You may be right,he may need to rot in jail. But at the same time you can't have Police departments planting evidence all over the place just to get a conviction. You are probably a NICE Person. How would you feel if the Police planted evidence on you?? The Police need to be in jail too.
Making a Murderer
- Thread starter etowncatfan
- Start date
You may be right,he may need to rot in jail. But at the same time you can't have Police departments planting evidence all over the place just to get a conviction. You are probably a NICE Person. How would you feel if the Police planted evidence on you?? The Police need to be in jail too.
Etown, Who tried and convicted him before his day in court?
It's the DA's job to press charges against the person he think commits the crime. So by nature he thinks that person is guilty before trial, right?
It's the DA's job to press charges against the person he think commits the crime. So by nature he thinks that person is guilty before trial, right?
Ha.
I wasn't expecting so many late reactions to the HLN piece about Steven's former girlfriend.
As I posted the night it aired, I was really hoping that she'd give us a smoking gun. Maybe he said something to her incriminating himself. Maybe she heard something during the fifteen minute call she had with him on the day of the murder. Given how close they were during the entire ordeal, you'd think she'd have something to offer that would actually be both probative and admissible.
Instead, though, she just added to the narrative about him being a white trash POS. None of the info about his prior bad acts (beating her up, threatening to kill her during an argument, etc) would've been allowed at trial. I know that's probably confusing to some, but the restriction on prior bad acts evidence except in certain limited circumstances is one of the most important evidentiary rules that we have.
Which brings us to the obvious question: Why would she come forward to trash him publicly at this point? Who the hell knows. She's not exactly stable; he cut off all communication with her a couple of years ago; and now she (incorrectly) believes that there's a chance he might get out. Maybe she's trying to get back at him for how he treated her before? Maybe, in hindsight, she actually thinks he did it, so she thinks she's doing the right think by "helping" to keep him in prison?
Regardless, under the circumstances, it's hard for me to believe that she's actually telling us the entire truth now. And besides, she didn't even say anything that incriminates Steven. As someone else said, her comments just make him sound like the kind of guy who might commit a murder, but that's not evidence that he committed this crime on this particular occasion.
I wasn't expecting so many late reactions to the HLN piece about Steven's former girlfriend.
As I posted the night it aired, I was really hoping that she'd give us a smoking gun. Maybe he said something to her incriminating himself. Maybe she heard something during the fifteen minute call she had with him on the day of the murder. Given how close they were during the entire ordeal, you'd think she'd have something to offer that would actually be both probative and admissible.
Instead, though, she just added to the narrative about him being a white trash POS. None of the info about his prior bad acts (beating her up, threatening to kill her during an argument, etc) would've been allowed at trial. I know that's probably confusing to some, but the restriction on prior bad acts evidence except in certain limited circumstances is one of the most important evidentiary rules that we have.
Which brings us to the obvious question: Why would she come forward to trash him publicly at this point? Who the hell knows. She's not exactly stable; he cut off all communication with her a couple of years ago; and now she (incorrectly) believes that there's a chance he might get out. Maybe she's trying to get back at him for how he treated her before? Maybe, in hindsight, she actually thinks he did it, so she thinks she's doing the right think by "helping" to keep him in prison?
Regardless, under the circumstances, it's hard for me to believe that she's actually telling us the entire truth now. And besides, she didn't even say anything that incriminates Steven. As someone else said, her comments just make him sound like the kind of guy who might commit a murder, but that's not evidence that he committed this crime on this particular occasion.
If the murderer isn't Steven Avery, I think Scott Tadych is the only other possibility, maybe even with his stepson Bobby. Their only alibis are with each other. Remains and the victim's camera and Pilot are found in his burn barrel. He has a criminal history of assaulting women himself. He was trying to get rid of a .22 rifle right after the murder.
Last edited:
Ken Kratz all but tried the case with his graphic news conference tainting the local jury pool. They moved the trial to the next county but took the DA,the judge,And jury with them. Several reporters covering the trial said the town hated the whole Avery Clan. They stated that when Steven Avery walked into the courtroom you could cut the HATE with a knife!!! Not to mention two jurors had connections with the county.
