Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[johnny karate]

One thing that I'm not quite getting across is that he is confident in his lies. There's a difference. You can tell that he is CONFIDENT in the interrogation with the police. He knows that the key was not found in his room. He knows that the blood was not found in her car.

He knows they framed him. He's not thinking "Wait maybe someone else put it there?" "Wait maybe she came by and dropped the key in the house?" How did it get there.

He knows that they did it but the average person is thinking "They know he did it because he was innocent last time."

I'm saying "He knows they framed him because it's different from how the murder really went down and he knows how it went down because he did it."

You know who else might exhibit confidence during a police interrogation?

An innocent person.

 

[johnny karate]

I watched this over the holidays and there is just one thing that I can't explain.

One of the police called in the victims plate number two days before the car was found on Avery's property.

Something is really fishy about that.

Yeah, that was definitely one of the most alarming details of the case, and one for which an explanation was never provided.

 

[truethat]

You know who else might exhibit confidence during a police interrogation?

An innocent person.

Wow!!!!!!!! Really, omg I never thought of that!


So your argument is that he's innocent and somehow someway the body just happened to show up on his property?

If he's innocent and his nephew is singing this song about how all this stuff went down, then why isn't he suggesting that the nephew did it?

Again, (and it's kind of annoying that you just keep dismissing what I'm saying out of a knee jerk reaction instead of considering it)

Go watch the interrogation video. He's CONFIDENT about two particular bits of evidence.

An innocent person isn't going to automatically say "The cops had to have planted it."

The won't know how it got there. They'd be confused. They'd be suspicious.

He's not acting like that.

Also please don't waste time arguing this man is innocent. I"m not willing to have that discussion because I just think it's a ridiculous assertion.

The only issue is if the cops framed him in order to get the confiction and that his nephew who is innocent was dragged into it.

 

[SomedayGirl]

I agree with this. But if he's guilty he's right where he should be. So the idea of signing a petition to get a person who murdered an animal before and has now murdered a woman out of jail, just because the police were corrupt is apples and oranges to me.

I'm glad the cops are getting put under the radar. But in my opinion only an idiot would sign a petition asking for this guy to be released from jail. He's guilty.

My name won't be appearing on a petition either. LOL However, I am not as sanguine about corruption. If it comes to light that police did in fact manipulate of manufacture evidence, it won't matter to me if he's guiilty or not - he should be immediately released. If they'd tamper with evidence to get a conviction of a guilty person (assuming that's the case for Avery) there's no reason for them not to do it to other, less assuredly guilty people or even outright innocent people (Dassey for example). If a poisoned tree is allowed to stand it's a bad precedent and a frightening signal to law enforcement.

Insert old saw here some variant about one quilty person going free...

 

[truethat]

My name won't be appearing on a petition either. LOL However, I am not as sanguine about corruption. If it comes to light that police did in fact manipulate of manufacture evidence, it won't matter to me if he's guiilty or not - he should be immediately released. If they'd tamper with evidence to get a conviction of a guilty person (assuming that's the case for Avery) there's no reason for them not to do it to other, less assuredly guilty people or even outright innocent people (Dassey for example). If a poisoned tree is allowed to stand it's a bad precedent and a frightening signal to law enforcement.

Insert old saw here some variant about one quilty person going free...

Yeah I can understand this argument. But the guy is so creepy. Makes me wish for the days of the Star Chamber!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Chamber

 

[lionking]

The only evidence of sexual assault comes from the nephew's "confession". So if you don't believe his story... I'm not sure on what basis you believe a sexual assault actually occurred.

There's no physical evidence of sexual assault, stabbing or murder. Not a trace of DNA. No blood, tissue or semen. Not a fingerprint of the victim, nor were Avery's fingerprints in the SUV. No evidence of materials like bleach to clean things up. These two simpletons were nonetheless criminal masterminds who cleaned up things so thoroughly that forensic experts with weeks to do their jobs found nothing.

Come off it. These guys have trouble walking and chewing gum. The lack of physical evidence in the trailer is the biggest problem with the prosecution case in my view. Amongst many other problems well articulated by you and SomedayGirl.

 

[lionking]

Jeez, "creepy" is now grounds for conviction......

 

[Caper]

In the weeks leading up to the murders, Avery called Halbach's workplace several times requesting that Halbach return to his residence. Avery called Halbach 3 times on 11/31/05, and he used the Star 67 feature for the first two phone calls. Avery lured her to the residence by claiming that his sister would meet Halbach at the Avery compound. Avery's last phone call was recorded approximately an hour after Halbach's arrival at the Avery compound. Avery did not use the Star 67 feature for this phone call. Avery left a message wondering why Halbach didn't show up in an attempt to create an alibi.

