it was scrubbed down. The victims DNA should had been on that key.

[celts55]

The way I see it is, Avery is not the brightest person. Somehow he managed to removed ALL his DNA and her blood from the crime scene, yet left visible blood in her car? He would have to be a mastermind to be able to remove all that blood, but yet he left her key on his bedroom floor, to be found in clear sight around the fourth time they searched the house? I don't know, as I've never hidden a murder, but if I put in so much effort to clean every little space on this whole big property,
why would I leave her phone and other id in my fire pit?
I guess i can't possibly see how it could have happened as the police described it. No way they raped this woman, slashed her throat, shot her, and there is no blood anywhere. Not on the mattress, walls, floor?
Maybe he could have done it, but not in the way they are saying.
Lastly I feel partially bad for his nephew. It's quite apparent he would say anything he thought they wanted to hear.
Just my opinion.
       

I agree with you. But I do want to lay out a possibility since it's only fair. Steve had to remove the engine from the car before being able to use the car crusher that his family owned. So there is a reason why he needed to hold onto the key. Unless he was planning on towing the car to the cruncher.

Also they said they shook a cabinet with shelves abd the key supposedly fell. Seems unlikely but that was the story.

The two problems I have with this is the lady they sent, to video the search in the car lot, found the car right away. They showed a picture of the salvage yard and showed how it would take a day or two to look through that entire lot. A bit odd it was found that quick and why was only one person assigned to look there if it was such a big salvage yard.

The second is the fact that only Steve's DNA was on the key. The only way that could happen is if it was scrubbed down. The victims DNA should had been on that key.

Agreed, but this criminal mastermind moved the car, and the best he could do was throw some branches over it?

I know we didn't see all the evidence, but I feel like I've seen enough to no that something is rotten here. If the police planted evidence, even if you believe he did it, there should be a new trail and that evidence removed.
 

[Evantime34]

The way I see it is, Avery is not the brightest person. Somehow he managed to removed ALL his DNA and her blood from the crime scene, yet left visible blood in her car? He would have to be a mastermind to be able to remove all that blood, but yet he left her key on his bedroom floor, to be found in clear sight around the fourth time they searched the house? I don't know, as I've never hidden a murder, but if I put in so much effort to clean every little space on this whole big property,
why would I leave her phone and other id in my fire pit?
I guess i can't possibly see how it could have happened as the police described it. No way they raped this woman, slashed her throat, shot her, and there is no blood anywhere. Not on the mattress, walls, floor?
Maybe he could have done it, but not in the way they are saying.
Lastly I feel partially bad for his nephew. It's quite apparent he would say anything he thought they wanted to hear.
Just my opinion.
       

I agree with you. But I do want to lay out a possibility since it's only fair. Steve had to remove the engine from the car before being able to use the car crusher that his family owned. So there is a reason why he needed to hold onto the key. Unless he was planning on towing the car to the cruncher.

Also they said they shook a cabinet with shelves abd the key supposedly fell. Seems unlikely but that was the story.

The two problems I have with this is the lady they sent, to video the search in the car lot, found the car right away. They showed a picture of the salvage yard and showed how it would take a day or two to look through that entire lot. A bit odd it was found that quick and why was only one person assigned to look there if it was such a big salvage yard.

The second is the fact that only Steve's DNA was on the key. The only way that could happen is if it was scrubbed down. The victims DNA should had been on that key.

Agreed, but this criminal mastermind moved the car, and the best he could do was throw some branches over it?

I know we didn't see all the evidence, but I feel like I've seen enough to no that something is rotten here. If the police planted evidence, even if you believe he did it, there should be a new trail and that evidence removed.
 

This was one of the most ridiculous parts for me. He has a car crusher that would have left the police unable to gather evidence but he instead decided to move the car and put branches in it.

[KeepRondo]

The way I see it is, Avery is not the brightest person. Somehow he managed to removed ALL his DNA and her blood from the crime scene, yet left visible blood in her car? He would have to be a mastermind to be able to remove all that blood, but yet he left her key on his bedroom floor, to be found in clear sight around the fourth time they searched the house? I don't know, as I've never hidden a murder, but if I put in so much effort to clean every little space on this whole big property,
why would I leave her phone and other id in my fire pit?
I guess i can't possibly see how it could have happened as the police described it. No way they raped this woman, slashed her throat, shot her, and there is no blood anywhere. Not on the mattress, walls, floor?
Maybe he could have done it, but not in the way they are saying.
Lastly I feel partially bad for his nephew. It's quite apparent he would say anything he thought they wanted to hear.
Just my opinion.
       

I agree with you. But I do want to lay out a possibility since it's only fair. Steve had to remove the engine from the car before being able to use the car crusher that his family owned. So there is a reason why he needed to hold onto the key. Unless he was planning on towing the car to the cruncher.

Also they said they shook a cabinet with shelves abd the key supposedly fell. Seems unlikely but that was the story.

The two problems I have with this is the lady they sent, to video the search in the car lot, found the car right away. They showed a picture of the salvage yard and showed how it would take a day or two to look through that entire lot. A bit odd it was found that quick and why was only one person assigned to look there if it was such a big salvage yard.

The second is the fact that only Steve's DNA was on the key. The only way that could happen is if it was scrubbed down. The victims DNA should had been on that key.

Agreed, but this criminal mastermind moved the car, and the best he could do was throw some branches over it?

I know we didn't see all the evidence, but I feel like I've seen enough to no that something is rotten here. If the police planted evidence, even if you believe he did it, there should be a new trail and that evidence removed.
 

Agreed again. The branches thrown over even seemed staged.