Making a Murderer

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Anyone watch this documentary on Netflix yet?

[CashRules]

You mean that documentary about a guy who is so guilty they should have executed him already? No, haven't seen it. But it's fun to think that people can believe this guy must be innocent just because he was mistakenly convicted once before. He's a career criminal but that just all gets forgotten when they think of one false conviction.

"Um, the dead woman's remains were found on his property. All the evidence leads to him and there is not one shred of credible evidence saying otherwise."

"But he was already falsely convicted of one crime."

"Yes, and he committed dozens of others for which he wasn't falsely convicted and he's a known sexual predator with some serious issues with women. He even has difficulty understanding the appropriate way for a man to behave with his own female relatives."

"FALSE CONVICTION!!!"

"Okay then."

People who believe this guy is innocent probably think the same about Amanda Knox.

[Monk]

I haven't watched it, but from everything I've read, the guy deserves to be in prison. In addition to having committed other crimes, he also apparently doused a cat in gasoline and burned it alive. Fuck that guy

[Gypsy-Vanner]

He may be guilty but the entire investigation was rotten through and through. He and his nephew should get a new trial. There's more than enough evidence that wasn't obtained in nefarious ways that can convict him. As for the nephew, there's little evidence for him so not sure how that new trial would go.

[Cassius Clay]

My favorite brother/sister duo have an enlightening conversation about it(Listen to this if you don't have time to watch the doc):

http://www.theradiodispatch.com/show/ra ... -murderer/

They're both comedian/journalists/activists that have very thoughtful/intelligent conversations about social justice, global politics, and general news.

[Boomer]

Just finished watching this last night.

I hadn't heard a single thing about this case before seeing the documentary, and a lot of things about the investigation seemed very shady to me, and many things about the murder itself just don't add up for me.

Moral of the story: lawyer up, ALWAYS.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Yeah, the whole thing was just a fucked up mess. I have no idea if this dude is guilty (I lean towards maybe) but watching this and then doing some extra research on the case that is not from a show for profit documentary it's just all wrong and leaves a bad taste as far as I'm concerned.

[Cassius Clay]

Before I watched/researched it, I was vaguely familiar with the case from hearing about it a few years ago. I assumed they were guilty, but it was just a messy/corrupt situation. But after seeing all the specifics of the corruption I'm leaning towards innocent for the kid(false confessions are a huge problem with underage suspects...especially one that is developmentally disabled), and feeling unsure about Steve Avery.

[CashRules]

You people worry me. It's like people become jaded by all the bullshit cops and prosecutors pull and think every case is a miscarriage of justice. There are thousands of cases of innocent people behind bars to be concerned about. Steven Avery ain't one of those cases. Even his "18 years served for a crime he didn't commit" is mostly a crock since he served it concurrently with another sentence for exposing himself to his own cousin and then running her off the road. He received six years on a reduced charge on that one and it's unlikely it would have been reduced without the accompanying 18 year sentence. It should have been an attempted murder charge. The evidence that he murdered Teresa Halbach is solid and only a one-sided documentary and a jaded view of a justice system could convince anyone otherwise. His nephew is a different story since it's questionable whether that guy has the IQ of a mushroom. He's likely just a victim of his uncle's manipulation.

[Cassius Clay]

Steve Avery is an angel.

[Boomer]

The documentary provided what I felt were reasonable doubts, but whether or not he's guilty the investigation was a complete circus from jump street.

There's actually a making a murderer subreddit that is very informative as well.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

http://cdn2.cad-comic.com/comics/cad-20160111-a649d.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cassius Clay]

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/mak ... 107?page=4

To simplify, here is a comment with additional questions:

1. What about evidence at the quarry?
2. They owned a car crusher if they wanted to dispose of the SUV.
3. No significant blood or bleach on the mattress, walls, floor, or other places in the trailer or the garage.
4. A co-worker reported the victim was received "stalker" type calls but that she would handle it. Each and every call to that cell phone within a week of her disappearance needed to be named and listed.
5. The brother in law had a violent history, was out with a gun, and was off that day.
6. Where were all of her appointments for that day for autotrader?
7. Had she visited Avery before for autotrader, wasn't this a typical visit to a junkyard?
8. Who else did the victim have appointments with or other meetings during the week?
9. Very suspicious that the "ex" was guessing her password and erasing voicemails, which is tampering with evidence.
10. Very suspicious that the police appeared to have the license plate and vehicle before it was found, and the vile broken, and blood planted? The key cleaned and planted. The involvement of the county including the employees and their relatives who were defendants in the multi-million dollar lawsuit.
11. Why there were no other fibers or bullet marks or holes (Stridations), as anyone with any forensic criminology training knows that if bullets were shot... there should be holes, powder, marks, evidence... there should be hairs and fabric at the crime scene. Here, there is evidence of items being moved and planted, and lack of evidence of blood, hairs, fabric and bullets or gunpowder.
12. The confession of the nephew was clearly coerced and involuntary, and made no sense at all. The School Bus driver testified to a drop off time that contradicted the times, and the boy may have been and may still be someone who had never had sex. There were no handcuffs or rope fibers or evidence pointing to that, or skin or hairs that could have been discovered. The "toes" bit was disturbing, but things just did not add up.

