Making a Murderer

[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.

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.

It wasn't meant as a jab at you.

I'm willing to believe that the cops will do all sorts of outrageous illegal things.

I just think the outrageous illegal things they are implied to have done in this case seem completely illogical on top of being illegal and outrageous.

[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.

It wasn't meant as a jab at you.

I'm willing to believe that the cops will do all sorts of outrageous illegal things.

I just think the outrageous illegal things they are implied to have done in this case seem completely illogical on top of being illegal and outrageous.

I get it. You have extremely high morals and it's probably hard for you to fathom someone doing this. But we don't know the moral limits or lack of with the cops in question. It's just an assumption either way.

[Big333223]

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

I'm not totally convinced of Avery's innocence but this comment is super frustrating for me. Nobody actually believes the cops killed Theresa Halbach. Avery doesn't and his defense team didn't and I don't think you could reasonably conclude from all of the information out there. But that doesn't mean the cops didn't try to pin the murder on him.

I think the easiest explanation is that someone murdered Halbach near Avery's property shortly after she took pictures of the van and decided to hide her vehicle in the salvage yard. When her disappearance was reported and the cops knew that Avery was the last person to see her alive, they assumed that Avery did it and went about making sure he was convicted, regardless of whether or not he was actually guilty.

The Cops that planted evidence (and they surely did) probably really believe that Avery did it and think they're doing the right thing, ensuring a murderer gets convicted. And Avery may well have actually done it. But, in my mind, he never got a fair trial.

[ederson]

I agree 100%

A fair trial should be the first priority regardless of the accused. I find it extremely disturbing that the police planted evidence (which is pretty much certain imho)The same people who were certain that Avery had done the first crime too!

If you needed more evidence to get the jury to believe you then it means you didn`t have enough to be 100% sure yourself at the first place. And it`s not up to the police to decide who is guilty or not but that`s what they`ve done in this case.

I wasn`t 100% convinced that he did it
He may have but there are huge ? after every piece of evidence pointing to Avery.
I can`t believe that he cleaned everything so thoroughly from his bedroom , the garage , the car, he removed every single evidence of the girl but he left the car in plain view next to his house......

[BDeCosta26]

I agree 100%

A fair trial should be the first priority regardless of the accused. I find it extremely disturbing that the police planted evidence (which is pretty much certain imho)The same people who were certain that Avery had done the first crime too!

If you needed more evidence to get the jury to believe you then it means you didn`t have enough to be 100% sure yourself at the first place. And it`s not up to the police to decide who is guilty or not but that`s what they`ve done in this case.

I wasn`t 100% convinced that he did it
He may have but there are huge ? after every piece of evidence pointing to Avery.
I can`t believe that he cleaned everything so thoroughly from his bedroom , the garage , the car, he removed every single evidence of the girl but he left the car in plain view next to his house......

The woman who found it (who had no relation to Ms.Halbach, and was unknown by the ex and the brother who were leading the search party) found it almost right after her search party went to the Avery's. within the first 10-15 mins I think. In a salvage yard full of literally thousands of cars AND a car crusher that Avery had used 1000 times, he puts it on the very edge of the lot and throws a few branches over it? The woman who found it says "the Holy Spirit guided her too it", that's why she found it so quickly.

Worse yet, the same cop from Mantiouc County who was part of the cover-up surrounding their knowledge of Avery's possible innocence in the first crime, calls in a plate check to his dispatch for Teresa Halbach's car 3 days after she goes missing, two days before her car is found. He says he "can't remember why" he called in her plates but insists he didn't see the car in the time it was missing. So why the plate check?

Idk if Avery's really guilty or not, but the kid Dassey is almost certainly not, and Avery AT LEAST deserves a new trial on the opposite side of the state.

[PhoSita]

At the beginning of the documentary, Avery is exonerated thanks to DNA evidence. 

DNA evidence is great!  So reliable!  Incontrovertible!

Later, DNA evidence plays a huge role in the Halbach case. 

DNA evidence is unreliable!  The testing is prone to contamination!  Who knows where it might have come from?  The police could have falsified the evidence!


Anybody else find that amusing?

[PhoSita]

Nobody actually believes the cops killed Theresa Halbach. Avery doesn't and his defense team didn't and I don't think you could reasonably conclude from all of the information out there. But that doesn't mean the cops didn't try to pin the murder on him.