If you want to say the media or authorities shouldn't release graphic details before a trial, I can understand that, but that isn't unique to this trial.
Avery chose to have a jury from Manitowoc county, he also chose to reseat a new juror after the one left.
Averys attorneys should've disqualified the 2 jurors that had county ties if it was an issue, or they intentionally left them in there to appeal if there was a guilty charge.
What does everyone think about Making a Murderer and the Avery boys?
Guilty? No?
Please discuss reasons why you feel this way.
Guilty? No?
Please discuss reasons why you feel this way.
I just find this documentry and whole story fascinating. Whether he is guilty or not this whole thing is a total misjustice. There was not a chance the state proved without a reasonable doubt that he did it. Regardless of your opinion this documentry just proved what a sham our legal system is. Innocent until proven guilty. There is at least some doubt of his guilt so the guilty verdict is a sham. Opinions or personal feelings toward an individual should never convict someone of a any crime!
Here's a new angle I haven't seen discussed on here, what if the police forced Avery to do it? Like when the girl was tied up on the bed, and Avery had a gun to her head, that the police then had a gun to his head? He would have had no choice but to have sex and kill her then, and it would explain how he was conspiracyed by the police.
Haven't thought about that, but likely what happened imo.
If you do a google search for "Avery's Auto Salvage"....it gets a 4.9/5 star rating. I was perplexed, so I read some of the "reviews"....
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Can't let this thread die now....
He did it.
But some of the evidence was planted. They wrongfully convicted him once, and had 36 million reasons to convict him at all cost the second time. There was reasonable doubt of guilt, but the judge denied any possible defense that he maybe did not do it by rejecting important defense testimony that may shed a light of reasonable doubt. Wonder why ? I mean it is ok to convict someone on sketchy / planted evidence, but not ok to defend yourself with sketchy, possible scenario evidence ??? What happened to innocent until proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt ?
It was more like guilty until proven innocent without a shadow of a doubt, but we are going to restrict what can possibly help you prove your innocence by not letting you use it in your defense.
The biggest thing I feel that is not being used to get a mistrial is the Sheriff's office was not suppose to be the ones investigating, but they found all of the important damning evidence ??? WTF ? They where not even suppose to be on the property much less in the house, garage, etc. But there they are, unsupervised and shazam. Bullet, key, and blood found on the 7th or 8th search, by the people who was not even suppose to be searching. Why did the previous people searching not find these golden eggs ? BECAUSE THEY WHERE PLANTED to insure he would be found guilty of the murder he committed, but he was railroaded by the system that is suppose to help him. It was a case of "convict at all cost", so they where not trying to even pretend to use the law the way it was written.
He did it.
But some of the evidence was planted. They wrongfully convicted him once, and had 36 million reasons to convict him at all cost the second time. There was reasonable doubt of guilt, but the judge denied any possible defense that he maybe did not do it by rejecting important defense testimony that may shed a light of reasonable doubt. Wonder why ? I mean it is ok to convict someone on sketchy / planted evidence, but not ok to defend yourself with sketchy, possible scenario evidence ??? What happened to innocent until proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt ?
It was more like guilty until proven innocent without a shadow of a doubt, but we are going to restrict what can possibly help you prove your innocence by not letting you use it in your defense.
The biggest thing I feel that is not being used to get a mistrial is the Sheriff's office was not suppose to be the ones investigating, but they found all of the important damning evidence ??? WTF ? They where not even suppose to be on the property much less in the house, garage, etc. But there they are, unsupervised and shazam. Bullet, key, and blood found on the 7th or 8th search, by the people who was not even suppose to be searching. Why did the previous people searching not find these golden eggs ? BECAUSE THEY WHERE PLANTED to insure he would be found guilty of the murder he committed, but he was railroaded by the system that is suppose to help him. It was a case of "convict at all cost", so they where not trying to even pretend to use the law the way it was written.
