Making a Murderer - Steve Avery

[bcsaberks]

Is that realistic behavior though? It's one thing to be a creep, but a whole other thing to be a corpse mutilator. Especially when you have zero history of that type of behavior. And that's considering those towel reports are for real, which should be noted considering how questionable all the other evidence is.

 

As for the 62 phone calls, do we know over what period? Over a week? Over a year? There's plenty of people I work with where I can easily have 62+ phone calls over the course of a year. 

Yeah idk.  Don't they say if you torture animals when young you are like X times as likely to be in prison / commit violent acts towards people?  He was convicted of torching the cat before serving time for the rape I believe.  Young & dumb I guess?  

 

Sorry, they said he used "*67" (or whatever) calls to the victim to block his identity when calling her 2 or 3 times on 10/31.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/

"The young Avery didn’t unintentionally set fire to a cat, as “Making a Murderer” suggests, but poured gasoline on the animal and then threw it into a bonfire, according the Associated Press. And Avery didn’t only threaten a female cousin at gunpoint, an incident the documentary portrays as the unfortunate actions of an immature teen, but is also alleged to have raped a young girl and threatened to kill her family if they spoke out, according another story in Post Crescent (paywalled). If we’re to believe Dassey’s conversations with police, Avery had also molested his cousins. “I even told them about Steven touching me,” Dassey explains to his mother after one of the interviews with police."

[musichunch]

Yeah idk.  Don't they say if you torture animals when young you are like X times as likely to be in prison / commit violent acts towards people?  He was convicted of torching the cat before serving time for the rape I believe.  Young & dumb I guess?  

 

Sorry, they said he used "*67" (or whatever) calls to the victim to block his identity when calling her 2 or 3 times on 10/31.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/

"The young Avery didn’t unintentionally set fire to a cat, as “Making a Murderer” suggests, but poured gasoline on the animal and then threw it into a bonfire, according the Associated Press. And Avery didn’t only threaten a female cousin at gunpoint, an incident the documentary portrays as the unfortunate actions of an immature teen, but is also alleged to have raped a young girl and threatened to kill her family if they spoke out, according another story in Post Crescent (paywalled). If we’re to believe Dassey’s conversations with police, Avery had also molested his cousins. “I even told them about Steven touching me,” Dassey explains to his mother after one of the interviews with police."

 

Here's the thing about all that, and before I begin I want to mention that I did just read the entire article you linked and I agree that it is pretty incriminating stuff at the surface.

 

I have a tremendous skepticism of law enforcement, authority, and the media. Far more than the average "I don't trust the media" and "any bad people in those positions are rogue" type of person. So here's my point of view on this and something that keeps nagging me:

 

If law enforcement was willing to hide evidence that would exonerate Avery of rape in the 90's which allowed a real, known rapist to stay on the streets; if they were willing to plant keys, blood, and bones to tie Avery to murder; if they were willing to frame Avery and allow the real murderers to stay out of bars; if they were willing to coerce a low-IQ 16 year old to falsely incriminate himself and Avery and spend most of his life in prison on something they know he probably had nothing to do with. If you believe they were willing to lie, steal, plant, hide, and just generally do the most despicable things anybody in authority can do nowadays......

 

Why would you believe hearsay reports of Avery in a towel? Why would you believe the drop of sweat story? Why would you believe Dassey was telling the truth about getting molested? Why would you believe the story of this rape of a young girl?

 

If I have seen enough to make me believe he was framed on the big things, why would I believe their word on the small things? And put my trust in that hearsay, when I just witnessed 10 hours that made me come to the conclusion Avery is innocent? There is a word some people should research that all of this "counter-evidence" reminds me of. That word is "disinformation". 

[CallawaySabres]

Yeah idk.  Don't they say if you torture animals when young you are like X times as likely to be in prison / commit violent acts towards people?  He was convicted of torching the cat before serving time for the rape I believe.  Young & dumb I guess?  