To me this is pretty damning evidence. The most damning. I might even convict base on this. It almost kills my fantasy that he is again innocent and framed by the police.

 

[johnny karate]

So your argument is that he's innocent and somehow someway the body just happened to show up on his property?

I'm not saying he's innocent at all. I'm simply offering an alternative theory to yours.

Also, Steven Avery was not the only person who lived on or had access to that property. This has been point out numerous times.

If he's innocent and his nephew is singing this song about how all this stuff went down, then why isn't he suggesting that the nephew did it?

Maybe because he doesn't think the nephew did it.

Again, (and it's kind of annoying that you just keep dismissing what I'm saying out of a knee jerk reaction instead of considering it)

You're not giving me much to consider. Your arguments primarily consist of points that have been addressed or refuted, and I guess what could only be called your gut feeling that he's guilty.

Go watch the interrogation video. He's CONFIDENT about two particular bits of evidence.

I've watched it. And offered you other reasons he might be confident. You have dismissed them out of hand.

An innocent person isn't going to automatically say "The cops had to have planted it."

An innocent person who had previously been railroaded by the very same police force who are now interrogating him might.

The won't know how it got there. They'd be confused. They'd be suspicious.

He's not acting like that.

Maybe because he believes the police are framing him a second time. I don't specifically recall, but I seem to remember Avery making that clear throughout the series. He thinks the Manitowoc County police framed him back in 1985. Now he thinks they're framing him again. I'm not sure why you think this is such a leap.

Also please don't waste time arguing this man is innocent. I"m not willing to have that discussion because I just think it's a ridiculous assertion.

You should perhaps read my posts. I've never even approached such an assertion, and have made it quite clear how I feel about that issue.

The only issue is if the cops framed him in order to get the confiction and that his nephew who is innocent was dragged into it.

I agree. That is the only issue. Or certainly the most important one.

 

[Samzilla]

One thing that I'm not quite getting across is that he is confident in his lies. There's a difference. You can tell that he is CONFIDENT in the interrogation with the police. He knows that the key was not found in his room. He knows that the blood was not found in her car.

He knows they framed him. He's not thinking "Wait maybe someone else put it there?" "Wait maybe she came by and dropped the key in the house?" How did it get there.

He knows that they did it but the average person is thinking "They know he did it because he was innocent last time."

I'm saying "He knows they framed him because it's different from how the murder really went down and he knows how it went down because he did it."

There is another possibility that explains why he knows they framed him.

 

[truethat]

You have a dead body on your property that has been burned. You are innocent and feel like you have been framed by the police.

A. Where did the body come from?

B. Who killed her?

Later during the investigation your nephew confesses to killing the woman with you. You know you are innocent.

What would your reaction be? "Oh they cooerced a confession out of him" or "What the hell is going on? Did my nephew do this? Is my nephew guilty and trying to blame this on me? Does this explain how a dead woman's cremains wound up on my property after I met her?"

Or "Nope he's innocent too. The cops are lying!" I know most people aren't really going to stop and consider this point. They'll just ignore it, but it's important in my opinion.

I would think the normal reaction of an innocent man who is sitting there wondering how a dead woman's burned body showed up on his property would at least wonder if the nephew had something to do with it.

The only other explanation is that you think the cops murdered her.

 

[johnny karate]

Jeez, "creepy" is now grounds for conviction......

That, and making phone calls regarding a legitimate business transaction.

It really is interesting to see the different reactions to this case, and how perfectly they echo the very problems highlighted in the documentary.

Apparently, some people seem guilty enough to not be granted that same rights and privileges as the rest of us. And I find it frightening there are those who are okay with that.

 

[truethat]

That, and making phone calls regarding a legitimate business transaction.

It really is interesting to see the different reactions to this case, and how perfectly they echo the very problems highlighted in the documentary.

Apparently, some people seem guilty enough to not be granted that same rights and privileges as the rest of us. And I find it frightening there are those who are okay with that.

This and the comment to which you are replying are stupid. I'm sorry. No one is saying "There's a creepy guy, **** his rights"

Again..............THERE...........IS...........A ......DEAD............BODY .........ON........HIS ...............PROPERTY

He met her and was the last one to see her alive.


If you don't think he killed her, then who do you think killed her? As you yourself pointed out, it's an isolated area. Not a well traveled place.

Are you suggesting a stranger came in and killed her? Her boyfriend? Her boss? His sister?

And again. He's HOME............and someone BURNS A BODY on his property and he doesn't notice?


Stop playing games. You're ignoring the actual evidence and acting like the only evidence they do have is the planted evidence.

Hello...........dead body????

 

[johnny karate]

You have a dead body on your property that has been burned. You are innocent and feel like you have been framed by the police.

A. Where did the body come from?

B. Who killed her?

Later during the investigation your nephew confesses to killing the woman with you. You know you are innocent.