If anyone is interested the entire trial transcripts were posted to reddit.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/
So since abh's dumbass over-the-top rant there's been two major developments:
1. In a picture ostensibly taken right before her death, Halbach is seen clearly holding a keychain with a set of keys on it. Makes it all the more unfathomable that the cops supposedly found the single car key on its own on the 4th/5th sweep of the trailer.
2. Former FBI profiler and cold case expert has come out and said he believes that Edward Wayne Edwards, a guy who was notorious for setting famous/renowned people up for his crimes could have very likely have killed Halbach. He had killed in Wisconsin before, lived an hour away from Avery and he targeted victims on Halloween night (the night Halbach disappeared) multiple times in the past.
So maybe instead of interjecting all your "I hate my pathetic life" anger into ranting about a case you clearly know nothing about, abh, you should actually try to form a viewpoint based upon facts/evidence rather than just take the contrarian approach because you're a narcissistic misanthrope.
It's fine to come here and bring up legitimate pieces of evidence the prosecution introduced and the film may have omitted, but to act like the guy is the guiltiest dude of all time because you read a couple of contrarian hit pieces on the film? That's idiocy in its purest form. FOH with that.
1. In a picture ostensibly taken right before her death, Halbach is seen clearly holding a keychain with a set of keys on it. Makes it all the more unfathomable that the cops supposedly found the single car key on its own on the 4th/5th sweep of the trailer.
2. Former FBI profiler and cold case expert has come out and said he believes that Edward Wayne Edwards, a guy who was notorious for setting famous/renowned people up for his crimes could have very likely have killed Halbach. He had killed in Wisconsin before, lived an hour away from Avery and he targeted victims on Halloween night (the night Halbach disappeared) multiple times in the past.
So maybe instead of interjecting all your "I hate my pathetic life" anger into ranting about a case you clearly know nothing about, abh, you should actually try to form a viewpoint based upon facts/evidence rather than just take the contrarian approach because you're a narcissistic misanthrope.
It's fine to come here and bring up legitimate pieces of evidence the prosecution introduced and the film may have omitted, but to act like the guy is the guiltiest dude of all time because you read a couple of contrarian hit pieces on the film? That's idiocy in its purest form. FOH with that.
As I have said in the past. If you formed three groups, those who believe 100% guilty, those 100% innocent and those who just believe those two deserve a fair trial with a impartial jury, the latter would be overflowing. With a new jury, the evidence won't stand a chance. They will both walk.
Last edited:
I agree they would both walk, but it's not because the evidence is overwhelmingly in their favor. Because it's not, the evidence hasn't changed from the original trial.
You just couldn't find 12 people that have an impartial view on the case.
You just couldn't find 12 people that have an impartial view on the case.
You're ranting about facts and then offer up some guy's cockamamie opinion on what "could have maybe perhaps happened."As usual, you're awful.
Yes my life is pathetic and unhappy. Thats good stuff.My post was a mock of crazyzq or whatever the hell is screen name is that apparently missed its mark. That is how he and 80% of the others in this thread and have attacked Bill and others that believe Steven is guilty. See how stupid I sound for acting that way towards people that have a different opinion that I do?? Kind of like your last post.
Anyway, short of anyone stepping forward and admitting they did it and Steven Avery was not there, I believe he is guilty. I also believe that the police planted evidence to ensure a guilty verdict. I also believe that Kratz is a huge piece of shit for convicting one guy of murder in the garage and the other guy for murder in the bedroom. Thats as corrupt as it gets. I think Brendan should not have been convicted of murder, but I think he saw some things that Steven did and it really messed him up. I watched his trial last night because my girlfriend is just now getting around to watching it and his phone call to his mom from jail saying how he saw stuff but thought hed go to jail if he told someone was pretty damning to Steven. His mom said in the call you shouldve told me and I wouldve called 911 and gotten you off the property. Brendan didnt kill her, but he saw something. Im not sure that makes him an accomplice, admittedly I dont know the law. But he knew what Steven did and admitted it in the phone call.