 

Sorry, they said he used "*67" (or whatever) calls to the victim to block his identity when calling her 2 or 3 times on 10/31.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/

"The young Avery didn’t unintentionally set fire to a cat, as “Making a Murderer” suggests, but poured gasoline on the animal and then threw it into a bonfire, according the Associated Press. And Avery didn’t only threaten a female cousin at gunpoint, an incident the documentary portrays as the unfortunate actions of an immature teen, but is also alleged to have raped a young girl and threatened to kill her family if they spoke out, according another story in Post Crescent (paywalled). If we’re to believe Dassey’s conversations with police, Avery had also molested his cousins. “I even told them about Steven touching me,” Dassey explains to his mother after one of the interviews with police."

 

None of this explains the key, the blood vile being tampered with, ZERO blood after an act of such violence, the only DNA on the key being Avery's (how long did she own that car)!!!! It's all freaking bullshiit and although Avery is no saint, there is no way in hell this is not a cover-up. He's going to leave zero evidence of anything ever taking place and then place the car on his own property?

[bcsaberks]

Here's the thing about all that, and before I begin I want to mention that I did just read the entire article you linked and I agree that it is pretty incriminating stuff at the surface.

 

I have a tremendous skepticism of law enforcement, authority, and the media. Far more than the average "I don't trust the media" and "any bad people in those positions are rogue" type of person. So here's my point of view on this and something that keeps nagging me:

 

If law enforcement was willing to hide evidence that would exonerate Avery of rape in the 90's which allowed a real, known rapist to stay on the streets; if they were willing to plant keys, blood, and bones to tie Avery to murder; if they were willing to frame Avery and allow the real murderers to stay out of bars; if they were willing to coerce a low-IQ 16 year old to falsely incriminate himself and Avery and spend most of his life in prison on something they know he probably had nothing to do with. If you believe they were willing to lie, steal, plant, hide, and just generally do the most despicable things anybody in authority can do nowadays......

 

Why would you believe hearsay reports of Avery in a towel? Why would you believe the drop of sweat story? Why would you believe Dassey was telling the truth about getting molested? Why would you believe the story of this rape of a young girl?

 

If I have seen enough to make me believe he was framed on the big things, why would I believe their word on the small things? And put my trust in that hearsay, when I just witnessed 10 hours that made me come to the conclusion Avery is innocent? There is a word some people should research that all of this "counter-evidence" reminds me of. That word is "disinformation". 

 

None of this explains the key, the blood vile being tampered with, ZERO blood after an act of such violence, the only DNA on the key being Avery's (how long did she own that car)!!!! It's all freaking bullshiit and although Avery is no saint, there is no way in hell this is not a cover-up. He's going to leave zero evidence of anything ever taking place and then place the car on his own property?

 

I'm with you both, just looking at all sides. Re: disinformation, this stuff is pre-rape conviction and all that.  It's not like it was made up, he admitted to the cat and chasing down the cousin(?) in the car w/ gun.  Dude has a history as a bad guy.  $35M and huge embarrassment for the sheriff though, that's

motivation, and more plausible then the crazy details Dassey provided. 

[calti]

Anyone remember the WEST MEMPHIS 3??? early/mid 90s.Same kind of thing---spellbinding.

[musichunch]

I'm with you both, just looking at all sides. Re: disinformation, this stuff is pre-rape conviction and all that.  It's not like it was made up, he admitted to the cat and chasing down the cousin(?) in the car w/ gun.  Dude has a history as a bad guy.  $35M and huge embarrassment for the sheriff though, that's

motivation, and more plausible then the crazy details Dassey provided. 

 

What I meant by disinformation is that there is an enormous amount of incriminating evidence towards Manitowoc County in the documentary. Then once word of mouth started, the "counter-evidence" magically appeared on social media in neat bullet points and most of it circumstantial or based on witness testimony. And again it's stuff that requires us to put our trust in the Manitowoc County prosecutors. 

 

Yet this witness testimony of a towel story and the victim calling Avery a creep is outweighing the lack of physical evidence in the minds of lots of impressionable people who are either too lazy to watch the entire documentary, or just wait for the public consensus to form before making up their own mind. 

 

Here is what matters in order of importance:

1. Physical Evidence

2. Recorded Evidence (Video, photographs, etc.)

3. Witness Testimony

 

"Oh, Avery was a creep and called her a bunch of times according to an anonymous co-worker.....hmmmmm.....I don't know now". 

