|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jan 8, 2016 13:55:28 GMT
I know a few people who know the Averys indirectly, (they are customers of their store) and they are 'off'. 2 brothers of Stevens are arrested for choking their wives in domestic incidents? Steven and what he did. Brendan and what he did. Yeah they have to be 'off' to some degree. I get so frustrated and am becoming tired of the continued debate, that people who watch 10 hours of info are ready to sign petitions. The trial for Steven was 6 weeks long. Let's say 8 hours a day X 5 days a week for 6 weeks is a lot of time. And that's the trial alone. A good friend of mine's DH works for the state patrol and was on scene looking for evidence. He found body parts. According to her there are thousands of pages of evidence that have not been introduced. She said he has read Brendan's 4 page written explanation of what happened. It's very detailed. I'd be curious to read that vs the book Brendan referenced. Also my ex deals with Kachinsky and says he's an idiot. There is no 'call' for him to be outed. Colburn, nothing with him either. I heard he was told not to come in as he was receiving death threats, but no outrage to oust him. I hope this story starts to die. I just get so frustrated when ppl are calling for him to be released and they have no idea. I have no idea but am going off of what I hear from those close to the situation. I think it is good to hear both sides, and I wish that the documentary wasn't quite so biased. Have you watched it to get the "other side" as well? I agree with another poster--I'm not ready to pardon them but I do think that there is enough evidence for me to question the whole thing. I am also sickened by how poorly the police, lawyers, judges, and others conducted themselves througout the investation and trial. I think they should have new trials in a completely unrelated location and I think that Brendan's confession should be thrown out. If he IS guilty, the police really messed up with the way that they questioned him and clearly led him to say what they wanted.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 8, 2016 14:00:26 GMT
The documentarians said they wanted to start a conversation about the problems in the criminal justice system in this country, and they did. Even if Avery killed Theresa Halbach, even if people believe ithe documentary was one-sided, I believe it showed that there was a lot of tunnel vision, a huge amount of ethical issues, and shoddy (maybe even criminal) investigative work as the sheriffs department and DA did and said everything they could to "get their man". I truly don't believe that all law enforcement is corrupt, but unfortunately this isn't an isolated case.
I'm glad people are talking about it. I hope it leads to more internal and external oversight in both law enforcement and the legal arena. I hope it makes people more aware of their rights, and especially starts a conversation with their kids about their rights as well. This kind of thing doesn't just happen to poor people and minorities either. Look up Michael Morton in Texas, and the 25 years of hell he went through at the hands of a corrupt investigation and a DA. It could happen to any of us, or our significant others, or our children.
|
|
|
Post by quinlove on Jan 8, 2016 14:51:02 GMT
Lastly, it's interesting that some of the peas proclaiming that the Avery family is "off" are the same peas who many other peas consider "off". Yikes - I have all kinds of problems with this "observation". And no, I am not concerned about the perception of the Averys. Since you brought this up, and sorry for my ignorance here, but I have no idea what you are referring to at all. Would you care to explain what you meant by this statement that I find highly offensive !!
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Jan 8, 2016 15:48:11 GMT
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I honestly don't have an opinion one way or the other of Avery's guilt or innocence. I think he was absolutely capable of doing something like this. But in my opinion, the investigation and the handling of the evidence was handled so piss poorly, that he did not, again in my opinion, receive a fair shake. That's what is the most disturbing part for me. That our justice system could truly be that flawed and be able to get away with it. It frightens me quite frankly.
