Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[JREF2010]

wow. you know thats another mystery to me of this case is the destroying of the body. it seems to me unimaginable but then I think if people today want to destroy the evidence they go to greater lengths due to DNA and Forensic technology getting so tough on the perp's. Meth heads killed her? thats a new one. Colburn finds it and theres the openning for the frame job and his promotion.

Zellners new post up
To all skeptics, doubters and haters, just be patient because we are really going to make you mad.

 

[marplots]

Zellners new post up
To all skeptics, doubters and haters, just be patient because we are really going to make you mad.

Well finally. Finally something other than hot air.

 

[JREF2010]

If I recall reading some document Zellner has to release the findings to the court immediately as she gets the results.
Im really curious of the Carbon 14 test results that will be interesting.

The cell tower info can add to the pile of evidence pointing away from Steve but the Carbon 14 would be huge.

Too bad the Judge didnt allow the license plate and the hood-latch inside the car to be tested. Why would a Judge say no if the Defense offers to pay for it all?

 

[quadraginta]

This is a brief extract frome Buting's book that intrigues me.

And speaking with a Green Bay television reporter, Sheriff Peterson had dismissed the notion that Avery had been framed by saying, “If we wanted to eliminate Steve, it would’ve been a whole lot easier to eliminate Steve than to frame Steve.” The reporter apparently had a hard time believing what she was hearing and asked what he meant by “eliminate.” Sheriff Peterson obligingly explained. “If we wanted him killed, it would be much easier to kill him.”

..................................

I am trying to figure whether this means American police routinely kill people.

It might have been easier, but that would have left an estate which might still be able to continue the lawsuit Avery had underway.

Framing him for the murder helped encourage a settlement which was very beneficial to the state, didn't it?

 

[marplots]

It might have been easier, but that would have left an estate which might still be able to continue the lawsuit Avery had underway.

Framing him for the murder helped encourage a settlement which was very beneficial to the state, didn't it?

You figure this is something they normally do to fend off lawsuits or something they just came up with for poor old Steve? The loyalty of these city workers is stunning.

 

[quadraginta]

You figure this is something they normally do to fend off lawsuits or something they just came up with for poor old Steve? The loyalty of these city workers is stunning.

That would be county workers, not city. The difference in a region like Manitowoc County is significant.

The comment was a response to the idea of the alternatives of killing him or framing him. I was pointing out one reason that simply killing him might not have been the best solution from the point of view of the pols who felt threatened by him.

As far as your response is concerned, I don't think that the idea of framing someone whose reputation had already been as damaged as Avery's was would be all that unimaginable to a backwater sheriff's dept. in a backwater county. After all, they'd railroaded him once before, so it wasn't exactly an unfamiliar concept to them.

County sheriffs in small, sparsely populated places like Manitowoc County tend to operate their jurisdictions like little fiefdoms anyway, with few external restraints on their behavior, and their idea of what is fair is what they want to think is fair. In their minds I expect they felt like Avery deserved to be in prison, whether or not it was due to a conviction for something he was actually guilty of.

Being responsible for the county facing a lawsuit which was asking for more money than the county's revenues in an average year could only add to any predilection they might have already had.

It worked, too. The settlement they managed to work out after they charged Avery for the second murder was only a tiny fraction of that annual revenue.

So, to answer your question, it probably isn't something they would "normally" contemplate doing, but Avery's case was not a "normal" one, and I can easily envision them trying to make the problem of Steve Avery go away by getting him safely tucked back into prison, with an already shredded reputation completely demolished.

 

[marplots]

That would be county workers, not city. The difference in a region like Manitowoc County is significant.

The comment was a response to the idea of the alternatives of killing him or framing him. I was pointing out one reason that simply killing him might not have been the best solution from the point of view of the pols who felt threatened by him.

As far as your response is concerned, I don't think that the idea of framing someone whose reputation had already been as damaged as Avery's was would be all that unimaginable to a backwater sheriff's dept. in a backwater county. After all, they'd railroaded him once before, so it wasn't exactly an unfamiliar concept to them.

County sheriffs in small, sparsely populated places like Manitowoc County tend to operate their jurisdictions like little fiefdoms anyway, with few external restraints on their behavior, and their idea of what is fair is what they want to think is fair. In their minds I expect they felt like Avery deserved to be in prison, whether or not it was due to a conviction for something he was actually guilty of.

Being responsible for the county facing a lawsuit which was asking for more money than the county's revenues in an average year could only add to any predilection they might have already had.