 

Bam, again they trust the word of prosecutors who's word has proven to be unworthy of trust. Again they have retrograde amnesia of everything they just witnessed. And again law enforcement/FBI/whoever is in charge plants seeds of doubt in the public to stop a gigantic public outcry. 

 

What's the first rule of breaking down a social movement? Conquer and divide. Disorganize. They are succeeding. 

[WildCard]

Didn't read the entire thread, sorry. All I want to say is I genuinely can't understand how people can do such things, it confounds an disturbs me

[WildCard]

Calling it right now, Bobby did it

[SabresBillsFan]

I haven't seen this documentary yet but their is always two sides to a story and if the makers are just taking one side that's an issue. Especially that of a murderer. I work in a jail and if any of u ever worked this profession you will see most inmates are complete idiots. I'm curious to see this documentary but I'm positive their is a ton of evidence that their not gonna show that is important to that case.

[bcsaberks]

What I meant by disinformation is that there is an enormous amount of incriminating evidence towards Manitowoc County in the documentary. Then once word of mouth started, the "counter-evidence" magically appeared on social media in neat bullet points and most of it circumstantial or based on witness testimony. And again it's stuff that requires us to put our trust in the Manitowoc County prosecutors. 

 

Yet this witness testimony of a towel story and the victim calling Avery a creep is outweighing the lack of physical evidence in the minds of lots of impressionable people who are either too lazy to watch the entire documentary, or just wait for the public consensus to form before making up their own mind. 

 

Here is what matters in order of importance:

1. Physical Evidence

2. Recorded Evidence (Video, photographs, etc.)

3. Witness Testimony

 

"Oh, Avery was a creep and called her a bunch of times according to an anonymous co-worker.....hmmmmm.....I don't know now". 

 

Bam, again they trust the word of prosecutors who's word has proven to be unworthy of trust. Again they have retrograde amnesia of everything they just witnessed. And again law enforcement/FBI/whoever is in charge plants seeds of doubt in the public to stop a gigantic public outcry. 

 

What's the first rule of breaking down a social movement? Conquer and divide. Disorganize. They are succeeding. 

Good stuff.  I'm on board with the County sucked, really bad, and all that.  I'm struggling with whether he actually did it.  Consider this county is relatively small, maybe like Wayne County here in Western NY (similar population, bordering a great lake, rural/agriculture).  Community members know who the bad characters are. That's not to say something random couldn't have happened, or that a conviction is justified given the evidence. And obviously his rape conviction reversal is the counter to this line of thinking...but twice?  Add to that that he asked the Autotrader office for Halbach specifically to come to the house (testimony left out of netflix), and blocked his # when calling her directly.  SabresBillsfan brings up the point of IQ, and the documentary addressed that too (~70 for Avery per the one past lawyer), so yeah, is he smart enough to do it and destroy pretty much all the physical evidence?  Nuts.

[musichunch]

Good stuff.  I'm on board with the County sucked, really bad, and all that.  I'm struggling with whether he actually did it.  Consider this county is relatively small, maybe like Wayne County here in Western NY (similar population, bordering a great lake, rural/agriculture).  Community members know who the bad characters are. That's not to say something random couldn't have happened, or that a conviction is justified given the evidence. And obviously his rape conviction reversal is the counter to this line of thinking...but twice?  Add to that that he asked the Autotrader office for Halbach specifically to come to the house (testimony left out of netflix), and blocked his # when calling her directly.  SabresBillsfan brings up the point of IQ, and the documentary addressed that too (~70 for Avery per the one past lawyer), so yeah, is he smart enough to do it and destroy pretty much all the physical evidence?  Nuts.

 

Community members in those types of areas can be enormously biased due to years of family fighting. 

 

I used to frequent WebSleuths back in the day before it was taken over by religious grandmothers and one of the cold cases they solved was the 1951 murder of 13 year old Lonnie Jones in rural Idaho. The thread got long and had a few dedicated amateur investigators. One of them took the time to travel to Orofino and meet with family members and law enforcement who told him the story never released to the public.

