Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[marplots]

OLDIE>...but Goldie... the wording is "confirm" as in completed, done, finished with outcome known.


Experts experiments confirm SA's trial attorneys correct about blood being planted but incorrect about how it was done.-Zellner

the silence is spellbinding. no word on arrest warrants issued for anyone new in TH's murder yet...

The placement of the missing apostrophe in this word might be important.

 

[JREF2010]

anyone know about Tammy ?
she told the Averys she heard through the gossip line the police planted the SUV.

 

[Samson]

Appreciate the left-handed compliment, but I think we'd both agree that science isn't about certainty, especially in the venue of historical, one-off events.



I'm not sure I agree. Is it your contention that the rule holds (assume an error) based on some statistical analysis on the number of innocent convicted or is it, as I suspect, the specifics of this case which sway you?

We probably differ in that I do not go into the matter thinking the system is tainted or corrupt from the start. I don't think this can be assumed without proof. The mere existence of loose ends doesn't help. We do not need to explain everything to arrive at the conclusion Avery did it. But at this point, the onus is definitely on the defense, not the prosecution.

I'd suggest you pare away all the evidence you find doubtful and see what remains. If that is enough to convict, then none of the criticisms help. And frankly, "enough to convict" can be very little. Are you familiar with the case of Scott Peterson? Entirely circumstantial. And that's not even the strongest example of conviction without direct evidence or testimony.

Are you prepared to indict the criminal justice system generally, or only Avery's cause celeb?

You were the only open minded TA contributor, which I found to be a singular example of scientific thinking.
However, being even open minded on the participation of SA in this murder makes no sense at all.
My best paradigm is the world record domino toppling attempt.
Remove one domino....

 

[JREF2010]

The placement of the missing apostrophe in this word might be important.

I never thought about it? Actually it was a cut and paste I think on my part.

The word can be pronounced in a way that corresponds with the spelling (common in Belgian-Dutch) or a way that corresponds to the French pronunciation (common in Dutch-Dutch). In the literal pronunciation, the plural is "experten"; in the French pronunciation, it is "experts".

Who knows what the next tweet will be on the street but it's sure silent for now.
The tornadoe sirens will probably be an arrest warrant issued for someone that is obvious to some and not to me.

Im still stuck at RH,ST,BD, AC...the motive could be a ex lover, a rejected lover loser who is awkwardly hanging around too long and too close but not a boyfriend anymore? hmmmm...but I still dont like the Hunting Story and false testimony about selling the 22 rifle and watching the flames get higher and smiling in glee. The bad-apples still had a lot of Sandra Morris hate left in them to the tune of $36mill and even Perry Mason the TV lawyer would say thats a lot of motive.

 

[marplots]

You were the only open minded TA contributor, which I found to be a singular example of scientific thinking.
However, being even open minded on the participation of SA in this murder makes no sense at all.
My best paradigm is the world record domino toppling attempt.
Remove one domino....

On the behind the scenes front, SCOTUS heard arguments this past week on whether to allow habeus corpus objections under the "ineffective assistance of council" rule for appeals instead of just original trials. The possible connection to this case is if Zellner intends to push an issue normally considered closed after an appeal - such as problems with material raised on appeal by previous lawyers.

Anyhow, the issue is interesting and no one yet knows how SCOTUS will rule on the matter.

Here's the link if you want to listen/read the oral arguments: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/16-6219

 

[Samson]

On the behind the scenes front, SCOTUS heard arguments this past week on whether to allow habeus corpus objections under the "ineffective assistance of council" rule for appeals instead of just original trials. The possible connection to this case is if Zellner intends to push an issue normally considered closed after an appeal - such as problems with material raised on appeal by previous lawyers.

Anyhow, the issue is interesting and no one yet knows how SCOTUS will rule on the matter.

Here's the link if you want to listen/read the oral arguments: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/16-6219

Jerome Buting and Dean Strang have declared a complete willingness for their performance as defence counsel to be shredded by Zellner.

Buting was a trailblazer in his work in 2006, and is a man to be held in the highest esteem.

READ HIS BOOK.

ETA marplots:
Inadequate defence by counsel sends shockwaves.
Careers trump the factual innocence of defendants, I can be extremely precise on this matter in a current New Zealand case.