It worked, too. The settlement they managed to work out after they charged Avery for the second murder was only a tiny fraction of that annual revenue.

So, to answer your question, it probably isn't something they would "normally" contemplate doing, but Avery's case was not a "normal" one, and I can easily envision them trying to make the problem of Steve Avery go away by getting him safely tucked back into prison, with an already shredded reputation completely demolished.

Bound to the notion of "framing someone" is an actual dead girl. That's a level of loyalty I find hard to fathom. Ten years later and no whistle blower either.

This isn't East Germany we are talking about. People are free to move, send anonymous letters - a bunch of things.

No matter how tainted you think county government may be, conspiracy is a tough narrative to pull off convincingly. Tougher still to maintain. One person turning state's witness for immunity. Just one.

 

[Samson]

Bound to the notion of "framing someone" is an actual dead girl. That's a level of loyalty I find hard to fathom. Ten years later and no whistle blower either.

This isn't East Germany we are talking about. People are free to move, send anonymous letters - a bunch of things.

No matter how tainted you think county government may be, conspiracy is a tough narrative to pull off convincingly. Tougher still to maintain. One person turning state's witness for immunity. Just one.

A dead girl with very convenient timing. I guess I must concede coincidence, Buting is clear they do not consider the police killed her.
That Avery was framed is beyond doubt. The recounted evidence in his book alone is absolute.

About 16 green backs on kindle marplots...

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=node=154606011&field-keywords=illusion+of+justice

 

[quadraginta]

Bound to the notion of "framing someone" is an actual dead girl. That's a level of loyalty I find hard to fathom. Ten years later and no whistle blower either.

I don't think anyone had her killed just to frame Avery, but I don't think it is at all implausible that they would use her death to do so.

This isn't East Germany we are talking about. People are free to move, send anonymous letters - a bunch of things.

No matter how tainted you think county government may be, conspiracy is a tough narrative to pull off convincingly. Tougher still to maintain. One person turning state's witness for immunity. Just one.

This isn't "vast conspiracy" territory. It would only take a few, most of whom would have good reason to keep silent.

Immunity wouldn't become attractive until the odds of getting caught appeared inevitable to someone. And there doesn't seem to be anyone pursuing an official criminal investigation which would even give them any basis to offer immunity to someone.

Examples are rife of small sheriff's depts. (and large ones) across the country caught red-handed with cover-ups at least as egregious as this. Sad to say, it isn't all that far-fetched.

 

[marplots]

I don't think anyone had her killed just to frame Avery, but I don't think it is at all implausible that they would use her death to do so.

That would have been an interesting conversation to overhear...

"Hey, next time someone dies, let's pin in on Steven Avery so he won't pursue that lawsuit from that last time we pinned something on him."
"Good idea. Hope someone dies soon."

 

[johnny karate]

That would have been an interesting conversation to overhear...

"Hey, next time someone dies, let's pin in on Steven Avery so he won't pursue that lawsuit from that last time we pinned something on him."
"Good idea. Hope someone dies soon."

You're making it out to be more nefarious and organized than it needed to be. I'm willing to bet the bad actors within Wisconsin law enforcement both A) believed Avery was guilty and B) thought cutting corners and bending the rules was simply expediting justice.

The real evil at play here is rather banal. It's not shadowy conspiracies to frame innocent people of horrible crimes. It's members of law enforcement taking shortcuts in their jobs that end up depriving people of their rights, and all of us looking the other way because the people in question are unsavory and probably guilty anyway.

Whether anyone thinks Avery is innocent our guilty is immaterial. The real issue is the outrageous manner in which the investigation and trial were conducted.

 

[Samson]

You're making it out to be more nefarious and organized than it needed to be. I'm willing to bet the bad actors within Wisconsin law enforcement both A) believed Avery was guilty and B) thought cutting corners and bending the rules was simply expediting justice.

The real evil at play here is rather banal. It's not shadowy conspiracies to frame innocent people of horrible crimes. It's members of law enforcement taking shortcuts in their jobs that end up depriving people of their rights, and all of us looking the other way because the people in question are unsavory and probably guilty anyway.

Whether anyone thinks Avery is innocent our guilty is immaterial. The real issue is the outrageous manner in which the investigation and trial were conducted.

Remember a large part of poisoning the jury pool was allowing Kratz to deliver those press releases driven by the fake Dassey testimony. After this 129 of 130 jury prospects wrote definitely or probably guilty on the questionaire. At this stage history shows that the case is complete for the prosecution before the trial begins, and so it turned out. I do think guilt or innocence matters. The system should get it right whether Steven Avery or Barack Obama on trial. They have 99.9999% (a wild guess) common dna.

