Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Making a Murderer -- DID STEVEN AVERY REALLY KILL TERESA HALBACH?
#41
Cutz, all of your points make some sense except for: A) the cops burning the body? So, they either brought her on to the Avery property and burned her while no one watched, or, you're suggesting, they burned her elsewhere and transported her remains back to Avery's? That's a tough one for me to buy. And B) me, creepy? I'm still too handsome to be considered creepy, and I prefer women at least 40.
Reply
#42
(01-14-2016, 09:32 AM)Cutz Wrote: To HoTeeDee: Simple minded, slow people are definitely able of committing crime and lying about it.

In general: I don't care if he murdered her or not. You don't get to circumvent laws and plant evidence on guilty people any more than innocent. The vial of his blood had cut security tape and a needle hole in the top. I think the police did that, and I'd throw out all evidence and let him walk. Even if I was certain he did it, I let him walk. Otherwise you're telling LE that it's open season on anything they want to do. This /is/ the same area where the guy was wrongfully convicted in the past.

That's right, Cutzarug. I agree.

The argument that a person 'isn't smart enough to commit a violent horrible crime and get caught' doesn't hold water, logically or historically. It happens everyday. Sometimes they get caught quickly, sometimes they get away with it for a long time, and there are probably more than I'd care to know about who will never be caught.

Likewise, I think there are probably a good number of simple-minded people of little means who also didn't commit crimes for which they've been convicted, due to LE/jury human error or tunnel vision/corruption.

In the Teresa Halbach murder case specifically, it's equally possible to me that the asshole LEOs (who should never have been on the case due to conflict of interest) at least planted Teresa's key in Avery's room and led or coerced a confessional narrative out of Dassey in order to bolster their case against Avery. None of which, as you noted, is okay. It's not okay whether Avery and/or Dassey killed Teresa or not. Just like it's not okay to me when cops shoot people to death and then create a false narrative as to how it went down; the false narrative puts the LEO's justification of the shooting incident itself under legitimate suspicion.

Anyway, I've watched most of the Making a Murderer series now. So far, I'm not convinced that Steven Avery was framed for a murder he did not commit and I probably would have voted guilty had I been on the jury, given what I consider the very strong circumstantial evidence against Avery and the prosecution's trial case.

But, I agree with Gunnar and others that the key was very likely planted and that the interrogation of Dassey was improper (at the least). I think the series did a good job exposing such corruption and questionable tactics, which is its greatest value. I hope both men get new trials; maybe Kathleen Zellner can make it happen.

I do care who killed Teresa Halbach, and based on the pile of circumstantial evidence alone, Steven Avery remains a suspect for me. I think he should be retried if the prosecutors feel they have a strong enough case after the questionable evidence (likely including Dassey's confession) is tossed. Avery would undoubtedly have top notch representation if he gets a retrial, pro bono I imagine. And, if a case can be made that some of the LEOs and prosecutors willfully engaged in misconduct or criminal activity, they should be charged or otherwise held accountable.

I think Dassey should definitely be re-interviewed, with counsel present; I'd personally have less a problem with him simply being set free rather than re-tried if it's evident that his confession was not only directed to match an LE narrative, but was also most likely entirely false.
Reply
#43
(01-14-2016, 10:53 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Cutz, all of your points make some sense except for: A) the cops burning the body? So, they either brought her on to the Avery property and burned her while no one watched, or, you're suggesting, they burned her elsewhere and transported her remains back to Avery's? That's a tough one for me to buy. And B) me, creepy? I'm still too handsome to be considered creepy, and I prefer women at least 40.
An expert has already testified that the fire on the Avery property wasn't hot enough to burn the victim to the degree that her remains were burned MS.
Reply
#44
(01-14-2016, 11:44 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:
(01-14-2016, 10:53 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Cutz, all of your points make some sense except for: A) the cops burning the body? So, they either brought her on to the Avery property and burned her while no one watched, or, you're suggesting, they burned her elsewhere and transported her remains back to Avery's? That's a tough one for me to buy. And B) me, creepy? I'm still too handsome to be considered creepy, and I prefer women at least 40.
An expert has already testified that the fire on the Avery property wasn't hot enough to burn the victim to the degree that her remains were burned MS.

I choose to remain ignorant on this one then.
Reply
#45
(01-14-2016, 11:55 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote:
(01-14-2016, 11:44 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:
(01-14-2016, 10:53 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Cutz, all of your points make some sense except for: A) the cops burning the body? So, they either brought her on to the Avery property and burned her while no one watched, or, you're suggesting, they burned her elsewhere and transported her remains back to Avery's? That's a tough one for me to buy. And B) me, creepy? I'm still too handsome to be considered creepy, and I prefer women at least 40.
An expert has already testified that the fire on the Avery property wasn't hot enough to burn the victim to the degree that her remains were burned MS.

I choose to remain ignorant on this one then.
I'm thinking it's like HoTD claims. Only those who haven't seen the Doc, but have read about a few crimes and consider themselves some sort of an internet authority are the only people who aren't ignorant MS.hah
Reply
#46
If the state's anthropologist testifies that it's highly unlikely the burning of a body had been done anywhere other than where the remains were found (as was the testimony in Avery's murder trial), the defense would typically hire an expert to testify to an opposite opinion when the defense strategy is 'frame up'.

