A problem with Travis's analysis is that he doesn't care how everything happened. I think that is important in getting to the truth. That's why I had been thinking about that and posted my theory about 19 pages ago. To simply say, "oh.. the key is planted? Well then we should ignore that evidence" is bogus.

Avery probably murdured her.

Wayyy too much incompetence going on to successfully frame him in my short honest opinion.

quote:

---

Everything Travis brings up in his article about the documentary, the style, the presentation, who it included(and more importantly who it didn't), and what it did/didn't include was spot on.

---

On how it was presented was mostly correct.

On what it did and didn't include was mostly just regurgitating what that slimeball prosecutor said, most of which has no bearing or validity.

The documentary left out a lot more stuff that was beneficial to Avery than stuff the prosecutor says was damning for Avery. If they just wanted to make a docu to really show how innocent SA was, it would have been done much differently.

quote:

---

On how it was presented was mostly correct.

---

Except that it wasn't. We've already seen where they've taken phone calls out of the context of the the discussion that was presently taking place on the phone. There have been other articles that discuss some of the timeline issues. It was presented from a pro-Steven point of view. There's no doubt about it.

quote:

---

On what it did and didn't include was mostly just regurgitating what that slimeball prosecutor said, most of which has no bearing or validity.

---

Or that it didn't include hours of footage of Halbach and her family, or hours of footage of the prosecution doing research, investigating, prepping for trial, etc. Of course they didn't have access to that, but it's not just a couple of factoids that the prosecuter dbag threw out there. It was completely framed with the intent to make you believe Steven is innocent, and did little to nothing to tell the story of the case and the trial from a completely open perspective

quote:

---

The documentary left out a lot more stuff that was beneficial to Avery than stuff the prosecutor says was damning for Avery. If they just wanted to make a docu to really show how innocent SA was, it would have been done much differently.

---

I disagree completely. They effectively made everyone **** their pants with each episode and how it was presented. As Travis points out, all the way down to the music, pacing, cliff-hangers, etc. It was crafted brilliantly to get everyone on the "no way he did it" train.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

How do you explain the bones ending up in his fire pit?

---

If I was the juror on the trial..that would have been the one major hold up to a not guilty verdict.

You can explain everything else, but not that.

Honestly, if I was the defense, I would have accused Bobby and his dad of the murder and that they planted the bones there to strengthen the case against Avery.

---

As already mentioned the judge barred the defense from specifically pointing to anyone else except Brendan.

I see a lot of people confused by the bones. At some point her blood got in the car so she was transported. If Avery burns her at home first and killed her there then why is her blood in the car at all? No need to put her in the car to transport her to his pit. If he transports her off site to burn her then why the hell would he ever bring her bones back? Why no evidence in vehicles of transporting charred remains? Same issue if he partially burns her at home then transports her off site to burn more.

If somebody else did it then it makes sense to me that they burn her off site then plant bones at his place. Not like they can chill by his fire while they burn her body. Too much risk of being seen.

---

But your scenario for the bones limits who has the ability to get those bones that close to SA's and the Dassey's houses without being seen or viewed as suspicious.

As corrupt as the cops were, I highly doubt they moved the bones.

So the most likely suspects are somebody in the Avery clan.

---

The cops also had about 8 days exclusively to themselves and the search party.

As for Brendan and his first attorney and the investigator, I sort of understand where the attorney/investigator was coming from.

He was confronted with the situation where his client had confessed (multiple times, not just in 1 coerced interrogation) to having knowledge of the body being in Avery's fire, and to helping Avery gather materials for the file.

He knew his client was screwed. No way he can have his client testify to explain why he made those claims. Brendans best shot at minimizing the damage that he had done was by cutting a deal to plead guilty and testify against Avery. He probably could have gotten charge reduced to accessory, gotten 20 years with possibly of parole in 12 and been out by the time he was 30.

If he made later statements inconsistent with his prior statemeny, his testimony would become useless to the prosecution (because averys defense could attack it with subsequent inconsistent statements). This is what happened, and prosecutor didn't use his testimony, and didn't give him a deal, and he got life in prison. As ****ed up as it seemed, Kachinskys strategy was much better.

Allowing his client to be interviewed out of his presence was pretty messed up though.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Except that it wasn't. We've already seen where they've taken phone calls out of the context of the the discussion that was presently taking place on the phone. There have been other articles that discuss some of the timeline issues. It was presented from a pro-Steven point of view. There's no doubt about it.

---

Link?

---

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ytjy8/does_anyone_else_think_the_documentary_film/cygttqi

I already posted this with the phone call discussion earlier int he thread.