 

Basically the family of the victim had a decades old grudge against a semi-retarded neighbor who refused to submit to their bullying back in the 40's and 50's. When their teenage relative was murdered they decided this rival of theirs did it and refused to consider anybody else for 60 years. They didn't have enough to charge him but they all went to their graves believing he did it. Through some detective work and sleuthing through newspapers of the day, they discovered a man was in town for the circus the night of the murder who was arrested a few years later for child molestation. This man ended up dying in jail but they gathered a solid amount of evidence that this man did it.

 

The greatest injustice was that the accused was actually a great guy who stood up for himself to people nobody else dared stand up to and tried to live a good life despite his disability. He was never exonerated during his lifetime.

 

Do you think they're going to reopen the case? No way. The family WANTS this rival of theirs to have done it. I imagine something similar is happening in the Avery case.

 

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?69482-ID-Lonnie-Jones-13-Orofino-Lumberjack-Days-September-1951

 

 

 

Add to that that he asked the Autotrader office for Halbach specifically to come to the house (testimony left out of netflix), and blocked his # when calling her directly.  SabresBillsfan brings up the point of IQ, and the documentary addressed that too (~70 for Avery per the one past lawyer), so yeah, is he smart enough to do it and destroy pretty much all the physical evidence?  Nuts.

 

I just think everything I saw overwhelms all this talk of phone calls and *67, which frankly can be explained considering they had a working relationship. Did he creep on her? Maybe. But ask any attractive girl, they run into creeps everyday. Most of them aren't murderers.

 

And a creep is in the eye of the beholder. What's creepy to one girl is a turn on to another. By itself it's suspicious, but looking at the whole body of work, I'm ready to dismiss it. 

 

I'm just a believer of reading the character of somebody just by looking at him. Fassbender and Colborn look like they're dying of guilt. Lenk's personality reminds me of any spook's personality. Kratz is one of the most smug, disingenous people you can ever run into. The co-prosecutor is an absolute slimeball. And I've never wanted to punch someone more than I wanted to punch Gene Kusche during his deposition. I know a couple people just like him. Carbon copies.

 

On the other hand, Steven Avery and his family are simple, common sense "folks". Not the brightest, but bright enough to do what they do. Is Avery into exhibitionism? Perhaps, but that doesn't make you a murderer. When Avery speaks, I have no doubt he's innocent. Dean Strang and Jerry Buting truly believe in his innocence, you can tell. I'm not sure Kratz even believes Avery is guilty. Hell, Buting reminds me of Tim Murray, anybody else see it? 

 

And this whole EDTA thing. You have to be an absolute slave to authority to buy it. And that FBI guy, ugh. 

 

The idea that you can watch that show and then be swayed by this "new evidence" is unbelievable to me. What I think is going on is that all the major blogs are spending more time talking about what's not included in the documentary, rather than what WAS in the documentary. Which seems very "off" to me. Since people still have faith in the media, they subconsciously think "Hmmm, if they're not outraged, perhaps this case isn't as cut and dry as I thought". 

 

The public on social media is outraged, yet the blogs (corporate owned), which are supposedly the voice of the people, are saying "Meh". See the disconnect? I don't think that's a coincidence. 

 

Why would the media be more interested in silencing the public outcry? Since when were they so interested in both sides of a story? Wouldn't they get better ratings and clicks with a Trial of the Century type scandal? It stinks of disinformation and a couple memos to editors "from the top".

Edited January 12, 2016 by musichunch

[deluca67]

None of this explains the key, the blood vile being tampered with, ZERO blood after an act of such violence, the only DNA on the key being Avery's (how long did she own that car)!!!! It's all freaking bullshiit and although Avery is no saint, there is no way in hell this is not a cover-up. He's going to leave zero evidence of anything ever taking place and then place the car on his own property?

If Avery had the car and hid it on the property, why would he take the key from the car and bring it to the house. If the key was dropped in the house at the time of the murder, wouldn;t they have looked for it to move the car? 

 

Also,

 

Also, the office called in the license plate, year and make of the vehicle to dispatch days after she went missing and before it was found. The police had the vehicle and planted it with the key on the Avery property.  

[CallawaySabres]

If Avery had the car and hid it on the property, why would he take the key from the car and bring it to the house. If the key was dropped in the house at the time of the murder, wouldn;t they have looked for it to move the car? 