[Cassius Clay]

A more trivial example of how my mind began to change when I learn more specifics:

When I initially heard about the cat killing thing, that was almost all the evidence I personally needed to write him off as guilty. Animal torture during childhood is a classic predictor of being a psychopathic killer. I initially assumed he had privately tortured and killed a cat, but then I started hearing different versions of the story. That it was more of him "showing off" to his boys than personally getting off on torturing a cat. Don't get me wrong, either way you're a piece of shit, but I think there's a vast difference between doing evil shit in a social context(when your primary motivation is social/showing off) and privately getting off on torturing animals(especially when you're raised in a culture that doesn't value the lives of animals in any way). I've even heard there's a possibility that the cat was already dead before he threw it in a fire. If you've assumed this guy is a psychopath based on vague stories about him torturing and killing a cat, and therefore a likely killer of people, these kinds of specifics should undermine the shit out of your original assumptions.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

The "evidence" you say exist that is solid proving Steve's guilt it not so solid.

*The 1st piece of key evidence was her car key found in his room on the THIRD search which happened to be conducted by the same man who was involved in the false conviction of the rape he was sentenced to 12 years for. It just happened to have been "stuck" behind a nightstand that had been finally moved on the 3rd search. But it fell under a pair of sandals.

*The 2nd key piece of evidence was a bullet found under a piece of equipment in the garage. The garage was search initially, pictures indicated a very messy greasy place with loads of junk piled everywhere. That would be reason enough to have missed the bullet but again, it wasn't found until subsequent searches and after a detective involved in his false conviction had been in the garage. The bullet did contain the victims DNA however, the lab that conducted the DNA testing neglected to mention that the lab technician who performed the test had somehow contaminated the DNA sample with her own DNA. Protocol calls for the test to be rendered inconclusive but surprise, it wasn't. She ignored protocol and the DNA test was submitted as evidence. The nephew said they killed her in the garage which explains a bullet with her DNA however, there is absolutely no other DNA present and the garage was a junk filled greasy mess of a place so the theory that Steve and Brendan bleached the garage is highly improbable.

Now, these are the 2 pieces of evidence that were the major points of the prosecutions case. I dug further into the entire case after watching the documentary because it just seemed so obviously a set up that I figured the documentary was totally biased. However, not so much. I have no idea how the hell both Steve and Brendan were convicted based on the trial and the evidence presented. It was a clusterfuck of illogical and unreasonable theories.

The theories tossed out there convinced of his guilt are just that, theories. All evidence was circumstantial as well as highly suspect to have been tampered/manipulated with. If there is evidence out there that is beyond reasonable then please share. My gut says it was either Steve or the brother in law but show me something to show this.

[Gendo]

Sometimes Brandon just knows a person is guilty.

[CashRules]

If I'm ever tried for a crime I want a jury made of people just like the folks on this thread, except no Monk and nobody like me. You people are the reason O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake got away with murder. I don't care if you weren't even born then, you let two murderers walk free. Casey Anthony loves all of you!

[Cassius Clay]

[CashRules]

Give me a week and, starting from scratch, I can come up with at least 25 reasons why the Manson family should never have been convicted. That's the difference between just reading the so-called evidence or watching a one-sided 'documentary' and actually being in the courtroom in the jury box and not only hearing what both sides have to say but also being able to observe the defendant's reactions and general demeanor. Of course defense attorneys and advocates for Steven Avery are going to present everything to the public in the most favorable light, it's their job. At this point it's the only avenue they have left, to sway public opinion. They managed to sway it all the way to the same ignorant and gullible people who believe this guy is innocent going out of their way to prove their ignorance by petitioning the President to pardon him. Their knowledge of the justice system is so vast that they thought the President authority in state criminal cases. I'm convinced. Luckily he has already been convicted so reasonable doubt no longer applies. Now the burden is entirely on the defense who have to show a compelling reason he should be granted a new trial.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

So...you do not have any evidence to offer?