|
|
|
Post by jovifan on Jan 8, 2016 15:59:57 GMT
Have you watched it to get the "other side" as well? I agree with another poster--I'm not ready to pardon them but I do think that there is enough evidence for me to question the whole thing. I am also sickened by how poorly the police, lawyers, judges, and others conducted themselves througout the investation and trial I have watched it, of course! ha. I can definitely see why people think he was set up. Absolutely. There are huge holes and things that absolutely don't make sense. Was it Ken Pederson that was on the stand and he made a statement something to the affect, 'Wouldn't it just have been easier to kill Steven than to set him up, if we really wanted him 'gone'?' My ex, who is a cop was horrified someone would say that. The ex says he is going to watch it this weekend so Im eager to see what his perspective on things are. He did say a simple wet wipe can get rid of fingerprints. That sometimes people don't bleed like you think they would, when being stabbed or shot. He thinks its absolutely possible to not have any blood on the mattress if she didn't bleed much and the sheets and mattress pad soaked it all up. I personally don't know if I believe that part. ha. It still hasn't changed my mind, just based on what I know personally from people I'm close to and what they have told me. I looked it up and the county has 83,000(ish) people in the COUNTY. I think Manitowoc County got in WAY over their heads. They have a huge drug issue in that area. I'm just assuming that's their biggest issues going on normally. KWIM? I also watched Kurt Cobain's documentary (not sure if that's what its considered) and they are making it seem Seattle Police really mucked that investigation up. That Courtney Love had him set up to be killed, as she had more to gain if he was dead vs alive, while getting a divorce. He had 3 times the lethal limit of heroine in his system and yet was able to shoot himself after he shot the heroine up. But Seattle Police indicated it a suicide the same day he was found. And he was cremated quickly. My only thought about how corrupt the Manitowoc County is, is that this was way over their heads and didn't handle it well. If anyone of us had to do something for the first time, we may not do well either.
|
|
|
Post by quinlove on Jan 8, 2016 16:49:01 GMT
Have you watched it to get the "other side" as well? I agree with another poster--I'm not ready to pardon them but I do think that there is enough evidence for me to question the whole thing. I am also sickened by how poorly the police, lawyers, judges, and others conducted themselves througout the investation and trial I have watched it, of course! ha. I can definitely see why people think he was set up. Absolutely. There are huge holes and things that absolutely don't make sense. Was it Ken Pederson that was on the stand and he made a statement something to the affect, 'Wouldn't it just have been easier to kill Steven than to set him up, if we really wanted him 'gone'?' My ex, who is a cop was horrified someone would say that. The ex says he is going to watch it this weekend so Im eager to see what his perspective on things are. He did say a simple wet wipe can get rid of fingerprints. That sometimes people don't bleed like you think they would, when being stabbed or shot. He thinks its absolutely possible to not have any blood on the mattress if she didn't bleed much and the sheets and mattress pad soaked it all up. I personally don't know if I believe that part. ha. It still hasn't changed my mind, just based on what I know personally from people I'm close to and what they have told me. I looked it up and the county has 83,000(ish) people in the COUNTY. I think Manitowoc County got in WAY over their heads. They have a huge drug issue in that area. I'm just assuming that's their biggest issues going on normally. KWIM? I also watched Kurt Cobain's documentary (not sure if that's what its considered) and they are making it seem Seattle Police really mucked that investigation up. That Courtney Love had him set up to be killed, as she had more to gain if he was dead vs alive, while getting a divorce. He had 3 times the lethal limit of heroine in his system and yet was able to shoot himself after he shot the heroine up. But Seattle Police indicated it a suicide the same day he was found. And he was cremated quickly. My only thought about how corrupt the Manitowoc County is, is that this was way over their heads and didn't handle it well. If anyone of us had to do something for the first time, we may not do well either. Let's not muddy the waters any more than they are and bring up/ compare this to Kurt Cobain and the Seattle PD. The county HAD motive to frame Avery. What was Averys motive to murder her ? 'In way over their heads' First off they should not have even been on this case at all period. Conflict of interest for starters. "Do something for the first time" um. they already put an innocent man in prison and got away with it for 18 years. They had 36 million reasons to think they could do it again.