 

Also,

 

Also, the office called in the license plate, year and make of the vehicle to dispatch days after she went missing and before it was found. The police had the vehicle and planted it with the key on the Avery property.  

Exactly, that guy on the stand looked like he had seen a ghost when told nobody ever told him the make of the car

[deluca67]

Exactly, that guy on the stand looked like he had seen a ghost when told nobody ever told him the make of the car

That testimony, in it's self, should have made the vehicle, key and any evidence connected to them, including any DNA, inadmissible. 

[Weave]

[bcsaberks]

That testimony, in it's self, should have made the vehicle, key and any evidence connected to them, including any DNA, inadmissible. 

I guess I didn't make the connection.  I know that's the line of thinking they were presenting, but it didn't seem so black and white.  Maybe I missed something

[bcsaberks]

Community members in those types of areas can be enormously biased due to years of family fighting. 

 

I used to frequent WebSleuths back in the day before it was taken over by religious grandmothers and one of the cold cases they solved was the 1951 murder of 13 year old Lonnie Jones in rural Idaho. The thread got long and had a few dedicated amateur investigators. One of them took the time to travel to Orofino and meet with family members and law enforcement who told him the story never released to the public.

 

Basically the family of the victim had a decades old grudge against a semi-retarded neighbor who refused to submit to their bullying back in the 40's and 50's. When their teenage relative was murdered they decided this rival of theirs did it and refused to consider anybody else for 60 years. They didn't have enough to charge him but they all went to their graves believing he did it. Through some detective work and sleuthing through newspapers of the day, they discovered a man was in town for the circus the night of the murder who was arrested a few years later for child molestation. This man ended up dying in jail but they gathered a solid amount of evidence that this man did it.

 

The greatest injustice was that the accused was actually a great guy who stood up for himself to people nobody else dared stand up to and tried to live a good life despite his disability. He was never exonerated during his lifetime.

 

Do you think they're going to reopen the case? No way. The family WANTS this rival of theirs to have done it. I imagine something similar is happening in the Avery case.

 

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?69482-ID-Lonnie-Jones-13-Orofino-Lumberjack-Days-September-1951

 

 

I just think everything I saw overwhelms all this talk of phone calls and *67, which frankly can be explained considering they had a working relationship. Did he creep on her? Maybe. But ask any attractive girl, they run into creeps everyday. Most of them aren't murderers.

 

And a creep is in the eye of the beholder. What's creepy to one girl is a turn on to another. By itself it's suspicious, but looking at the whole body of work, I'm ready to dismiss it. 

 

I'm just a believer of reading the character of somebody just by looking at him. Fassbender and Colborn look like they're dying of guilt. Lenk's personality reminds me of any spook's personality. Kratz is one of the most smug, disingenous people you can ever run into. The co-prosecutor is an absolute slimeball. And I've never wanted to punch someone more than I wanted to punch Gene Kusche during his deposition. I know a couple people just like him. Carbon copies.

 

On the other hand, Steven Avery and his family are simple, common sense "folks". Not the brightest, but bright enough to do what they do. Is Avery into exhibitionism? Perhaps, but that doesn't make you a murderer. When Avery speaks, I have no doubt he's innocent. Dean Strang and Jerry Buting truly believe in his innocence, you can tell. I'm not sure Kratz even believes Avery is guilty. Hell, Buting reminds me of Tim Murray, anybody else see it? 

 

And this whole EDTA thing. You have to be an absolute slave to authority to buy it. And that FBI guy, ugh. 

 

The idea that you can watch that show and then be swayed by this "new evidence" is unbelievable to me. What I think is going on is that all the major blogs are spending more time talking about what's not included in the documentary, rather than what WAS in the documentary. Which seems very "off" to me. Since people still have faith in the media, they subconsciously think "Hmmm, if they're not outraged, perhaps this case isn't as cut and dry as I thought". 

 

The public on social media is outraged, yet the blogs (corporate owned), which are supposedly the voice of the people, are saying "Meh". See the disconnect? I don't think that's a coincidence. 

 

Why would the media be more interested in silencing the public outcry? Since when were they so interested in both sides of a story? Wouldn't they get better ratings and clicks with a Trial of the Century type scandal? It stinks of disinformation and a couple memos to editors "from the top".