The timeline issues were minor and I need to find that article that showed the back and forth of the questioning and interviews, but someone was able to screencap it on reddit where they are trying to present a steady timeline and the interview dates show answers that go back in time, then forward again.

quote:

---

The prosecutor made nine points that were left out and all were either easily explained or totally irrelevant. Avery is a terrible person for throwing that cat in a fire, but it doesn't mean anything in the context of this case.

---

The context absolutely matters. They are using context with his family and those around him(spending time with his new girlfriend, etc.) to paint him in a light that is calm, simple, and not likely to commit the crime. Context about writing to his wife that he was going to kill her from prison, the manner in which he destroyed the cat...all of that matters. I'm sort of shocked that you are so adamant that you think it doesn't.

quote:

---

As for Brendan and his first attorney and the investigator, I sort of understand where the attorney/investigator was coming from.

He was confronted with the situation where his client had confessed (multiple times, not just in 1 coerced interrogation) to having knowledge of the body being in Avery's fire, and to helping Avery gather materials for the file.

He knew his client was screwed. No way he can have his client testify to explain why he made those claims. Brendans best shot at minimizing the damage that he had done was by cutting a deal to plead guilty and testify against Avery. He probably could have gotten charge reduced to accessory, gotten 20 years with possibly of parole in 12 and been out by the time he was 30.

If he made later statements inconsistent with his prior statemeny, his testimony would become useless to the prosecution (because averys defense could attack it with subsequent inconsistent statements). This is what happened, and prosecutor didn't use his testimony, and didn't give him a deal, and he got life in prison. As ****ed up as it seemed, Kachinskys strategy was much better.

Allowing his client to be interviewed out of his presence was pretty messed up though.

---

his client was screwed because he let a mentally ******ed teenage boy be interrogated by police without an attorney

Clay Travis called his actions borderline disbarrable.

Yes, the 4th time, but the 3 times prior he was not representing him.

Public service announcement: NEVER talk to cops without your (competent) attorney present.

quote:

---

How exactly are they supposed to show the inner dealings of the prosecution when they aren't granted access? They showed all the damning evidence for Avery in the documentary. Every bit of it.

---

Again, I know they didn't have access. Just that simple fact should tell you that there will be a bias in the documentary. If you can't acknowledge the massive bias towards Steven being innocent in every aspect of the making of the series, I can't help you.

I see it clear as day. And I'm ok with it. But I have acknowledged it so as to not let it cloud my judgment. The directors did a phenomenal job with this series.

If we watched this from the Halbach/prosecution side and never saw Avery's family save for Barb talking to reporters for a whopping 5 minutes of screen time in 10 hours, and instead saw hours and hours of footage of her family talking about how she's gone, they walk around every day and she's not there,etc., and then they show the footage from the trial without the commentary of Steven's family or lawyers, we'd be saying "Why the **** did they make this documentary? Dude is guilty as sin." It's hard now to acknowledge that after having watched it the way we did, but I'm confident in that.

I feel like this is one of those situations where we can sit here and spin our tires all day and it's not going to accomplish anything.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree about the presentation style and the effect it has on the audience.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The prosecutor made nine points that were left out and all were either easily explained or totally irrelevant. Avery is a terrible person for throwing that cat in a fire, but it doesn't mean anything in the context of this case.

---

The context absolutely matters. They are using context with his family and those around him(spending time with his new girlfriend, etc.) to paint him in a light that is calm, simple, and not likely to commit the crime. Context about writing to his wife that he was going to kill her from prison, the manner in which he destroyed the cat...all of that matters. I'm sort of shocked that you are so adamant that you think it doesn't.

---

Things like the cat are completely inadmissable and do not have any bearing on whether he was rightfully convicted.

We know he is a terrible person. Lots of terrible people don't murder photographers, something I am grateful for everyday.

I believe he was wrongly convicted and his conviction and more so Brendan's were miscarriages of justice.

I think there was the same opportunity but more motive for several other people, and some of those people had more violent history than Avery. But that isn't in the film either.

No documentary has ever been made without bias.

But I don't think it was as heavily weighted in Avery is innocent as it was Avery should not have been convicted. It's possible to believe that Avery is 100% guilty and that he should not have been convicted based on the evidence presented in court. I think a lot of people that watch the documentary came away feeling that way

Everything we saw in the entire series that wasn't trial footage is inadmissible. The glossy painting of his prior life. Being wrongfully convicted and having to serve 12 extra years that he shouldn't have. The interviews with Barb, the parents, etc. etc.

That's my point. That's why I'm not even discussing Kratz idiotic 9 points, because they were bad.

