Making A Murderer (Spoilers)

[Michigan Slice]

I have no problem with that. I just have a hard time believing he will find 12 unprejudiced jurors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed.
And while I don't know Where it would go, I'd imagine a change of venue request would have to be made.

 

[blugold]

The State crime lab was called in early, they left after finding basically nothing.
They didn't find the key
They didn't find the bullet
They didn't find the DNA of The victim in the bedroom
They found bones, they found blood in the back of the truck, they found her purse and smashed cell phone.

How did they miss the key in plain sight?
How did they miss the bullet?
Where is the DNA of the victim?

How did a "small time" outfit such as the Manitowoc PD (who shouldn't be there BTW) find such damning evidence even after the state crime lab failed to do so?

I look forward to the response.
And this is a good conversation and debate...

For clarity sake, it is the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office. Not the Manitowoc Police Department. Two separate entities, but I heard what you meant.

I can't answer than question. I really can't. I know it then opens the "Manitowoc Sheriffs planted the evidence." But I don't believe they did, they may have, but I don't believe so.

What I also find interesting, this is relatively unrelated to this case, but there is a very real perception that DNA evidence is necessary for prosecution. I've heard it called the "CSI Effect". It's just interesting. In this case specifically, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence and some very damning DNA evidence.

 

[Canadan]

All fair questions. But the crime scene was a salvage yard in a rural part of a county that was being prosecuted by an even more rural county. In order to ensure the most efficient search and fastest trial, as a means to protect due process, a larger investigation team was required.

Just my guess. I don't have that answer. I know it looks like a really convenient way to show that there was a conspiracy to make sure Steven Avery wouldn't be allowed to go forth with his $36,000,000 civil suit against Manitowoc County for wrongful imprisonment. But the level of coordination and execution of that frame is far outside of plausible reality. That's straight Hollywood stuff.

I would argue a key showing up out of nowhere is also 'straight hollywood stuff' as well.

From both side's of the fence, this is a strange case. Doesn't matter how the story is told, it's strange. You can't make up the inconsistencies, you can't make up the prosecutor turning into a perv... It's all one big bag of ridiculous nonsense highlighted by a dirtbag who was targeted in 1985, and then possibly again many years later.

If you made this into a movie, I would have a hard time believing it was based on real events. It's that kind of strange.

 

[blugold]

I would argue a key showing up out of nowhere is also 'straight hollywood stuff' as well.

From both side's of the fence, this is a strange case. Doesn't matter how the story is told, it's strange. You can't make up the inconsistencies, you can't make up the prosecutor turning into a perv... It's all one big bag of ridiculous nonsense highlighted by a dirtbag who was targeted in 1985, and then possibly again many years later.

If you made this into a movie, I would have a hard time believing it was based on real events. It's that kind of strange.

Ken Kratz was/is a perv and sleezeball. Not argument there. Since we are talking Hollywood stuff, I know that somebody always talks. One of the conspirators would have leaked information, or been killed before he had the chance.

 

[Michigan Slice]

Which is why this is so compelling I would guess? No?

Like I said, I have served on Juries one in fact was a murder, the other was a DUI/ Cocaine bust. But I just don't know how the court allowed some of the things they did.
Watching the show with my wife, there were many times where I said "I see why the judge did this" or "that makes sense" but obviously the prosecutor thought they needed the evidence that was questionable for a conviction.
Obviously the defense wanted the questionable evidence to pose the argument of a setup.

Why was the confession of Brendan marked as evidence and he was on the prosecution witness list but not called? Everything points to his testimony hurting the case or else why wouldn't he be called?
I've said many times, they probably do have the right guy.
A mistrial doesn't proclaim innocence, he can still be charged (unless there is a statute of limitations in which the state Supreme Court is on a slippery slope and possibly the reason for not allowing a retrial) with the murder.

Like Dan said, if someone sat down and told you all that is known (shown my Netflix or not) you'd think it is made up.

"Hollywood stuff"

 

[blugold]

Which is why this is so compelling I would guess? No?

Like I said, I have served on Juries one in fact was a murder, the other was a DUI/ Cocaine bust. But I just don't know how the court allowed some of the things they did.
Watching the show with my wife, there were many times where I said "I see why the judge did this" or "that makes sense" but obviously the prosecutor thought they needed the evidence that was questionable for a conviction.
Obviously the defense wanted the questionable evidence to pose the argument of a setup.