 

[marplots]

I don't know how it works in NZ, but here in the US it can be used to "get another bite at the apple" after you've exhausted your appeals.

 

[Busta Capp]

I think it is more likely than not that he is guilty. I think what they did to Brendan is a crime and they should be in prison for that interrogation. I also believe any evidence found while in the presence of Lenk and the other one should be inadmissible, even if it means a guilty man goes free. As a society, we should not tolerate even the appearance of impropriety with law enforcement.

This.
Word for word.

 

[JREF2010]

If you remove everything Lenk did (that we know of to date) thats a lot of evidence.
The bullet and key gone.

Leaving the SUV and Bones.
Hmmm no DNA in the trailer of a crime, the garage disappears with nothing too but a dirty floor(not cleaned) and deer blood.

so all trails would lead to the Quarry and the backyard bonfire.....the SUV seemed to be Zellners first to focus on even buying a mock SUV. Then she claims the experts find there is planted evidence. So....if the SUV falls away with the LENK evidence...

a thought is then, using this one scenario, the Bones as an interesting plot to episode 3 MAM2.

barrells and a pit and a quarry and police dogs and a lot of attention to the Randants area.

 

[JREF2010]

Would not still be rep. SA if the test results proved his guilt. Winning takes a little longer than losing.- Zellner

sounds like reality....but still not obvious to me.
what the hell happened in this case?


MAM episode 8- MCDS lawsuit increased from $36 million to $360 million lawsuit, and THE AVERY & DASSEY BILL passes by the do nothing politicians?

 

[Samson]

Would not still be rep. SA if the test results proved his guilt. Winning takes a little longer than losing.- Zellner

sounds like reality....but still not obvious to me.
what the hell happened in this case?


MAM episode 8- MCDS lawsuit increased from $36 million to $360 million lawsuit, and THE AVERY & DASSEY BILL passes by the do nothing politicians?

Toss a dart into this thread JREF. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319258

You know both cases, and I think you can help steer some of these people to adjoining issues.....

But at your discretion obviously.

 

[JREF2010]

the discussion of why? on that thread is interesting but hard to put into words.

I can accept Zellner has a mountain of info we dont have...ok. but is it obvious who killed TH?

She named RH ok.
This JRandant, surprised me. in addition to the obvious LENK/COLBURN and their bosses. She did this after having a lot of evidence and data. So this seems like they dont see it as obvious either. Why not name one person?

The "gardner" cops if found out will free Steve, right? that foul play alone should free him but I think Zellner put in the extra homework and might find the actual murderer.

RH- hmmm?
1)access to the phone and admits having the password but then doesnt recall much on the stand about it. (Zellner believed whoever deleted the Voicemails is the killer.)
3) RH was on the search party, which is not unique for murderers to do.
4)Some suspicious contacts with the police and RH wasnt investigated deeply.
5) RH the ex boyfriend who hadnt moved on. How many exBoyfirends stick around 5yrs?
6) RH writing false names in a logbook for a murder crime scene..(who in the hell would do that?)

JR- ??
1) the quarry access
2) lied on the stand about a fire he couldnt see in real life (caught lying)

maybe he was tromping around the loosy-goose crime scene too?

maybe the Colburn / Lenk will tell the whole story after their bosses toss them under the bus.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no selective clean-up of the trailer

On page 238 of Jerry Buting's "Illusion of Justice," he notes a lack of Ms. Halbach's DNA in Mr. Avery's trailer. This next point has probably been noted before, but Avery's DNA was found. "No cleanup operation could have removed hers while leaving his." In other words there is no such thing as a selective clean-up. Students of the Knox/Sollecito case might find this interesting.

 

[JREF2010]

no selective cleanup of the garage either...

so true, larger than life or at least the elephant in the rooms....no selective cleanups.

there was one theory TH was shot by a stray hunting bullet but nothing in her SUV shows this data. so apparently she was killed somehow outside the SUV.
theres the cop theory, surely she would pull over and get out of the car for a cop demanding it...who wouldnt? Not sure what the RH murder theory would be? a boyfriend maybe could get her outside the SUV easy enough.

the murder probably didnt happen in the SUV either.
the murder probably didnt happen in the garage.
the murder probably didnt happen in the trailer.
the murder probably happened <enter location>

the Prosecution moved the shooting from the trailer to the garage but still nothing fits with Kratz fiction and bad guessing with poor investigating added.