I'm not looking at it from a trial standpoint currently. I'm purely discussing how the information overall was presented to us. It was limited footage of trial, and TONS of conjecture, editing, framing, music, compassion, etc. all helping out minds subconsciously think "how could they find him guilty!" All the way down to including Kratz's gross communication with abuse victims. They even created villains for us

It was tons of loaded up emotional **** that was expertly crafted to lead viewers to a common conclusion. I applaud them for doing it so well.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yeah, I admit I have 7 more hrs to go and will keep watching with an open mind, but keeping in mind I am basically watching the defenses unrefuted theory of the case, so I won't just accept what is presented without question.

---

There is actually a lot of pro-defense stuff that wasn't in the documentary. If you read the interviews with that scumbag prosecutor, he doesn't really have any hard evidence that Avery did it that wasn't in the docu.

Pro-defense stuff not in MAM:

• There was deer blood all over the garage. It clearly hadn't been cleaned.
• The sheriff talked about being really rough with that book case in shaking it around to get that key to fall out, then took a pic right after they saw it. Shaking it violently didn't knock those papers or remote off?
• The defense questioned Bobby Dassey about how he said that Avery made the joke about hiding the body on Nov 3rd (before it was found.) He later agreed that the joke wasn't on that date because he was working and didn't see Avery on the 3rd.
• The gun expert could not conclusively identify the .22 bullet as coming from Avery's gun. They could only say it was a .22 bullet and Avery had a .22 gun. There was also no DNA or blood blow back you would expect with a close range shot.
• A propane truck driver saw a green SUV leaving the Avery property between 3:30-4.
• A forensic anthropologist testified that an open fire such as in Avery's pit wouldn't have generated enough heat to burn the body and bones the way they were burnt. You need 1.5-2.5 hours at 1700 degrees.
• Manitowoc County Sheriff Robert Hermann owns a competing auto salvage yard with his brother, Todd.
• All of Steven's conversations in jail (phone calls, meetings, etc) were recorded and he never once implicated himself. He isn't exactly a brilliant dude.
• Blaine Dassey testified that Bobby Dassey was asleep when he got home from school at 3:40. This contradicts Bobby's testimony that he went hunting at 2:30 and saw Teresa then.
• The clerk admitted under oath that not everyone signed the log book that went into the evidence room.
• The tech that found Avery's DNA under the hood admitted in court that they didn't change their gloves after handling other evidence against protocol. The amount of DNA found was miniscule.
• The County Coroner testified that sheriffs refused to allow her near the body recovery site, which is against the law. She had also received calls from the Manitowoc County executive and the county's top attorney not to investigate the case. However, Mantowoc County allowed their sheriffs to continue to investigate.
• The key was never dusted for prints.
• The expert that screwed up the DNA test on the bullet was also the very same woman that testified in Steven Avery's rape case in 1985 that the hair found on the victim came from Steven.
• She also was told to run the DNA test that exonerated Avery, but delayed running it for over a year.

The Prosecutor's list of things left out (things that have nothing to do with the case left out):

• Avery called and asked for Teresa. He also called her three times that day.
• Teresa said she would never go back to Avery's place (unsubstantiated and she willingly chose to go back to his place.)
• Teresa's phone, purse and camera were found burnt in Avery's burn barrel. (Not sure how that implicates him and not a half dozen other people on his property.)
• There were tire radial wires among the bones. (Not sure how that implicates him and not a half dozen other people on his property.)
• A tooth and the rivet from her jeans were found in the fire pit with the bones (again, not sure how that implicates him more than just finding the bones there, but the guy wanted it mentioned.)
• He says ballistics matched the gun found in Avery's house to the bullet, but the ballistics expert testified it was inconclusive.

---

I have been thinking that Steven probably did it but that the cops definitely planted evidence. But the more stuff like this I read, I'm beginning to lean more towards the opinion that Bobby Dassey and his stepdad(?) did it and then they and the cops planted evidence to frame Steven.

They had the motive and opportunity to kill Theresa and frame Steven. They have absolutely no alibi. In fact, if they just both said they didn't have an alibit, it would be more believable than them being each other's alibi. Not to mention the fact that their "alibis" are discredited by multiple people, including Bobby's own brother.

quote:

---

No documentary has ever been made without bias.