You make it seems like all we "I" did was watch the documentary and draw our conclusions from that alone. I feel confident in saying that there's few people on this board that would be comfortable doing such a thing. I watched the documentary which in turn lead me to ask questions about the directors bias since it seemed so obvious they felt the investigation and resulting trial was horseshit. So I dug around a bit and found many things that did not add up which lent credence to the slant of the documentary.

This whole thing stank, from top to bottom and every piece of evidence and testimony left much to be desired in a beyond reasonable doubt verdict. Those concerns have been voiced and the refutation of those concerns are very weak. You've offered nothing of substance other than to say that he's guilty and that a bunch of ignorant people were manipulated into questioning his guilt.

There has been zero credible rationales offered to explain the discrepancies and inconsistencies of this case other than comments like yours saying "you're all ignorant gullible dupes who don't know shit about the justice system and can't formulate an opinion because you weren't there to personally see the reactions and responses from the defendants etc...". I don't get your reaction to this at all.

[Cassius Clay]

1) I don't believe the documentary was really that one-sided.

2) Yeah, it's possible to question every piece of individual evidence in any "guilty" case and make one doubt those individual pieces of evidence. And, yes, that doesn't mean shit because if you look at all the evidence against the guilty together it easily suggests guilt...and breaking apart each piece of evidence individually is not enough to doubt the narrative. But, a lot of the pieces of counter-evidence in the Avery case form a believable counter-narrative about corruption (not a particularly far-fetched one either)...not just arbitrary picking apart of each piece of evidence with pieces of counter-evidence that aren't related in any way.

[Boomer]

So...you do not have any evidence to offer?
There has been zero credible rationales offered to explain the discrepancies and inconsistencies of this case other than comments like yours saying "you're all ignorant gullible dupes who don't know shit about the justice system and can't formulate an opinion because you weren't there to personally see the reactions and responses from the defendants etc...". I don't get your reaction to this at all.

This, and what Castor said.

Also, I'm not sure I understand the logic behind chastising people for forming opinions without "actually being in the courtroom in the jury box..." while at the same time decrying past court cases of OJ, Blake, and Anthony.

Either it's reasonable that people outside of a jury can form opinions that are more informed than actual members of said jury or it isn't, but you can't have it both ways.

[CashRules]

Steven Avery's mom:

Teresa Halbach is still alive and working with the police in a conspiracy to frame my son.

Okay then. Anyway:

1. What about evidence at the quarry?
2. They owned a car crusher if they wanted to dispose of the SUV.
3. No significant blood or bleach on the mattress, walls, floor, or other places in the trailer or the garage.
4. A co-worker reported the victim was received "stalker" type calls but that she would handle it. Each and every call to that cell phone within a week of her disappearance needed to be named and listed.
5. The brother in law had a violent history, was out with a gun, and was off that day.
6. Where were all of her appointments for that day for autotrader?
7. Had she visited Avery before for autotrader, wasn't this a typical visit to a junkyard?
8. Who else did the victim have appointments with or other meetings during the week?
9. Very suspicious that the "ex" was guessing her password and erasing voicemails, which is tampering with evidence.
10. Very suspicious that the police appeared to have the license plate and vehicle before it was found, and the vile broken, and blood planted? The key cleaned and planted. The involvement of the county including the employees and their relatives who were defendants in the multi-million dollar lawsuit.
11. Why there were no other fibers or bullet marks or holes (Stridations), as anyone with any forensic criminology training knows that if bullets were shot... there should be holes, powder, marks, evidence... there should be hairs and fabric at the crime scene. Here, there is evidence of items being moved and planted, and lack of evidence of blood, hairs, fabric and bullets or gunpowder.
12. The confession of the nephew was clearly coerced and involuntary, and made no sense at all. The School Bus driver testified to a drop off time that contradicted the times, and the boy may have been and may still be someone who had never had sex. There were no handcuffs or rope fibers or evidence pointing to that, or skin or hairs that could have been discovered. The "toes" bit was disturbing, but things just did not add up.

1.What about it?