|
|
|
Post by jovifan on Jan 8, 2016 17:18:47 GMT
Let's not muddy the waters any more than they are and bring up/ compare this to Kurt Cobain and the Seattle PD. The county HAD motive to frame Avery. What was Averys motive to murder her ? 'In way over their heads' First off they should not have even been on this case at all period. Conflict of interest for starters. "Do something for the first time" um. they already put an innocent man in prison and got away with it for 18 years. They had 36 million reasons to think they could do it again I'm not comparing the 2, My point is that is there is a lot of corrupt departments out there. Avery had drawings and told inmates he was going to do to women exactly what he did to Teresa. No motive, he is just a sick, sick man. I realize they shouldn't have been on the case. I don't know what the explanation for that is. I don't feel he is as innocent as he seems.
|
|
|
Post by quinlove on Jan 8, 2016 17:30:56 GMT
Given everything that happened surrounding his case, I truly believe that he deserves a new trial.
And thanks for acknowledging that the county department was corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by jovifan on Jan 8, 2016 17:41:10 GMT
Given everything that happened surrounding his case, I truly believe that he deserves a new trial. Based on what you saw in a documentary. oooook. My point is none of us were in the courtroom to see the how many other hours of testimony there was. They picked and chose what to put in what we all watched. We can only say what we would do or say based on what he saw in a 10 hour period.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 8, 2016 18:41:47 GMT
Here are links to all the currently available documentation on both the Avery and Dassey trials, as well as their subsequent requests for appeals. Though the appeal requests don't detail witness testimony from the trials, they do cover again the pertinent evidence and testimony given at the trials. For those who may want to rebut what was shown in the documentary and/or present the other side, knock yourself out.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerUp! on Jan 8, 2016 18:43:28 GMT
Given everything that happened surrounding his case, I truly believe that he deserves a new trial. Based on what you saw in a documentary. oooook. My point is none of us were in the courtroom to see the how many other hours of testimony there was. They picked and chose what to put in what we all watched. We can only say what we would do or say based on what he saw in a 10 hour period. The documentary does seem one-sided or biased and it would appear so due to lack of participation. The Prosecutor, the Manatowac police, the judge, the police from Calumet (see where I am going with this) were all asked repeatedly throughout the 160+ hours of trial testimony to participate in the documentary and they WOULD NOT. Shame on them!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 27, 2024 16:02:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 18:44:41 GMT
I've watched some of this series, but don't think I'll continue. I remember seeing this on a show like Dateline or 48 Hours.
I think he was not guilty the first time and guilty for Teresa's murder. I'm not going to give it much more thought than that.
|
|
Rhondito
Pearl Clutcher
MississipPea
Posts: 4,660
Jun 25, 2014 19:33:19 GMT
|
Post by Rhondito on Jan 8, 2016 18:44:49 GMT
I think Colburn called in the Toyota plate based upon missing persons info he was given, just to verify. But she hadn't been reported missing at that point.
|
|
|
Post by arielsmom on Jan 8, 2016 18:46:17 GMT
Here are links to all the currently available documentation on both the Avery and Dassey trials, as well as their subsequent requests for appeals. Though the appeal requests don't detail witness testimony from the trials, they do cover again the pertinent evidence and testimony given at the trials. For those who may want to rebut what was shown in the documentary and/or present the other side, knock yourself out. Unfortunately the links are temp disabled, according to the error message that comes up. I did not try them all but did try about 6.
|
|
|
Post by arielsmom on Jan 8, 2016 18:48:50 GMT
Based on what you saw in a documentary. oooook. My point is none of us were in the courtroom to see the how many other hours of testimony there was. They picked and chose what to put in what we all watched. We can only say what we would do or say based on what he saw in a 10 hour period. The documentary does seem one-sided or biased and it would appear so due to lack of participation. The Prosecutor, the Manatowac police, the judge, the police from Calumet (see where I am going with this) were all asked repeatedly throughout the 160+ hours of trial testimony to participate in the documentary and they WOULD NOT. Shame on them! Since the movie makers are using trial evidence, why would it matter if they participated or not?