I think the easiest explanation is that someone murdered Halbach near Avery's property shortly after she took pictures of the van and decided to hide her vehicle in the salvage yard. When her disappearance was reported and the cops knew that Avery was the last person to see her alive, they assumed that Avery did it and went about making sure he was convicted, regardless of whether or not he was actually guilty.

I believe the simplest explanation is generally going to be the right one in these cases.

You are suggesting that a third party and the police, acting independently of one another and at different points in the timeline, both conspired to frame Steven Avery, who was completely uninvolved in the murder of this woman even though he was the only one who we know interacted with her on the day in question, and the only person living anywhere near where her remains were found that actually had a personal connection to her.

That, to me, is a stretch.  To say the least.


What's more likely?

A vast conspiracy involving multiple parties acting independently?   

Or that this one guy, who has an extremely low IQ, has a history of odd, violent, deviant behavior -- which very likely got much worse in prison because that's how prison works -- murdered this woman and then did a terrible job of attempting to cover up the evidence?

[BDeCosta26]

At the beginning of the documentary, Avery is exonerated thanks to DNA evidence. 

DNA evidence is great!  So reliable!  Incontrovertible!

Later, DNA evidence plays a huge role in the Halbach case. 

DNA evidence is unreliable!  The testing is prone to contamination!  Who knows where it might have come from?  The police could have falsified the evidence!


Anybody else find that amusing?

It's not just about DNA evidence Pho. I think your missing the larger picture.

So they find the dead girls key in his house, after 8(!) days of searching in plain view, somehow missing it despite multiple thorough searches of the room. Better yet, the cop who found the key was a Manitouc County detective heavily involved with the first crime. No one else saw him find it except another Manitouc County cop. Manitouc County cops shouldn't have EVER been on that property considering Avery's pending lawsuit. That alone should be good enough for a new trial.

Even the key itself is ridiculous. So it's the dead girls key, it should be covered in her DNA right? But it's not. No ones DNA is on that key except Avery's. Someone cleaned it, and then Avery's dna go on it? How can that be?

Just far too many holes around that case. Especially around the "hard" evidence. So much procedural misconduct that that alone makes him deserve a new trial.

[Evantime34]

At the beginning of the documentary, Avery is exonerated thanks to DNA evidence. 

DNA evidence is great!  So reliable!  Incontrovertible!

Later, DNA evidence plays a huge role in the Halbach case. 

DNA evidence is unreliable!  The testing is prone to contamination!  Who knows where it might have come from?  The police could have falsified the evidence!


Anybody else find that amusing?

I mean I guess you are right if you take the DNA testing independent of the entire cases.

The DNA testing in the first case was great because it went along with how the victim was coerced by the police to name Steve Avery in order to have the charges dropped.

In the second test the lab tech contaminated the control sample which should have nullified the test but they went along and used it anyway.

DNA testing is like advanced stats in basketball. If you combine DNA testing with what the other evidence is telling you it is great, but if you consider it as the be all and end all you are going to make mistakes.

[PhoSita]

Just far too many holes around that case. Especially around the "hard" evidence. So much procedural misconduct that that alone makes him deserve a new trial.

See, the only hole I keep coming back to is the one filled with charred bone fragments.

Do I think something fishy might have happened with the key and the car?  Sure.  The cross-exam of the cop regarding his radio conversation about the license plate of the Rav4 definitely seemed suspicious to me.

Still, while I'm not familiar with the case law in Wisconsin on the issue, I think generally speaking to get a new trial you need actual proof of prosecutorial misconduct, not just the implication of possible impropriety.

And what would a new trial accomplish, anyway?  Avery's defense will still run into the same problem: Halbach's remains were found on his property, he was the last person seen with her, and he was the only person anywhere near the property that day who is known to have had some kind of connection to her.

Now that this documentary has come out and gained such a high profile, my guess is that any judge would be extremely hesitant to give Avery a new trial, because it would be very difficult to find a jury that hasn't already watched part or all of the documentary and formed conclusions about his guilt or innocence. 

The documentary, in effect, is a protest from the defense team to raise their own profile and try to have their client found innocent in the public eye now that doing the same in a court of law is not really an option.

[Roy H.]

And what would a new trial accomplish, anyway?  Avery's defense will still run into the same problem: Halbach's remains were found on his property, he was the last person seen with her, and he was the only person anywhere near the property that day who is known to have had some kind of connection to her.