 

[JREF2010]

7 innocent, 3 guilty, 2 undecided was the first vote....and then the planted jurors went to work.

 

[Samson]

7 innocent, 3 guilty, 2 undecided was the first vote....and then the planted jurors went to work.

I am still reading, seven innocent is remarkable, considering they must accept at this vote that the blood is planted.
In itself this is completely outside the ballpark for common expectations of police behaviour I would have thought.

 

[marplots]

You're making it out to be more nefarious and organized than it needed to be. I'm willing to bet the bad actors within Wisconsin law enforcement both A) believed Avery was guilty and B) thought cutting corners and bending the rules was simply expediting justice.

The real evil at play here is rather banal. It's not shadowy conspiracies to frame innocent people of horrible crimes. It's members of law enforcement taking shortcuts in their jobs that end up depriving people of their rights, and all of us looking the other way because the people in question are unsavory and probably guilty anyway.

Whether anyone thinks Avery is innocent our guilty is immaterial. The real issue is the outrageous manner in which the investigation and trial were conducted.

I find this at least plausible, but it's not what I've been reading on this thread. It's plausible because it's always in play - we cannot guarantee the integrity or honesty of our fellow humans. So we always want to guard, as best we are able, against such stuff.

If all we are talking about is doubt and questions, then I'm all in. The organized conspiracy stuff doesn't add anything.

For example...

7 innocent, 3 guilty, 2 undecided was the first vote....and then the planted jurors went to work.

"...and then the planted jurors went to work."

 

[Samson]

I find this at least plausible, but it's not what I've been reading on this thread. It's plausible because it's always in play - we cannot guarantee the integrity or honesty of our fellow humans. So we always want to guard, as best we are able, against such stuff.

If all we are talking about is doubt and questions, then I'm all in. The organized conspiracy stuff doesn't add anything.

For example...


"...and then the planted jurors went to work."

Is it possible to vote innocent and believe he bled in the rav4?
This is modal logic.
If p then q

or

If not p then not q

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

If all we are talking about is doubt and questions, then I'm all in. The organized conspiracy stuff doesn't add anything.

<snip>

A couple of redneck sheriff's deputies saying to each other; "Ya know, we could probably take down that dirtbag Avery with this. All we gotta do is salt the scene a little.", isn't much of an organized conspiracy.

It fits, sorta, technically, but it isn't the kind of thing you seem to be envisioning.

 

[marplots]

A couple of redneck sheriff's deputies saying to each other; "Ya know, we could probably take down that dirtbag Avery with this. All we gotta do is salt the scene a little.", isn't much of an organized conspiracy.

It fits, sorta, technically, but it isn't the kind of thing you seem to be envisioning.

It pivots on that "salt the scene a little" part. Will it be used to explain all the evidence?

For example, "salting the scene" implies there was a scene. Yet, if Avery is innocent, we have everything on his property to explain - "salted" doesn't cut it. Maybe you can plant a key on impulse, but not a RAV4.

I quoted this earlier, I think it reveals the level to which the conspiracy thinking can go: "...and then the planted jurors went to work."

 

[quadraginta]

It pivots on that "salt the scene a little" part. Will it be used to explain all the evidence?

For example, "salting the scene" implies there was a scene. Yet, if Avery is innocent, we have everything on his property to explain - "salted" doesn't cut it. Maybe you can plant a key on impulse, but not a RAV4.

<snip>

I don't know why not. All they had to do was drive it there and leave it.

And that wasn't even done very well. Almost like someone wanted it to be found.

We know there was something hinky about the car. You know, the one whose plates they called in before they knew Halbach had been murdered? And then couldn't find until it turned up in the junkyard.

 

[marplots]

I don't know why not. All they had to do was drive it there and leave it.

And that wasn't even done very well. Almost like someone wanted it to be found.

We know there was something hinky about the car. You know, the one whose plates they called in before they knew Halbach had been murdered? And then couldn't find until it turned up in the junkyard.

That's a step too far for me. You don't put the vehicle there unless you already know she's dead and you already know Avery didn't do it. Because in the one case (you don't know she's dead) putting the vehicle there makes no sense (she could show up), and in the other (Avery is innocent) you risk ruining the case against a guilty Avery by putting it there. (Someone may have seen Avery dump the car where you got it.)

It starts to drift off into conspiracy woo in my opinion. Impulse and spur of the moment are one thing. Careful planning (and possibly a murder) quite another.