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 8, 2016 18:50:07 GMT
I think Colburn called in the Toyota plate based upon missing persons info he was given, just to verify. But she hadn't been reported missing at that point. She actually had been that day. The dispatcher responded it was the car of the missing woman. The fact that he read of the letters and numbers of the plate just like a person would if they were looking right at it is the suspicious part. His demeanor when asked about it by the defense lawyer was suspicious too, but that's subjective.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 8, 2016 18:52:04 GMT
Here are links to all the currently available documentation on both the Avery and Dassey trials, as well as their subsequent requests for appeals. Though the appeal requests don't detail witness testimony from the trials, they do cover again the pertinent evidence and testimony given at the trials. For those who may want to rebut what was shown in the documentary and/or present the other side, knock yourself out. Unfortunately the links are temp disabled, according to the error message that comes up. I did not try them all but did try about 6. I have no problem opening any of them, but they open in my Dropbox, so I don't know if that makes a difference.
|
|
|
Post by quinlove on Jan 8, 2016 18:59:20 GMT
The documentary does seem one-sided or biased and it would appear so due to lack of participation. The Prosecutor, the Manatowac police, the judge, the police from Calumet (see where I am going with this) were all asked repeatedly throughout the 160+ hours of trial testimony to participate in the documentary and they WOULD NOT. Shame on them! Since the movie makers are using trial evidence, why would it matter if they participated or not? Someone said that the show was so one-sided. Perhaps if the county wanted to share some of their side of the story, we would have gotten both sides shown in the piece. They were certainly given that opportunity. Oh yea , they were continually shown to be ummm shady in their 'investigation'. And Brendan's deal is totally corrupt / that you must agree with.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerUp! on Jan 8, 2016 19:12:00 GMT
The documentary does seem one-sided or biased and it would appear so due to lack of participation. The Prosecutor, the Manatowac police, the judge, the police from Calumet (see where I am going with this) were all asked repeatedly throughout the 160+ hours of trial testimony to participate in the documentary and they WOULD NOT. Shame on them! Since the movie makers are using trial evidence, why would it matter if they participated or not? It seems to be so one-sided because you are hearing perspective OTHER THAN TRIAL DETAILS from the Defense, family, etc. If the prosecutor, police, etc would have done any one on one interviewing, they could have elaborated and provided "their side of the story on specifics". Clearly Kratz didn't have a problem speaking publicly, I mean, he held a press-conference and disclosed A LOT of the evidence before the trial even started.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 8, 2016 19:18:05 GMT
Since the movie makers are using trial evidence, why would it matter if they participated or not? It seems to be so one-sided because you are hearing perspective OTHER THAN TRIAL DETAILS from the Defense, family, etc. If the prosecutor, police, etc would have done any one on one interviewing, they could have elaborated and provided "their side of the story on specifics". Clearly Kratz didn't have a problem speaking publicly, I mean, he held a press-conference and disclosed A LOT of the evidence before the trial even started. Most of which didn't turn out to be evidence at all, but it was a sensational press story at the time. Talk about one-sided, and this was before a jury had even been picked.
|
|
gina
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,203
Jun 26, 2014 1:59:16 GMT
|
Post by gina on Jan 8, 2016 19:19:54 GMT
Question for the Peas thinking Avery murdered Theresa and the blood in the car was from the cut on his finger.
How do you explain the blood vial that was in evidence and clearly tampered with? The evidence seal was broken open and there was a pin hole in the top of the vial on the lid. Why?