Why was the confession of Brendan marked as evidence and he was on the prosecution witness list but not called? Everything points to his testimony hurting the case or else why wouldn't he be called?
I've said many times, they probably do have the right guy.
A mistrial doesn't proclaim innocence, he can still be charged (unless there is a statute of limitations in which the state Supreme Court is on a slippery slope and possibly the reason for not allowing a retrial) with the murder.

Like Dan said, if someone sat down and told you all that is known (shown my Netflix or not) you'd think it is made up.

"Hollywood stuff"

I am not sure there is a statute of limitations on murder trials. The difficult part for wanting to prove there needs to be a retrial, there has been no "new evidence" to suggest a need for it. There is no proof that any of the evidence shown in court was tainted or gathered improperly. I also don't think a defense team can come back and say, "all of that damning evidence that helped convict my client that was not challenged at the time it was presented, well we want a retrial where none of that can be used."

 

[Michigan Slice]

Ken Kratz was/is a perv and sleezeball. Not argument there. Since we are talking Hollywood stuff, I know that somebody always talks. One of the conspirators would have leaked information, or been killed before he had the chance.

Is there a possibility of a family affair where one person knew of the events which let to Theresa's death? Then knew that Steven would be easy to pin it on?
Is it possibly that her body was found on the side of a road, near her vehicle and transported to the Avery compound?
If he did it, he had the means to dispose of her and her vehicle without much trouble at all.

So he was smart enough to rid the crime scene of all DNA, fingerprints, and for all practical purpose any evidence. (Not saying there was no evidence...)
But dumb enough to leave a vehicle?
Dumb enough to dispose of her body feet from his bedroom window?
Someone wanted that RAV4 to be found.
Someone wanted her remains found.
Someone planted the key.
A lot of people had or had reason to have it out for MR Avery.
Who kept calling her phone where she seemed distraught? (As far as I know it was not a number tied to any of the Avery's)

The search for the truth.

Just too many questions left unanswered

 

[sixcat]

Ken Kratz was/is a perv and sleezeball. Not argument there. Since we are talking Hollywood stuff, I know that somebody always talks. One of the conspirators would have leaked information, or been killed before he had the chance.

Not necessarily. If Steven Avery is indeed guilty, and he likely is, law enforcement bolstered the evidence they had with additional "planted" evidence in an effort to ensure a conviction. If this is commonplace for the Manitowoc County Sheriff's office, it would stand to reason, it would also be commonplace to keep such instances quiet. One could also argue, it is indeed commonplace for the Manitowoc County Sheriff's office to manipulate evidence given the two trials of Steven Avery.

 

[Michigan Slice]

Blu, you can request a new trial based on improper and insufficient representation I do believe.
But I think all those avenues have been exhausted to this point.
Fully agree on the new evidence point of view.

But to that point, what if we wake up tomorrow and the blood can be tested for EDTA? And the blood in the RAV4 had been found to contain EDTA?

What if the sweat DNA was found out to be collected once mr Avery was in custody? And put on the latch?

While we are talking "Hollywood" here's a scenario... My Avery is in the backseat of a cruiser, heat in the cruiser turned all the way up, he sweats, and either his DNA taken off a paper napkin, or his clothing that was collected. (Not saying this happened) and placed on the latch.
How would that sway your stance of this was in fact true?
And let me ask you, do you think it's out of the realm of possibility that something like this COULD have happened?

Too much unknown, too much of this investigation was mishandled.
Too many questions remain.

 

[Plinyyounger]

The posters with such a strong opinion that Avery should not have been convicted may want to consider sending money to his defense fund, that would show true concern and would also help him.

 

[blugold]

Blu, you can request a new trial based on improper and insufficient representation I do believe.
But I think all those avenues have been exhausted to this point.
Fully agree on the new evidence point of view.

But to that point, what if we wake up tomorrow and the blood can be tested for EDTA? And the blood in the RAV4 had been found to contain EDTA?

What if the sweat DNA was found out to be collected once mr Avery was in custody? And put on the latch?

While we are talking "Hollywood" here's a scenario... My Avery is in the backseat of a cruiser, heat in the cruiser turned all the way up, he sweats, and either his DNA taken off a paper napkin, or his clothing that was collected. (Not saying this happened) and placed on the latch.
How would that sway your stance of this was in fact true?
And let me ask you, do you think it's out of the realm of possibility that something like this COULD have happened?

Too much unknown, too much of this investigation was mishandled.
Too many questions remain.

I thought there were no anticoagulants found in the Avery blood found on the scene? No EDTA was found by the FBI, unless the FBI gave a rat's asss about this case and decided to take part in the screw job.