2. Who said they wanted to dispose of it? Maybe Avery wanted to strip it down for parts. Maybe he wanted to switch out the Vehicle ID Number and get a fake title and sell it. Maybe he was going to crush it but never had time before being arrested. Preparing a vehicle to be crushed is a labor intensive, time consuming process and even then the vehicle can still be identified. Having a dead woman's vehicle on your property makes you a suspect. Having a dead woman's crushed vehicle on your property means you have practically convicted yourself. Discarding the crushed vehicle means there will likely be forensic evidence and, again, you've practically convicted yourself. Why even question why a career criminal would have evidence of the crime on his property when this same career criminal kept a rifle in plain view although he was committing a felony by owning a firearm? Why expect an irrational person to behave rationally?

3) People sure expect to find a lot of evidence from a single round fired from a .22 rimfire rifle.

4) Yes, Teresa Halbach was receiving "stalker" type calls,from STEVEN AVERY. He called her at least three times the day she was murdered and blocked his number from her caller ID for all but one call.

5) And?

6) I don't know, why?

7) Yes, she had been there before which is why he called, leaving his sisters name instead of his own, and requested they send the same woman who had been there before.

8) Does this person reach much?

9) Exactly how many people are involved in this conspiracy to convict a felon for a felony?

10) Law enforcement officials who were parties in Avery's lawsuit against the county should definitely have not had any involvement in this case. This doesn't add up to 'Steven Avery was framed.'

11) People sure expect to find a lot of evidence from a single round fired from a .22 rimfire rifle.

12) The nephew should not be in prison. I've agreed with this already. But if he was duped or taken advantage of by anybody it was his uncle.

Let's compare this case to another high-profile case, that of the West Memphis Three, and apply a little Occam's Razor. In the Arkansas case there were several alternative theories that were less complicated and far less bizarre than the one that sent three possibly innocent men to prison for almost 20 years. In the case of Avery, the belief that he might be innocent requires ignoring the far simpler, evidence-based explanation for the crime and taking a detour into bizzaro world.

[Monk]

A few things I've read that the documentary ignored or glossed over:

1) Avery's DNA was found under the hood of the victim's car derived from his sweat (as in, not just DNA from his blood was found on/in the car)
2) The bullet was shown to have been fired from Avery's rifle.
3) Avery stalked her at work and called her several times the day she went missing
4) Avery's ex-fiancee said that he was extremely violent, would beat her, and threatened to kill her
5) Avery told an inmate in prison that he was planning to build a torture chamber, and drew a diagram. He told another inmate that the best way to get rid of a body is to burn it
6) The victim's bones were mixed and intertwined with metal from tires used to fuel the fire, strongly implicating that's where the body was burned

I agree that there might be some fishy shit going on in the investigation. The major problem is that given the botched previous investigation, it makes it hard to believe that the Sherff's dept is difficult to believe. Still, I don't really think this guy is innocent.

[CashRules]

Avery's ex-fiancee said that he was extremely violent, would beat her, and threatened to kill her

If it's the same ex-fiancée she actually spoke in his favor on the documentary and later recanted saying he threatened to kill her if she didn't lie for him. Of course, she recanted on the Nancy Grace show so there may be some question there. Having Nancy Grace agree with me makes me feel dirty.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

In the case of Avery, the belief that he might be innocent requires ignoring the far simpler, evidence-based explanation for the crime and taking a detour into bizzaro world.

You keep saying this but no one here has every claimed he might be innocent. No one. I know people out there who believe in his innocence but us here? We've only pointed out the craptastic investigation and that justice was not achieved with this trial.

11) People sure expect to find a lot of evidence from a single round fired from a .22 rimfire rifle.

It was used as evidence of his guilt by the DA because her DNA was found on it. Nobody is "expecting a lot" but is well within reason to expect some corroborating evidence such as DNA anywhere else in the garage and the DNA testing done on the bullet to be free of contamination during testing. Neither expectation was met, her DNA was no where else in the garage and the DNA sample was contaminated. If something is going to be used as evidence of guilt then it's more than reasonable to expect that evidence to support a "beyond a reasonable doubt" result. I do not believe the DA did this especially considering the suspicious way the bullet was found.

Anyways, I'm not seeing anything in your comments other than speculation which really doesn't add anything to a justified beyond reasonable doubt conviction. It's innocent until proven guilty and the only thing that is beyond reasonable doubt is the shady way the police, judge, jury and DA all behaved during this investigation and trial. This belief was not formed because of some half assed conspiracy theory, it's based on the entirely questionable fiasco which is detailed and outlined in many sources other than the documentary.

[CashRules]

justice was not achieved with this trial.

A murdering piece of shit is in prison. That's justice.