Steven is a POS that deserves to spend his life in jail. If he gets out, I have zero doubt that he will kill or harm someone again and end up in the same position he is now. Locked up. Personally Id rather not have another innocent person found dead on his property. You would. Thats your opinion.
I'd like to know if that key was for sure her original key or if it were a key cut to work in that ignition to move that RAV4 to the salvage yard. Very easy to take the VIN# and get a key cut to a 1999 RAV4 back in 2005 from my experience.
Two things about that key.
1- If that call in from Colburn was for that then why? I mean if the person killed her and burned cameras etc then obviously the key could have burned too.
2- whatever they "cleaned" the garage with could have been used to clean the key too and they only reason none of her prints or DNA are on the key is because Steven carried inside.
Either way you can't trust Lenk enough to not plant that evidence.
It's amazing to me after looking deeper into this than I ever should have that while the documentary left stuff out I still feel the same, convicting him was a reach.
However I do agree with ABH that he will end up in jail. At this point Avery is institutionalized and revenge will be acted upon at some point.
1- If that call in from Colburn was for that then why? I mean if the person killed her and burned cameras etc then obviously the key could have burned too.
2- whatever they "cleaned" the garage with could have been used to clean the key too and they only reason none of her prints or DNA are on the key is because Steven carried inside.
Either way you can't trust Lenk enough to not plant that evidence.
It's amazing to me after looking deeper into this than I ever should have that while the documentary left stuff out I still feel the same, convicting him was a reach.
However I do agree with ABH that he will end up in jail. At this point Avery is institutionalized and revenge will be acted upon at some point.
I'm convinced that one of the people that lived on the Avery property killed her. I don't see how someone could plant a body, all the phones, and the car without anyone noticing. But I am also nearly convinced someone planted evidence.
One of my issues with Avery was how she was disposed. He was released from prison because DNA evidence. He sure as shit knew it could put him in prison again if they found a body with his DNA all over her.
I just finished watching the last episode. I wish I had time to read all the 1000+ posts above and I'm sure there are some good ones, but I think Bill hit on a key point. Little was said about the brother and the stepdad except that their mutual alibis did not hold up.
Now OTOH Avery may be innocent but his background tells me he may have been involved. Anyone that throws their family pet on a fire IMO is a psychopath capable of almost anything.
Add this all up and a very plausible scenario is the stepdad and the younger brother got involved with this girl somehow and wound up killing her. Panicking they brought her car and body to Avery to help cover things up. Avery assists in moving the body out of the RAV and taking it to the burn pit to burn it - like he did the family cat. Brendon was probably a bystander/observer or maybe assisted in some way to help out his relatives.
So Avery's claim of innocence maybe mostly, but not totally true. I can see why he wants to fight it but this guy has criminal tendencies, and an IQ of 70 - he's capable. Brenden was in the wrong place at the wrong time and he's not exactly a Rhodes Scholar either. The police needing a suspect found Avery to be an easy target and were more than willing to plant a couple of pieces of evidence to seal the deal - plus they had motive as he was suing them.
And there you have it case solved (maybe).
Kinda like the halbach brother, who admitted to have never seen the dassey confession, believed it was all the prosecution needed to convict him.
I'd watch these clowns' bank accounts. $5-$10M is a whole lot cheaper than $36M and never having another job in your life.
So you're dumb enough to believe the woman who was a repeated dui offender, made threats (albeit under the vail of humor) against avery from thr prison phone line and vowed to stay with him until she was basically harrassed into ceasing involvment with him by the local sheriff's dept. Or did she make that shit up too?
Just when you thought he couldn't get any worse...
Apparently, Kratz sent Steven Avery a letter in prison trying to get him to confess so that Kratz could write a book and make a bunch of money.
Good guy, and as ethical as they come.
Apparently, Kratz sent Steven Avery a letter in prison trying to get him to confess so that Kratz could write a book and make a bunch of money.
Good guy, and as ethical as they come.
Similar threads