I will answer the last parts like this, I do not know how well skin cells or sweat DNA can be transfer and then retested. If it was planted, then I have a problem. If there is proof that the prosecutions evidence was planted or transfer then I will gladly change my tune.

Is there a possibility that this level of screw job occured. Sure, there is a possibility, but I don't believe it is reasonable.

 

[sixcat]

I thought there were no anticoagulants found in the Avery blood found on the scene? No EDTA was found by the FBI, unless the FBI gave a rat's asss about this case and decided to take part in the screw job.

I will answer the last parts like this, I do not know how well skin cells or sweat DNA can be transfer and then retested. If it was planted, then I have a problem. If there is proof that the prosecutions evidence was planted or transfer then I will gladly change my tune.

Is there a possibility that this level of screw job occured. Sure, there is a possibility, but I don't believe it is reasonable.

In all fairness, the FBI doesn't stand behind the EDTA testing claiming results are unreliable. In my opinion, something the FBI considers "highly speculative" and "unreliable" should never have been allowed into testimony.

Again, not claiming Avery is innocent. It's just further questionable behavior from all aspects of our judicial system.

 

[Canadan]

I thought there were no anticoagulants found in the Avery blood found on the scene? No EDTA was found by the FBI, unless the FBI gave a rat's asss about this case and decided to take part in the screw job.

I will answer the last parts like this, I do not know how well skin cells or sweat DNA can be transfer and then retested. If it was planted, then I have a problem. If there is proof that the prosecutions evidence was planted or transfer then I will gladly change my tune.

Is there a possibility that this level of screw job occured. Sure, there is a possibility, but I don't believe it is reasonable.

For what it's worth, there's reason to believe that the FBI testing was not tampered or orchestrated -- But rather simply represented by potentially inaccurate testing.

the defense called Janine Arvizu, an independent contractor who works as a laboratory quality auditor (324:5-6). Ms. Arvizu agreed that when the FBI's testing protocol produces a positive result, that is a valid indication that there is EDTA in the sample (324:23). She also testified that if the result were negative, she could not tell whether that meant that there was no EDTA or that the level of EDTA was below the testing method's detection limit (324:23-24). In Ms. Arvizu's opinion, it was “quite plausible” that the bloodstains swabbed from the RAV4 contained EDTA, “but the lab simply was not able to detect it” (324:59). However, Ms. Arvizu did not testify that EDTA was present in the swabs. Nor did she explain why, if Avery's blood vial was the source of the bloodstains in the vehicle, the EDTA levels in those bloodstains would have been below the FBI's detection limit given the FBI's finding that the blood in the vial contained significant amounts of EDTA (324:5-104).

 

[blugold]

In all fairness, the FBI doesn't stand behind the EDTA testing claiming results are unreliable. In my opinion, something the FBI considers "highly speculative" and "unreliable" should never have been allowed into testimony.

Again, not claiming Avery is innocent. It's just further questionable behavior from all aspects of our judicial system.

For what it's worth, there's reason to believe that the FBI testing was not tampered or orchestrated -- But rather simply represented by potentially inaccurate testing.

the defense called Janine Arvizu, an independent contractor who works as a laboratory quality auditor (324:5-6). Ms. Arvizu agreed that when the FBI's testing protocol produces a positive result, that is a valid indication that there is EDTA in the sample (324:23). She also testified that if the result were negative, she could not tell whether that meant that there was no EDTA or that the level of EDTA was below the testing method's detection limit (324:23-24). In Ms. Arvizu's opinion, it was “quite plausible” that the bloodstains swabbed from the RAV4 contained EDTA, “but the lab simply was not able to detect it” (324:59). However, Ms. Arvizu did not testify that EDTA was present in the swabs. Nor did she explain why, if Avery's blood vial was the source of the bloodstains in the vehicle, the EDTA levels in those bloodstains would have been below the FBI's detection limit given the FBI's finding that the blood in the vial contained significant amounts of EDTA (324:5-104).

Sure, I understand all of that. It was a shot by the defense, which backfired.

 

[Canadan]

Sure, I understand all of that. It was a shot by the defense, which backfired.

What backfired?

 

[blugold]

What backfired?

That there was not a sufficient test, sufficient levels of EDTA, or proof of tampering on the blood in the vile. I know there was suspicion that the vile was tampered with, but the defense did not make a compelling argument that the blood found in the SUV came from that vile.