I'm not seeing anything in your comments other than speculation

That may well be the biggest case of projection I've seen yet on this board.

Nobody is "expecting a lot" but is well within reason to expect some corroborating evidence

1) Her vehicle on his property with his DNA on the vehicle.

2) His multiple calls to her the day of the murder which he tried to disguise by blocking his number from her caller ID after pretending he was making an appointment for her to meet with his sister and this after the previous time he met her at the door wearing nothing but a towel.

3) Her burned remains on his property.

4) Him bragging to fellow inmates about building a torture chamber.

5) When questioned he first claimed he hadn't seen her that day, then claimed he saw her from a distance but never talked to her.

This belief was not formed because of some half assed conspiracy theory

Yes, it was. It requires believing that law enforcement and prosecutors from two different counties were involved in framing a low-life criminal. Further than that it requires believing that the state appeals court is also involved in this conspiracy since it is that court that has repeatedly found no compelling evidence for granting him a new trial. This violates the very principle of Occam's Razor. Now Occam's Razor is not set in stone, it's just a guiding principle but the beauty of it is that, when applied to a criminal case, if you have to ignore Occam's Razor to arrive at a doubt then that doubt is not reasonable and it definitely leaves no room for a justifiable reason for granting a new trial.

It's innocent until proven guilty

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We're years beyond both of those standards. The standard now is that his defense attorneys have the burden of convincing the appeals court that there is a justified reason for granting a new trial. They tried and they failed.

Reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt at all. I have been appalled at way too many cases over the past few years where the general public, including jurors, have shown that they are hopelessly confused by the two words "reasonable doubt" and it has allowed criminals to walk free. There are doubts in every case except for a certain somebody I won't even bother mentioning. There is a huge problem in this country of people being imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit. But that problem is not corrected by going of in the other direction and expecting the prosecution to meet an impossible standard before convicting anybody. He lured her onto his property the day she was murdered. He did so by pretending to make an appointment for her to meet with his sister. He tried to prevent authorities from knowing he had called her by blocking his number from her caller ID. Are there individual things about this case that are questionable? Of course there are and you can't find a criminal prosecution that's any different. But the evidence against him does not leave room for any reasonable doubt. It's just not there. Even if it was there it's a decade too late to worry about since those who think he is guilty now have absolutely no burden to meet and the burden is entirely upon his defenders and it's a burden that cannot be met by anything that has been revealed about this case so far. People have become jaded by a criminal justice system that is rampant with abuses and it has caused people to expect prosecutors to meet ridiculous standards. Sadly, I'm worried that the appeals court may eventually abandon its own responsibilities and actually grant this predatory piece of shit a new trial and he'll be set free and do it again. There are thousands of people in prison in this country right now who are either provably innocent or at least deserve a new trial. They deserve advocacy. They deserve petitions to their governors for pardons. They deserve sympathy. Their cases are reasons for outrage. Steven Avery is not one of these people. Supporting a new trial for this man requires a person to focus only on the selected "problems' with the case, asking nonsense questions like "Why didn't he just put her vehicle through the crusher." and ignoring all the damning evidence against him. Her burned remains were found on his property. That combined with the fact that he lured her there is all that is necessary. Taking those two facts together and still thinking he deserves a new trial means a person either thinks he is innocent and was framed or at least thinking he deserves a new trial. If a person thinks he's innocent then the defense has the burden of proving their is a justifiable reason for thinking someone else killed her and planted the evidence on his property. Thinking he might be guilty but still deserves a new trial requires thinking that even if he did kill her someone still planted her burned remains on his property which would mean that the person planting the evidence had to know where to find her remains in order to plant them there.

Ignore the bullet if you want, it does not change the fact that her remains were found on his property after he lured her there under false pretenses after he had bragged to fellow inmates about his plans to build a torture chamber and his DNA was found on her vehicle which was also found on his property. Pretend for a moment that the previous sentence is the only thing I have said about this case. That's all that even needs to be said because unless you can find a falsehood in that sentence or show compelling evidence that the remains and vehicle were planted then there is no reasonable doubt and there is no justification for a new trial. It doesn't matter if every law enforcement officer in that county had it out for Steven Avery it does not change the first sentence of this paragraph.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I think we've come to an impasse on this conversation. I've put quite a bit of my personal time into watching actual investigation video and reading trial transcripts after seeing the documentary and feel that I know enough to form an opinion on whether law enforcement and the justice system acted with impunity.