He's probably guilty.  However, I do think it's possible to have doubts that are supported by reason.  If you have a single such doubt, you're not supposed to find somebody guilty.  Very few juries abide by this standard, but it's the one the justice system is supposed to uphold.  Here, there's all kinds of small doubts in my mind, so I feel I would be compelled to acquit somebody who I think is probably guilty.

Now that this documentary has come out and gained such a high profile, my guess is that any judge would be extremely hesitant to give Avery a new trial, because it would be very difficult to find a jury that hasn't already watched part or all of the documentary and formed conclusions about his guilt or innocence. 

I don't think that that is a valid concern to justify not granting a new trial if somebody would otherwise be entitled to it.  Also, what's more prejudicial:  a single documentary, or months and months of front-page headlines, press conferences and news stories? 

[KeepRondo]

Just far too many holes around that case. Especially around the "hard" evidence. So much procedural misconduct that that alone makes him deserve a new trial.

See, the only hole I keep coming back to is the one filled with charred bone fragments.

Do I think something fishy might have happened with the key and the car?  Sure.  The cross-exam of the cop regarding his radio conversation about the license plate of the Rav4 definitely seemed suspicious to me.

Still, while I'm not familiar with the case law in Wisconsin on the issue, I think generally speaking to get a new trial you need actual proof of prosecutorial misconduct, not just the implication of possible impropriety.

And what would a new trial accomplish, anyway?  Avery's defense will still run into the same problem: Halbach's remains were found on his property, he was the last person seen with her, and he was the only person anywhere near the property that day who is known to have had some kind of connection to her.

Now that this documentary has come out and gained such a high profile, my guess is that any judge would be extremely hesitant to give Avery a new trial, because it would be very difficult to find a jury that hasn't already watched part or all of the documentary and formed conclusions about his guilt or innocence. 

The documentary, in effect, is a protest from the defense team to raise their own profile and try to have their client found innocent in the public eye now that doing the same in a court of law is not really an option.

But it was ok for the DA to give false information that mislead the public to the media before the trial began? You can't have it both ways Pho.

[JohnBoy65]

I think one of the things that bothered me most was the test the FBI 'developed' in like  3 weeks to see if there was EDTA in the blood. They had previously said it could take up to 6 months to develop the test, and then all of a sudden they have the test they need AND the results they want just in time for the trial.

[PhoSita]

But it was ok for the DA to give false information that mislead the public to the media before the trial began? You can't have it both ways Pho.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm just suggesting what I think would be at play if they tried to get another trial.

[PhoSita]

And what would a new trial accomplish, anyway?  Avery's defense will still run into the same problem: Halbach's remains were found on his property, he was the last person seen with her, and he was the only person anywhere near the property that day who is known to have had some kind of connection to her.

He's probably guilty.  However, I do think it's possible to have doubts that are supported by reason.  If you have a single such doubt, you're not supposed to find somebody guilty.  Very few juries abide by this standard, but it's the one the justice system is supposed to uphold.  Here, there's all kinds of small doubts in my mind, so I feel I would be compelled to acquit somebody who I think is probably guilty.

I think that is a fine interpretation of "reasonable doubt."  Personally, I think that in this situation I would not regard the doubts I might have as "reasonable," simply because I can't construct a plausible scenario in my mind in which Steve Avery is not guilty. 

Sometimes the reasonable doubt standard is talked about like a pristine case and a complete set of facts is required, ruling out any possible alternatives, in order for a jury to find a defendant guilty. 

Obviously this is not how it works in practice.  Partly because sometimes, an incomplete set of facts and evidence is still enough to lead to the conclusion that the defendant's guilt is the only plausible scenario to explain what happened.

Now that this documentary has come out and gained such a high profile, my guess is that any judge would be extremely hesitant to give Avery a new trial, because it would be very difficult to find a jury that hasn't already watched part or all of the documentary and formed conclusions about his guilt or innocence. 

I don't think that that is a valid concern to justify not granting a new trial if somebody would otherwise be entitled to it.  Also, what's more prejudicial:  a single documentary, or months and months of front-page headlines, press conferences and news stories?

I'm not saying it's necessarily a valid concern.  As you point out, it's very hard to get a truly "unbiased" juror for a murder trial.  Still, I think that would be a factor in any attempt to get a new trial, right or wrong.