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 8, 2016 19:26:16 GMT
Question for the Peas thinking Avery murdered Theresa and the blood in the car was from the cut on his finger. How do you explain the blood vial that was in evidence and clearly tampered with? The evidence seal was broken open and there was a pin hole in the top of the vial on the lid. Why? The pin hole really isn't that suspicious, because that's how blood is initially drawn from a person and collected in the tube, through a needle in the top. The purple rubber top can then be taken off the top to remove any blood for testing (or possibly planting).The damaging evidence is the broken seals, and no log kept about who had accessed that vial of blood. Lt. Lenk was the one who initially signed the blood evidence into custody, so he knew that blood was there and available.
|
|
|
Post by Drew on Jan 8, 2016 19:28:13 GMT
Question for the Peas thinking Avery murdered Theresa and the blood in the car was from the cut on his finger. How do you explain the blood vial that was in evidence and clearly tampered with? The evidence seal was broken open and there was a pin hole in the top of the vial on the lid. Why? I don't feel that I need to have an explanation for the punctured vial in order to believe that the blood in the car was fresh from avery. The vial was haphazardly residing in an accessible box in the corner of an office for *years*. Who knows how it was punctured, or when, or by whom. It was there for years.
|
|
|
Post by jovifan on Jan 8, 2016 19:30:57 GMT
were all asked repeatedly throughout the 160+ hours of trial testimony to participate in the documentary and they WOULD NOT I believe Kratz just literally explained this on a yahoo news telephone conference over the noon hour today (CST). I couldn't hear it well as it was loud where I am but it sounds like it was not meant to be a documentary but was categorized something else. And I should have written it down so I could google what it was. Did anyone else catch that? There may be some story on it later as people publish it. I was curious if anyone heard it. How do you explain the blood vial that was in evidence and clearly tampered with? The evidence seal was broken open and there was a pin hole in the top of the vial on the lid. Why? The hole at the top, (Im asking not stating), does whoever draws the blood, draws it out of the arm and into a big vial and then then put the needle in the vial that's in the video, and 'push' the blood into that vial? That's the only explanation I could think of.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerUp! on Jan 8, 2016 19:42:29 GMT
How do you explain the blood vial that was in evidence and clearly tampered with? The evidence seal was broken open and there was a pin hole in the top of the vial on the lid. Why? The hole at the top, (Im asking not stating), does whoever draws the blood, draws it out of the arm and into a big vial and then then put the needle in the vial that's in the video, and 'push' the blood into that vial? That's the only explanation I could think of. No, the hole that was punctured into the top of the vial came AFTER the initial 1985 trial. It was in storage. Avery's attorneys went back to look at it because Lenk's (sp?) name kept showing up on paperwork. When they opened the 1985 storage box, it had been tampered with. The seal was broken on the storage container, and box, and then the vial of blood had a puncture hole in it as if someone had used a syringe to remove some of the blood from it. (hence the blood in the car). Hope I typed that so it makes sense. It sure makes sense in my head!
|
|
|
Post by mandolyn9909 on Jan 8, 2016 19:59:45 GMT
I think absolutely that both Steven Avery and Brendan should get new trials at the very least.
I also think that the original lawsuit should have been able to unfold as scheduled whether he was on trial for a new murder or not. He was still entitled to compensation for missing out on 18 years of his life for the rape. The fact that the Manitowoc police were able to be involved in the new murder investigation is insane.