There are just too many experts out there that have the same questions I have and I cannot ignore that. As for your "framing" comment, the definition of framing implies that the victim is innocent. I'll go ahead and say it once more in case you missed it the first time but nobody here believes he is innocent.

Perhaps if you decide to read transcripts, watch hours of video, and read articles by experts then we can continue this conversation because all I am hearing from you is that he's guilty and he deserves to be in jail regardless if the process was shady as hell.

[Cassius Clay]

There's some stuff I'm hearing here that I haven't heard before that really looks bad for Avery. Like the Halbach's bones being intertwined with metal, an inmate claiming Avery admitted to fantasizing about building a torture chamber, etc. But I have to take some of these things with a grain of salt because there is so much conflicting information out there. For example, Avery's ex-lawyer recently said the DNA from sweat thing is bs because you can't identify an individual's DNA from sweat. Is this true?

And to the Occam's Razor point about the simplest explanation...the more complex counter-narrative is a conspiracy theory. Don't conspiracy theories tend to be more convoluted than the official/simple narratives they challenge? Not all conspiracies are false and not all are created equal. It's unfair to throw in the crazy shit Avery's mother might be saying in with more reasonable/believable conspiracies being considered.

Lastly, I'm not saying he is innocent or guilty. I'm saying I don't know anymore. What I do know is that whether Avery is guilty or not, some sketchy shit went down. I think it's very possible that Avery killed Halbach and that cops planted shit to make the case tighter. That needs to be exposed. But then I have to wonder....if Avery was convicted with partially manufactured evidence, is it possible he is innocent? Once you start creating evidence, it's a slippery slope....you have to wonder how far it goes.

[CashRules]

Don't conspiracy theories tend to be more convoluted than the official/simple narratives they challenge?

Yes, which means if someone is going to assert a conspiracy theory in opposition to the principle of Occam's Razor then they have a huge burden to overcome to support such a theory.

Not all conspiracies are false and not all are created equal.

They still require evidence.

It's unfair to throw in the crazy shit Avery's mother might be saying

I didn't rely on her claims that Halbach is still alive and actively helping to frame him for any point I made. I just threw that in there for laughs.

Avery's ex-lawyer recently said the DNA from sweat thing is bs because you can't identify an individual's DNA from sweat. Is this true?

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1997-0 ... liva-sweat

"When a person leaves any DNA at his crime scene, whether it's a drop of blood, saliva or perspiration, he's left us his calling card," says Paul Ferrara, a noted DNA researcher and head of Virginia's state crime laboratory, the Division of Forensic Science. "Just wearing a pair of gloves doesn't throw off the trail anymore."

That was 19 years ago.

[CashRules]

all I am hearing from you is that he's guilty and he deserves to be in jail regardless if the process was shady as hell.

Well then you might want to read everything I said a lot more carefully then because that statement is bullshit.

[Boomer]

A few things I've read that the documentary ignored or glossed over:

1) Avery's DNA was found under the hood of the victim's car derived from his sweat (as in, not just DNA from his blood was found on/in the car)
2) The bullet was shown to have been fired from Avery's rifle.
3) Avery stalked her at work and called her several times the day she went missing
4) Avery's ex-fiancee said that he was extremely violent, would beat her, and threatened to kill her
5) Avery told an inmate in prison that he was planning to build a torture chamber, and drew a diagram. He told another inmate that the best way to get rid of a body is to burn it
6) The victim's bones were mixed and intertwined with metal from tires used to fuel the fire, strongly implicating that's where the body was burned

I agree that there might be some fishy shit going on in the investigation. The major problem is that given the botched previous investigation, it makes it hard to believe that the Sherff's dept is difficult to believe. Still, I don't really think this guy is innocent.

1.) The DNA was such a trace amount that it was never tested to determine what it was. Further, a member of the forensics team testified to handling DNA inside the Avery property and in the car before opening the hood without switching gloves.

2.) The bullet was never conclusively tied to Avery's gun, just the model. I believe it was a Marlin Model 60, what I understand to be one of the most popular rifles in the world.

3.) I can't find a source he stalked her. Only testimony I can find of Avery being mentioned by Halbach at work is: “She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel,'' Pliszka said while the jury was outside of the courtroom. “I just said, 'Really?' and then she said, 'Yeah,' and laughed and said kinda 'Ew.'''

4.) If you're talking about Jodi Stachowski, there are no records of these allegations I can find prior to recently, and any phone call Avery would have made threatening to make him look good would have been made from jail, which would be recorded.