What would your reaction be? "Oh they cooerced a confession out of him" or "What the hell is going on? Did my nephew do this? Is my nephew guilty and trying to blame this on me? Does this explain how a dead woman's cremains wound up on my property after I met her?"

Or "Nope he's innocent too. The cops are lying!" I know most people aren't really going to stop and consider this point. They'll just ignore it, but it's important in my opinion.

I would think the normal reaction of an innocent man who is sitting there wondering how a dead woman's burned body showed up on his property would at least wonder if the nephew had something to do with it.

The only other explanation is that you think the cops murdered her.

Maybe he did wonder that, and it wasn't depicted in the documentary. Maybe he did think the cops murdered her, and his nephew was part of the frame-up. Maybe he didn't wonder who killed her because he didn't care.

Or... maybe he's an emotionally disturbed man with an IQ in the 70s with very good reason to distrust anything a cop says to him who simply didn't respond in a way that random people on the internet think he should have.

 

[truethat]

Maybe that's your reply to what I posted?

We're just picking on this poor mentally retarded man who is completely innocent and convicting him because he's "creepy."

It's got nothing to do with the dead burned corpse of the murder victim on his property, her car on his property and the phone calls and admission that he met her that day.


I mean damn some people scare the crap out of me. In a normal murder case without any of the drama or corruption, he'd be GUILTY as CHARGED.

But because some documentary tells you that the cops did it, people follow along like lemmings instead of using any critical thinking at all.

It's freakin' scary how people don't think any more.

 

[lionking]

Well, they didn’t choose him. At least not for that. They starting filming his story after he was exonerated from his 1985 wrongful conviction and released from prison. The ensuing drama literally unfolded in front of the cameras.

I skipped over this, but it is important. This is what makes the doco so compelling and possibly unique. No need for re-enactments or file footage. The evasions and prevarications of police and prosecutors are there for all to see. The bullying of Dassey and his retraction of evidence he gave which was surely dodgy. The admission by forensic experts of contamination of the "magic bullet". It's all there, and if people watched it without blinkers they would see, at least, a benefit of reasonable doubt.

 

[johnny karate]

This and the comment to which you are replying are stupid. I'm sorry. No one is saying "There's a creepy guy, **** his rights"

Again..............THERE...........IS...........A ......DEAD............BODY .........ON........HIS ...............PROPERTY

He met her and was the last one to see her alive.


If you don't think he killed her, then who do you think killed her? As you yourself pointed out, it's an isolated area. Not a well traveled place.

Are you suggesting a stranger came in and killed her? Her boyfriend? Her boss? His sister?

And again. He's HOME............and someone BURNS A BODY on his property and he doesn't notice?


Stop playing games. You're ignoring the actual evidence and acting like the only evidence they do have is the planted evidence.

Hello...........dead body????

He was not in an isolated area all by himself. Other people lived on that property. And it was a large, unsecured property that just about anyone could have access to.

I don't know who killed Teresa Halbach. It very well could have been Steven Avery.

It could have been the ex-boyfriend. We don't know. And since the police never asked him for an alibi or even treated him like a suspect, we'll never know.

It could have been Brendan Massey's stepfather and/or older brother. We don't know. What we do know is that these two alibied each other, and offered testimony against Avery. And then they had their alibis contradicted by a neutral third party. This, by the way, was discovered by the defense because the police never bothered to follow up on it.

And there might be other suspects. We don't know, and we never will, because the police focused their investigation on Steven Avery from the very beginning.

I'll say this again for the people who have no interest in paying attention: I'm not arguing Steven Avery is innocent. I don't know one way of the other if he is.

What I am arguing is that he was convicted by unethical and possibly illegal means by a system that completely steam-rolled over due process. And just because they might have gotten it right doesn't make it okay, because the next time it might happen to someone who isn't quite as easy to despise as Steven Avery.

 

[johnny karate]

It's freakin' scary how people don't think any more.

You're clearly showing us all how it's done.

 

[truethat]

I love how discussing the actual evidence is of no interest.

Everyone agrees the cops were wrong. Do you see anyone saying so what?

 

[johnny karate]

I love how discussing the actual evidence is of no interest.

The evidence has been discussed.

And those discussions pretty much go like this:

You make an assertion based on a piece of evidence ("Avery is guilty because the body was burned on his property").

Someone else offers a rebuttal ("Avery was not the only person to live on or have access to that property").

You ignore the rebuttal and reassert your original argument ("Avery is guilty because the body was burned on his property").

If you are really interested in discussing the evidence, then you need to begin to address the counterarguments regarding that evidence instead of just repeating your own arguments. We're all aware of the evidence. Simply repeatedly pointing out that it exists in no way advances the discussion.