I agree on character read, in life and with your assessments here.  But our information is heavily influenced by what the story tellers chose to share.  That makes me less confident in that read compared to first hand.

 

I also agree 100% on the FBI BS.

 

But 12 people, with a lot more detail and testimony and investment than us, convicted him.  That counts for something.

 

I think the media is mostly parading any angle they can to get eyeballs since it's so hot.  The crush angle on the defense attorney and journalist girl with glasses are especially funny.  The prosecution story is an obvious one as "new" or difference since the rest of America is consuming the defense's.

[deluca67]

I guess I didn't make the connection.  I know that's the line of thinking they were presenting, but it didn't seem so black and white.  Maybe I missed something

They should have taken it much further then they did. The defense team should have just come right out and said it when the officer was on the stand. I guess in the end it didn't matter since the jury came back with a guilty verdict because they feared for their personal safety not the evidence, 

Edited January 13, 2016 by DeLuca1967

[K-9]

Character reading just by looking at a person. Nice.

 

I forget, does the witch float or sink?

[CallawaySabres]

I agree on character read, in life and with your assessments here.  But our information is heavily influenced by what the story tellers chose to share.  That makes me less confident in that read compared to first hand.

 

I also agree 100% on the FBI BS.

 

But 12 people, with a lot more detail and testimony and investment than us, convicted him.  That counts for something.

 

I think the media is mostly parading any angle they can to get eyeballs since it's so hot.  The crush angle on the defense attorney and journalist girl with glasses are especially funny.  The prosecution story is an obvious one as "new" or difference since the rest of America is consuming the defense's.

 

They first came out of there with the majority voting innocent and then something changed. With corruption going God knows how high in the legal system, I can guarantee you that threats were made (or deals) big time. If not, fear for their lives in going against the system surely had to play a factor.

[musichunch]

I agree on character read, in life and with your assessments here.  But our information is heavily influenced by what the story tellers chose to share.  That makes me less confident in that read compared to first hand.

 

I also agree 100% on the FBI BS.

 

But 12 people, with a lot more detail and testimony and investment than us, convicted him.  That counts for something.

 

I think the media is mostly parading any angle they can to get eyeballs since it's so hot.  The crush angle on the defense attorney and journalist girl with glasses are especially funny.  The prosecution story is an obvious one as "new" or difference since the rest of America is consuming the defense's.

 

The thing is....I don't think the documentary is THAT biased. 

 

Sure I didn't like that they didn't include the "creep" testimony, and while I agree the physical evidence was more important, I don't buy they didn't have any time during the 10 hours to fit it in. And every now and then there are some misplaced reaction shots from the prosecutors that are better off included in a reality TV show.

 

But overall, I don't see what they did that was so unfair to the prosecution. I feel like the concept of "what the filmmakers didn't share" is more persuasive than what they actually didn't share. Did that make sense? I'm not sure how to best put it into words. 

 

As for the jury, you seem to have a lot more faith that me in the consensus judgement of others. One former juror was so sick by the case that he left, and another anonymous juror came out against the verdict recently. They even mentioned that at first 7 said not guilty and 2 were undecided, then they were all swayed by 3 stubborn jurors. 

 

In a small town filled with posters like K9, it's not easy to have an opinion different from everyone else. Truth has nothing to do with it. It takes an enormous amount of courage to say "not guilty" in that atmosphere. Unfortunately, nobody had enough courage. 

 

Character reading just by looking at a person. Nice.

 

I forget, does the witch float or sink?

 

Ugh. Spare me. 

[K-9]

 

Ugh. Spare me.

 

I can't spare you until I know if you sink or float.

[musichunch]

I can't spare you until I know if you sink or float.

 

I get it. You don't believe anything that isn't told to you by people in white lab coats. Now please either contribute to the discussion or get lost. 

[K-9]

I get it. You don't believe anything that isn't told to you by people in white lab coats. Now please either contribute to the discussion or get lost.

 

You don't get it at all.

 

I don't believe anything told to me by someone so arrogant as to believe he can divine a person's character simply by looking at him. There is a word (or two) for that.

[calti]

Reminds me of WEST MEMPHIS 3