5.) Unsubstantiated hearsay that was never used in trial.

6.) The victim's bones were also found in a "burn barrel" on a neighboring property; burnt (apparently) human remains with consistent scorching to the victim's were found in a burn pit in a quarry about a half mile away from the Avery property.

[Boomer]

Ignore the bullet if you want, it does not change the fact that her remains were found on his property after he lured her there under false pretenses after he had bragged to fellow inmates about his plans to build a torture chamber and his DNA was found on her vehicle which was also found on his property.

- I don't want to ignore the bullet, I just want to know why if it was fired inside the garage there is zero other shred of evidence placing the victim in the garage. I know I may be expecting to "find a lot", but in order to have the victim's DNA on it the bullet must have either passed right through her, or just grazed her, but in either case there's no blood spatter? Nothing?

- Her remains were also found on one other site, possibly two.

- If by lured her there under false pretenses you mean took out an Auto-trader ad under his sister's name, that's because the car being sold was owned by his sister. There's zero shred of evidence Avery was stalking Halbach or that she felt threatened by him. If she did, why would she go?

- I said it before but again, there's zero court testimony that Avery ever said anything about creating a torture chamber, all that amounts to is unsubstantiated hearsay.

- In order for us to believe the victim was killed on Avery's property while at the same time knowing there is zero DNA trace she was there outside of burnt remains and one bullet in a garage, we would have to accept Avery is very well versed in forensics. Yet, in a car where there are no finger prints, hair follicles, or other indicators Avery was ever inside it (again, exhibiting meticulous forensic detail), there are splotches of blood located in plain view all over the vehicle?

Furthermore, the vehicle, the DNA bullet, and the SUV key inside Avery's trailer were either found by members of the Manitowac Sheriff's department or they had access to these pieces of evidence outside of court-mandated supervision from other police agencies.

[CashRules]

I have changed my mind. Avery and his nephew should have their convictions overturned and new trials should take place. To avoid any accusations of prosecutorial impropriety this time, the state should turn the case over to the federal government which should then charge Avery with 1) Kidnapping resulting in death and 2) Sexual abuse resulting in death. Then the federal prosecutor should announce that the government will be seeking the death penalty if Avery is convicted of either or both of these charges (both are subject to the death penalty at the federal level). His nephew should then be offered immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony against his uncle. Every adult relative of Steven Avery who lived on that property or an adjacent property at the time of Teresa Halbach's murder should then be arrested and charged with accessory to murder with a possible sentence of life without parole but also offered immunity in return for their testimony against Steven Avery. If any actions by Manitowoc County law enforcement officials, prosecutors or judges are subject to federal prosecution then they should also be prosecuted and the government should seek the maximum penalty allowed by federal law in all cases. Everybody wins.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

There's an interesting theory floating around. I haven't given it my full attention as there's a lot to read and then collaborate with the investigation but some of the scenario presented already falls into the theory presented by experts who have reviewed the entire case top to bottom.

After the following I've posted a 2nd theory by a cold case expert and former law officer because his theory is crazy!

The police didn't kill Theresa Halbach. Andrew Colborn located that RAV4 with the assistance of Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas who illegally trespassed onto the Avery Salvage Yard on the night of November 3rd 2005. Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas suspected something was up since the Avery Salvage Yard was the last place they knew Theresa visited on October 31, Halloween day. They went snooping on the property and found the car. They checked the car and found the key in the ignition and blood in the cargo area. Mike or Ryan removed the key from the ignition to ensure that no one could easily move the car off of the Avery property... freaked out about this huge discovery they call the Manitowoc Sheriffs Department. Andrew Colborn fielded the call that night and went out and met Ryan and Mike at the Salvage Yard so he could view the car for himself. Ryan and Mike show him the car and to be certain its Halbachs he "calls" in the plate number to dispatch. Colborn has to "call-in" instead of "radio-in" the plate number to Manitowoc dispatch because he wasn't in his police cruiser at the moment, but rather on foot and in the "field' on the Avery Salvage property. This mistake places Colborn at the scene and in contact with Halbachs RAV4 two days before it is officially located on November 5th, 2005, by Pam Sturm.