I dont recall the Defense bringing up the selective cleaning being impossible response in the MAM..not that it would have mattered with Judge Willis sitting there. After all Judgee Willis couldnt even see why the voice mails being deleted after she was dead had any relevance to the case.

 

[marplots]

Two things.
1) Before the rape-murder Avery had already spent many years in the "school of crime," learning how to commit crimes and get away with them. (Plastic sheeting comes to mind.)
2) The lack of DNA doesn't mean she wasn't there. DNA is selectively collected. It can only ever tell you who was there, never who wasn't. This is commonly referred to as, "The lack of evidence doesn't prove a lack."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It depends.

Two things.
1) Before the rape-murder Avery had already spent many years in the "school of crime," learning how to commit crimes and get away with them. (Plastic sheeting comes to mind.)
2) The lack of DNA doesn't mean she wasn't there. DNA is selectively collected. It can only ever tell you who was there, never who wasn't. This is commonly referred to as, "The lack of evidence doesn't prove a lack."

Is the absence of evidence, evidence of absence? It depends on the circumstances. There is no such thing as a selective clean-up, as I noted earlier.

 

[marplots]

Is the absence of evidence, evidence of absence? It depends on the circumstances. There is no such thing as a selective clean-up, as I noted earlier.

Put a plastic sheet down when you do the dirty.
Avery's DNA remains in the trailer in the background. This isn't hard to imagine. No "selective clean-up" needed at all. Or drag her out into the junkyard - I don't know, I'm not a rapist-murderer. Did they check the whole junkyard for DNA?

Your premise of "selective cleanup" implies all the DNA in the trailer was found and tested - I highly doubt that's the case. Are you asserting it is?

You check for DNA where you think it ought to be based on your theory of the crime. While we can say her DNA wasn't found, we can never say it wasn't there to find.

 

[Samson]

Put a plastic sheet down when you do the dirty.
Avery's DNA remains in the trailer in the background. This isn't hard to imagine. No "selective clean-up" needed at all. Or drag her out into the junkyard - I don't know, I'm not a rapist-murderer. Did they check the whole junkyard for DNA?

Your premise of "selective cleanup" implies all the DNA in the trailer was found and tested - I highly doubt that's the case. Are you asserting it is?

You check for DNA where you think it ought to be based on your theory of the crime. While we can say her DNA wasn't found, we can never say it wasn't there to find.

Remember the phone call to Jodi at 5 and the science of cremation when developing your crime theory. Quite a bit to do as well as getting the RaV4 in position a few days later.

The prosecutors never went into this detail so citizen marplots do your duty!

 

[deadrose]

She left no trace at all inside? Not a hair, a fingerprint, a bit of touch DNA? Did he have a plastic sheet spread out when she came in, plus the walls, plus the ceiling? I would think she'd be a little suspicious if she looked in and saw that.

Did she lie down cooperatively on the sheet, or was there a struggle? Struggles tend to pull things awry, tear holes in them, knock over furniture, and cause bruises and scratches. Did the bullet enter her skull and neatly stay there? If not, where did it go? I'm pretty sure a plastic sheet isn't effective at stopping bullets.

Unless Avery is a far more intelligent man than his IQ suggests, I don't see any way this could have happened in his place or even on his property considering the way they combed it looking for trace.

 

[marplots]

Remember the phone call to Jodi at 5 and the science of cremation when developing your crime theory. Quite a bit to do as well as getting the RaV4 in position a few days later.

The prosecutors never went into this detail so citizen marplots do your duty!

I think you may be confusing "beyond a reasonable doubt" with "certainty."

As far as I can tell, Zellner's strategy is to find enough doubt to convince an appellate judge that the case could not be made with whatever evidence is left over. Unanswered questions might do this, but better would be finding material problems with the case - that is, flaws so essential they would change the likely verdict. Even surmounting this hurdle only gets to a new trial, not necessarily an exoneration. For the latter I think you need to find someone else to sit in the guilty chair.