 

[sixcat]

Sure, I understand all of that. It was a shot by the defense, which backfired.

The defense was against the testing from the very beginning because of the issues it caused during the OJ Simpson trial, which led to the FBI questioning it's own EDTA testing. The EDTA testing was initiated by Krantz.

 

[rallo]

Sure, I understand all of that. It was a shot by the defense, which backfired.

I won't beat a dead horse, as I posted on this earlier, but the FBI representative got on the stand and basically stated a false inaccuracy...(of course the rest of his comment could have been cut out by filmmakers to make him look worse) but the test is only reliable when you get a positive hit on EDTA. How the representative could, under oath, state that he was sure that the results are accurate tells me that he A. isn't very good at his job, and doesn't understand the test that he administered, or B. is a liar...

I'll go with A, as it seems to be a reoccurring theme for this whole case.

 

[Canadan]

That there was not a sufficient test, sufficient levels of EDTA, or proof of tampering on the blood in the vile. I know there was suspicion that the vile was tampered with, but the defense did not make a compelling argument that the blood found in the SUV came from that vile.

I actually found the testimony by LeBeau to be very strange. He openly confirmed that non-tested samples of blood from the Rav4 did not have EDTA in them despite not having tested them. Then defense called on someone who not only called into question the validity of the testing done, but also made a point of saying she's a analytical chemist, not in the business of guessing what's in samples.

Again, I find it strange. Why would LeBeau say with relative certainty that samples he didn't test did not have EDTA in them? He almost seemed eager.

yes, this is a great sample of the series leaning towards the defense in how they presented the information to the viewer, but can you really tell me that isn't a little bit strange that he wouldn't neutral on something he had no opportunity to test, in a testing method that is widely recognized as being potentially flawed?

 

[blugold]

I actually found the testimony by LeBeau to be very strange. He openly confirmed that non-tested samples of blood from the Rav4 did not have EDTA in them despite not having tested them. Then defense called on someone who not only called into question the validity of the testing done, but also made a point of saying she's a analytical chemist, not in the business of guessing what's in samples.

Again, I find it strange. Why would LeBeau say with relative certainty that samples he didn't test did not have EDTA in them? He almost seemed eager.

yes, this is a great sample of the series leaning towards the defense in how they presented the information to the viewer, but can you really tell me that isn't a little bit strange that he wouldn't neutral on something he had no opportunity to test, in a testing method that is widely recognized as being potentially flawed?

I am not smart enough in crime scene forensics to have an answer to why an expert would make a claim without having done a test. EDTA testing may not be perfect and I am not sure if there is any other way to test a blood stain for anticoagulants.

 

[sixcat]

I am not smart enough in crime scene forensics to have an answer to why an expert would make a claim without having done a test. EDTA testing may not be perfect and I am not sure if there is any other way to test a blood stain for anticoagulants.

It's not only imperfect, it's so unreliable it hasn't been used since 1995!

 

[blugold]

It's not only imperfect, it's so unreliable it hasn't been used since 1995!

Yup. In the OJ Trial! Which has been chronicled. FWIW, the blood found in OJ's SUV did contain EDTA.

 

[Plinyyounger]

The posters with such a strong opinion that Avery should not have been convicted may want to consider sending money to his defense fund, that would show true concern and would also help him.

Anyone donate yet? I would be willing to bet bet my retirement check that nobody will. Talk is cheap.

The Internet inspires a lot of people to have strong opinions, but when the rubber meets the road, how many really believe what they express? Seems like most of the time people just want to be heard, complain or see their responses responded too.

I would much rather go play golf with all of you than debate this topic! Let me know, I'll buy a round in NorCal.

ken

 

[Howzat]

Anyone donate yet? I would be willing to bet bet my retirement check that nobody will. Talk is cheap.

The Internet inspires a lot of people to have strong opinions, but when the rubber meets the road, how many really believe what they express? Seems like most of the time people just want to be heard, complain or see their responses responded too.

I would much rather go play golf with all of you than debate this topic! Let me know, I'll buy a round in NorCal.

ken

I thought it has been a fun an interesting discussion about a show. I don't think anyone who has posted thinks Avery is completely innocent of any crimes. Many of us however see some reasonable doubt and issues with our legal system.

 

[Michigan Slice]

Very generous of you Ken...

I will not be donating to his cause, it does not mean that I don't believe the justice system was not administered fairly and without prejudice.
In fact I believe he very well could have guilt in this case.
It leaves nothing to the fact that I don't think he received due process.