This is problematic for Colborn because all call and radio transmissions to dispatch are recorded and logged onto the Manitowoc Police server. Andrew Colborn is now operating outside of police protocol at a potential crime scene that he has no official directive to be at. He tells Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas to basically keep quiet about what they found and not mention to anyone that they were ever on the Avery Salvage property that night. Ryan or Mike turns the RAV4 key over to Andrew Colborn. Mike and Ryan are told to go home. Andrew Colborn then immediately calls Lt. James Lenk and briefs him about the discovery of the Halbach car and breaches of protocol he committed on the Avery property, also about Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach being there. Lt James Lenk realizing that Colborn's calling in Halbachs plate is a serious mistake with potential consequences orders Andrew Colborn to remove the license plate from Halbach's car and then report to him immediately.

What James Lenk and Andrew Colborn, or the others for that matter, don't realize at this point and are completely unaware of is that Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych have kidnapped, raped, shot and then burned Theresa Halbach in the privacy of the gravel quarry off of Jambo road on Halloween evening. They choose to burn her body to dispose of their DNA evidence of the crimes. They hid Halbach's car in the rear of Avery Salvage and wiped it clean of their prints. I believe it is Scott Tadych's idea to secretly transport the cremains of Halbach from the gravel quarry and dispose them into Steven Avery's burn pit. Scott Tadych transports Halbach's cremains in secret by using one of Barb Jandas burn barrels from her yard. Scott Tadych fails to collect all of Halbach's cremains from the original burn site in the gravel quarry, thus leaving some behind that FBI investigators later find... but he also fails in making certain all of Halbach's cremains are out of Barb Jandas burn barrel after dumping them into Steven Avery's burn pit. This is why investigators found small bits of Halbach in Barb Jandas burn barrel. Thus making a total of three sites where Halbach's cremains are found. Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey are unaware that Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach have found Theresas car on the property and that Lenk and Colborn are now involved and in play with their scheme.

By shear colossal luck, two completely independent frame jobs targeting one man, Steven Avery were shaping up into the perfect storm. On one front, from Lenk and Colborn regarding the RAV4, and on the other unconnected front by Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey regarding the cremains of Theresa Halbach. One party wasn't aware of the other's involvements at any point during the days leading up to the official discovery of Halbach's RAV4 at the Avery Salvage Yard hence why the investigation and murder trial made zero sense to anyone especially the Jury.

None of the evidence could be connected because it was all unrelated -- everybody was guessing. But Buting and Strang had zeroed in on a part of it but couldn't fully form a solid defense to prove it. The Jury couldn't conceive that Manitowoc officers could have conspired to kill Theresa Halbach to frame Steven Avery as Ken Kratz insisted they had to if they wanted to follow the theory the defense presented of the frame up of Steven Avery by Manitowoc officials. And Ken Kratz was right. Imagine Scott Tadych's confused and utter relief when Steve Avery's blood was found in the Halbach car and the RAV4 key found in Steve Avery's bedroom. He must have been like WTF?!

A quote from Scott Tadych after Steven Avery is convicted of Theresa Halbach's murder: "THIS IS THE GREATEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN." We will see Scott, we will see........."

This is probably the most credible theory I have come across so far. Notice how the events here not only make logical sense, but they also line up with how many of the parties involved behaved during the documentary. For example, how Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas seemed like they knew more about what happened than they were leading on. As well as Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey's bizarre hostility towards Steven Avery.

Serial Killer Theory:

Former police sergeant and FBI cold case expert, John Cameron, suggests that a prolific serial killer, Edward Wayne Edwards, might have been the one to kill the young photographer. Edwards had not only killed in Wisconsin before, but was also known for framing someone else for the crime in order to enjoy the media attention from afar.

“When I turned on the documentary and started watching it , I actually couldn't believe what I was watching," says Cameron. “Because that really is what happened behind the scenes of all of Edwards' set ups."

RELATED: Gigi Hadid goes on Twitter rant about Netflix's 'Making a Murderer'

Other super sleuths have found a shot of a man the looks remarkably like Edwards actually in the background of “Making a Murderer." Furthermore, Edwards only lived an hour away from Steven Avery's home at the time of the murder, and he was known for killing on Halloween night — the same night Halbach went missing.

[CashRules]

I made a post about John Cameron's lunacy quite a while back. He thinks everybody who has ever been murdered in the U.S. was murdered by Edwards, from the Black Dahlia to JonBenet Ramsey.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I don't remember your post but you're right about him. I was actually creeped out a bit watching a youtube video of him talking about this serial killer.

I will point out though that a picture taken during the trial which was of the Prosecution lawyer had a man standing in the background that looked an awful lot like Edwards. It was freaky. But...his theory is so fantastical I just couldn't rack up any meaningful belief in it.

[CashRules]

http://forum.pittersplace.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=601