But I don't think it was as heavily weighted in Avery is innocent as it was Avery should not have been convicted. It's possible to believe that Avery is 100% guilty and that he should not have been convicted based on the evidence presented in court. I think a lot of people that watch the documentary came away feeling that way

---

I'll agree with you here. I should have said that it was presented to make us think he shouldn't have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's basically what I've said from the start of the thread. I am not 100% in my mind that he's guilty, but I think he is. And I can't make an overall conclusion as to how I'd have voted had I been on the jury, and no one can, because we weren't there for 6 weeks, every day watching the trial unfold. I think based on what i've seen that I'd lean not guilty, but that doesn't mean I'd think that way if I were a juror and I didn't get this documentary presented to me to cloud my judgment.

I absolutely think there's no way Brendan should have been found guilty, and it sickens me that Kratz basically used his confession to convict him after not being able to use it in the Avery case.

Without the sympathetic protagonist, no matter how good the evidence is for the documentary come up people won't see the miscarriage of justice. I think Steven Avery has done very few good things in his life that would make him a sympathetic protagonist even though he wrongfully spent 18 years in jail when he was framed by the sheriff's department

If you spend an hour telling everybody what a terrible person Steven Avery is, it is definitely true but it doesn't matter what comes after that. You could have video taped of them planting the key the bullet and the Toyota and people will still be fine with him serving life because he isn't the type of person we want on our streets.

After watching the state's closing arguments, I would have a very hard time convicting anyone when the prosecutor basically admitted that a key piece of evidence was planted by police. That alone gives me reasonable doubt for all the other evidence found, even if I think the guy is probably guilty.

quote:

---

After watching the state's closing arguments, I would have a very hard time convicting anyone when the prosecutor basically admitted that a key piece of evidence was planted by police. That alone gives me reasonable doubt for all the other evidence found, even if I think the guy is probably guilty.

https://i.imgur.com/76rho6e.jpg

---

If anything was planted - Key, blood, bullet, car, etc., there is reasonable doubt. How could there not be?

quote:

---

I have been thinking that Steven probably did it but that the cops definitely planted evidence. But the more stuff like this I read, I'm beginning to lean more towards the opinion that Bobby Dassey and his stepdad(?) did it and then they and the cops planted evidence to frame Steven.

They had the motive and opportunity to kill Theresa and frame Steven. They have absolutely no alibi. In fact, if they just both said they didn't have an alibit, it would be more believable than them being each other's alibi. Not to mention the fact that their "alibis" are discredited by multiple people, including Bobby's own brother.

---

What was their motive?

The stepdad, the 2 Avery brothers, and Avery himself all had history of violence against women and some had sexual assault accusations/convictions. They all had means and opportunity. They all had access to the entire property. Hell, the stepdad was grinning when Brendan was convicted.

Motive, to me, is less important if it's a crime of opportunity or passion. The fact that they can't advance an alternate theory of the crime without MOTIVE is bizarre to me. I understand that you can't just throw out wild theories and accusations with no evidence behind it, but why hinge that on motive?

quote:

---

quote:

---

After watching the state's closing arguments, I would have a very hard time convicting anyone when the prosecutor basically admitted that a key piece of evidence was planted by police. That alone gives me reasonable doubt for all the other evidence found, even if I think the guy is probably guilty.

https://i.imgur.com/76rho6e.jpg

---

If anything was planted - Key, blood, bullet, car, etc., there is reasonable doubt. How could there not be?

---

As soon as you believe one piece of physical evidence is fabricated it automatically brings into doubt almost all other physical evidence. And then you throw in the odd coincidence that out of the dozens of investigators working this case the same one or two officers (Lenk and Colburn) who were supposed to have distanced themselves from the investigation either found critical evidence or were instrumental in finding it. Without evidence foind Lenk and Colburn, the case against SA drops significantly. Those two guys were not supposed to be involved.

Kratz is a bloviating dirtball, but I don't think he was a conspirator. He was just cozy with them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have been thinking that Steven probably did it but that the cops definitely planted evidence. But the more stuff like this I read, I'm beginning to lean more towards the opinion that Bobby Dassey and his stepdad(?) did it and then they and the cops planted evidence to frame Steven.

They had the motive and opportunity to kill Theresa and frame Steven. They have absolutely no alibi. In fact, if they just both said they didn't have an alibit, it would be more believable than them being each other's alibi. Not to mention the fact that their "alibis" are discredited by multiple people, including Bobby's own brother.

---

What was their motive?

---

What was Steven's Motive?

Scott and Bobby both disliked Steven.

This goes into the other possible suspects with motive and opportunity.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/10/making-a-murderer-meet-the-men-steven-avery-thinks-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach.html

Motive isn't real strong with anyone other than maybe there exboyfriend, who has the least amount of access to the junkyard.

quote:

---

The stepdad, the 2 Avery brothers, and Avery himself all had history of violence against women and some had sexual assault accusations/convictions. They all had means and opportunity. They all had access to the entire property. Hell, the stepdad was grinning when Brendan was convicted.