The hardest part of this show for me to watch was the interrogation of Brendan. Just horrible. It was so apparent that he wasn't capable of understanding his rights and what was happening. Telling his mother in a phone call that he thought his lawyer was nice because they both liked cats...showed his age and mentality.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 8, 2016 20:07:03 GMT
The hole at the top, (Im asking not stating), does whoever draws the blood, draws it out of the arm and into a big vial and then then put the needle in the vial that's in the video, and 'push' the blood into that vial? That's the only explanation I could think of. No, the hole that was punctured into the top of the vial came AFTER the initial 1985 trial. It was in storage. Avery's attorneys went back to look at it because Lenk's (sp?) name kept showing up on paperwork. When they opened the 1985 storage box, it had been tampered with. The seal was broken on the storage container, and box, and then the vial of blood had a puncture hole in it as if someone had used a syringe to remove some of the blood from it. (hence the blood in the car). Hope I typed that so it makes sense. It sure makes sense in my head! The vial with Avery's blood in it is a Vacutainer. A double needle is used to initially get the blood into it - one in the person's vein, and the other end through the top of the rubber stopper. A vacuum inside of the tube helps draw a certain amount of blood into it. So the presence of a hole in the stopper is normal if there is blood in it. It doesn't mean that blood couldn't have later been withdrawn through the same hole using a needle and syringe, but it doesn't prove it either. When the lab that first tested the blood said something to the effect that "they don't do that" I believe what they meant was that they don't draw the blood back out for testing through the stopper, they'd just open it up and retrieve some that way. That wasn't clarified in the documentary.
|
|
|
Post by uksue on Jan 8, 2016 20:14:56 GMT
No, the hole that was punctured into the top of the vial came AFTER the initial 1985 trial. It was in storage. Avery's attorneys went back to look at it because Lenk's (sp?) name kept showing up on paperwork. When they opened the 1985 storage box, it had been tampered with. The seal was broken on the storage container, and box, and then the vial of blood had a puncture hole in it as if someone had used a syringe to remove some of the blood from it. (hence the blood in the car). Hope I typed that so it makes sense. It sure makes sense in my head! The vial with Avery's blood in it is a Vacutainer. A double needle is used to initially get the blood into it - one in the person's vein, and the other end through the top of the rubber stopper. A vacuum inside of the tube helps draw a certain amount of blood into it. So the presence of a hole in the stopper is normal if there is blood in it. It doesn't mean that blood couldn't have later been withdrawn through the same hole using a needle and syringe, but it doesn't prove it either. When the lab that first tested the blood said something to the effect that "they don't do that" I believe what they meant was that they don't draw the blood back out for testing through the stopper, they'd just open it up and retrieve some that way. That wasn't clarified in the documentary. However it is unusual to see a drop of blood because the vacuum draws it all in as you withdraw the needle- I have been taking blood samples since the 80's with various methods depending on the fashion of the time, and I haven't left a droplet of blood like that!
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 8, 2016 20:27:40 GMT
The vial with Avery's blood in it is a Vacutainer. A double needle is used to initially get the blood into it - one in the person's vein, and the other end through the top of the rubber stopper. A vacuum inside of the tube helps draw a certain amount of blood into it. So the presence of a hole in the stopper is normal if there is blood in it. It doesn't mean that blood couldn't have later been withdrawn through the same hole using a needle and syringe, but it doesn't prove it either. When the lab that first tested the blood said something to the effect that "they don't do that" I believe what they meant was that they don't draw the blood back out for testing through the stopper, they'd just open it up and retrieve some that way. That wasn't clarified in the documentary. However it is unusual to see a drop of blood because the vacuum draws it all in as you withdraw the needle- I have been taking blood samples since the 80's with various methods depending on the fashion of the time, and I haven't left a droplet of blood like that! I agree. The brief view we got of the top of the vial did look suspicious. I'm just saying a needle hole in the stopper doesn't prove it was tampered with. The broken seals and lack of any evidence log showing who had access to it are just as bad, imo, and if nothing else proves incompetence in the way the county handles evidence.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jan 8, 2016 20:33:51 GMT
were all asked repeatedly throughout the 160+ hours of trial testimony to participate in the documentary and they WOULD NOT I believe Kratz just literally explained this on a yahoo news telephone conference over the noon hour today (CST). I couldn't hear it well as it was loud where I am but it sounds like it was not meant to be a documentary but was categorized something else. And I should have written it down so I could google what it was. Did anyone else catch that? There may be some story on it later as people publish it. I was curious if anyone heard it. The series was categorized as something else when it was filmed but I also can't remember what it was. It didn't receive the attention until they called a documentary.
|
|