Motive, to me, is less important if it's a crime of opportunity or passion. The fact that they can't advance an alternate theory of the crime without MOTIVE is bizarre to me. I understand that you can't just throw out wild theories and accusations with no evidence behind it, but why hinge that on motive?

---

The same motive used against Steven Avery (his history of violence) is somehow inadmissible against Tadych, Dassey, or the other Avery's even though they have similar histories. Very peculiar.

If Steven did it, my guess is there wasn't a "motive." He made a move on her, she rebuffed him, it got physical and out of hand, and he killed her to keep her quiet. It could have been an accident and he panicked and thought "who will believe me that it was an accident?" I think the "motive" for either of the brothers or Tadych is pretty similar - they got physical with her and assaulted her. They might have decided to put the evidence in Steven's burn pit in case the cops came looking. Then the cops decided to help the case along.

Steven's phone calls to his girlfriend in jail that night, seem pretty chill and ordinary for guy actively covering up a murder though. That's honestly the thing that gives me a lot of reasonable doubt.

None of the men on that property were solid citizens and all deserved long hard looks by the police.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

After watching the state's closing arguments, I would have a very hard time convicting anyone when the prosecutor basically admitted that a key piece of evidence was planted by police. That alone gives me reasonable doubt for all the other evidence found, even if I think the guy is probably guilty.

https://i.imgur.com/76rho6e.jpg

---

If anything was planted - Key, blood, bullet, car, etc., there is reasonable doubt. How could there not be?

---

As soon as you believe one piece of physical evidence is fabricated it automatically brings into doubt almost all other physical evidence. And then you throw in the odd coincidence that out of the dozens of investigators working this case the same one or two officers (Lenk and Colburn) who were supposed to have distanced themselves from the investigation either found critical evidence or were instrumental in finding it. Without evidence foind Lenk and Colburn, the case against SA drops significantly. Those two guys were not supposed to be involved.

Kratz is a bloviating dirtball, but I don't think he was a conspirator. He was just cozy with them.

---

"[It] shouldn't matter whether or not that key was planted" Calumet County district attorney Ken Kratz

This was in his closing arguments. That key by itself is all the reasonable doubt needed to acquit.

quote:

---

The stepdad, the 2 Avery brothers, and Avery himself all had history of violence against women and some had sexual assault accusations/convictions. They all had means and opportunity. They all had access to the entire property. Hell, the stepdad was grinning when Brendan was convicted.

---

The thing that Steven had that Scott and Bobby didn't is any sort of relationship with Halbach that we know of. That's a pretty substantial difference I think.

That had to be the most bizarre closing argument ever.

Have any of the other jurors been interviewed? I know the one that had to leave was on the documentary but why haven't any of the others come forward? Maybe they have and I missed it

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have been thinking that Steven probably did it but that the cops definitely planted evidence. But the more stuff like this I read, I'm beginning to lean more towards the opinion that Bobby Dassey and his stepdad(?) did it and then they and the cops planted evidence to frame Steven.

They had the motive and opportunity to kill Theresa and frame Steven. They have absolutely no alibi. In fact, if they just both said they didn't have an alibit, it would be more believable than them being each other's alibi. Not to mention the fact that their "alibis" are discredited by multiple people, including Bobby's own brother.

---

What was their motive?

---

What was Steven's Motive?

---

To bang Halbach. She said no, and he killed her.

I think Avery's lawyers had to make a difficult choice in their closing arguments with their, "the police aren't trying to frame an innocent man, but they are planting evidence to support their case against the person that they think did it."

Better than the alternative of claiming a wild conspiracy, but still a tough spot to have to remind the jury that, "hey, the police really think my guy did it and (logically) were sure enough that they planted evidence to ensure a conviction."

quote:

---

That had to be the most bizarre closing argument ever.

Have any of the other jurors been interviewed? I know the one that had to leave was on the documentary but why haven't any of the others come forward? Maybe they have and I missed it

---

One juror had contacted the filmmakers and said they don't believe that Avery was guilty but was afraid to not convict him.

http://time.com/4167915/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-juror/


Ricciardi: This particular juror told us that they believe law enforcement tried to frame Steven Avery because of the $36 million lawsuit against law enforcement that Steven had pending when he was charged for Teresa Halbach's murder. And this juror thought that Steven was innocent and should get a new trial.

We naturally asked, if you believed that why did you vote the way you did? And this person told us that it was a decision about self-preservation. The person lived in the county, feared for their safety, and also said, "If they could frame Steven Avery, they could do it to me."