It's scientifically impossible to say with 100% certainty that those remains were burned where they were found, but I don't personally believe they were planted.
Reply
#47
(01-14-2016, 12:17 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I'm thinking it's like HoTD claims. Only those who haven't seen the Doc, but have read about a few crimes and consider themselves some sort of an internet authority are the only people who aren't ignorant MS.hah

Derp.

I claimed none of what you've attributed to me. I didn't say that people who haven't watched the Doc are more informed than people who have, or anything like that. YOU claimed that comments and opinions stemming from sources other than the documentary were ignorant. YOU did that.

I clearly stated that whether people have only watched the series, or only followed the case previously, or both -- all comments are welcomed in this thread. It's not hard to grasp Gunnar, except to you.

And, YOU asked if we really think that people with low IQs could commit such a crime and not leave a lot of physical evidence. I answered you; your claim that "morons aren't capable of committing terrible crimes without having left every type of physical evidence" is refuted by other crime cases. So, the fact that the Averys and Dasse have low IQs does not, on its own, render them less suspicious to me. Answering your question and giving examples, even when you don't apparently like the answer, doesn't equate to claiming to be an expert.

I honestly can't tell if you have a very serious comprehension problem, or instead just feel the need to make shit up when you get all defensive.
Reply
#48
Saw an interesting interview with Avery's ex fiancee that paints a whole different picture of him than what was shown in the documentary. Physical abuse, repeated threats on her life if she didn't "make him look good" etc. Guy was clearly no angel, and the doc and trial also left out key info about how he had repeatedly called to request that photographer to come out to his lot, and was basically stalking her.
Thank god I am oblivious to the opinions of others while caught in the blinding splendor of my own cleverness.
Reply
#49
(01-14-2016, 12:56 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:
(01-14-2016, 12:17 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I'm thinking it's like HoTD claims. Only those who haven't seen the Doc, but have read about a few crimes and consider themselves some sort of an internet authority are the only people who aren't ignorant MS.hah

Derp.

I claimed none of what you've attributed to me. I didn't say that people who haven't watched the Doc are more informed than people who have, or anything like that. YOU claimed that comments and opinions stemming from sources other than the documentary were ignorant. YOU did that.

I clearly stated that whether people have only watched the series, or only followed the case previously, or both -- all comments are welcomed in this thread. It's not hard to grasp Gunnar, except to you.

And, YOU asked if we really think that people with low IQs could commit such a crime and not leave a lot of physical evidence. I answered you; your claim that "morons aren't capable of committing terrible crimes without having left every type of physical evidence" is refuted by other crime cases. So, the fact that the Averys and Masse have low IQs does not, on its own, render them less suspicious to me. Answering your question and giving examples, even when you don't apparently like the answer, doesn't equate to claiming to be an expert.

I honestly can't tell if you have a very serious comprehension problem, or you feel the need to make shit up when you get all defensive.
It's neither really. I just don't ever read your incredibly long replies because 1) usually the meaningful content is but one or two sentences and 2) You really aren't an expert when it comes to anything but puns and picking the nit. Blowing-kisses
Reply
#50
(01-14-2016, 01:08 PM)Donovan Wrote: Saw an interesting interview with Avery's ex fiancee that paints a whole different picture of him than what was shown in the documentary. Physical abuse, repeated threats on her life if she didn't "make him look good" etc. Guy was clearly no angel, and the doc and trial also left out key info about how he had repeatedly called to request that photographer to come out to his lot, and was basically stalking her.

Not sure it was the same interview, but I read what Jodi told Nancy Grace last night, Donovan.

She is an 'ex', so I consider that she could have ulterior motives. But what she described last night is definitely a very different picture of the relationship and her feelings about the 'alibi call' than was portrayed in the documentary.

The evidence against Avery that was left out of the series is more of an issue, to me. Some of it is important information to the case, like the fact that Avery specifically requested Teresa as the photographer, and the three phone calls MS mentioned upthread from Avery to Teresa on the day she disappeared - two of which made using the *67 feature.

Writing off the cat incident as a "stupid prank" was disingenuous; but that's what was done in the documentary footage. It couldn't have been used at his murder trial, so I'd either have left it out altogether or presented the actual guilty plea to the viewers if I was attempting to put forth an objective documentary. Avery's burglary bond was revoked in 1982 when he was busted on animal cruelty charges for pouring gasoline on the family cat and throwing it into a bonfire.
Reply
#51
(01-14-2016, 01:11 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: It's neither really. I just don't ever read your incredibly long replies because 1) usually the meaningful content is but one or two sentences and 2) You really aren't an expert when it comes to anything but puns and picking the nit. Blowing-kisses

Your reply confirms that it's both, really.

1) Obviously, if you didn't read my incredibly long posts, you wouldn't be able to categorize what you consider meaningful or not.

2) And, you just restated what I already said -- I don't claim to be an expert, you just keep falsely claiming that I claim to be one. Plus, your definition of "picking the nit" appears to be pointing out that which is inconvenient for you.

I'm going to focus on the case in this thread, Gunnar. As always, I'll read all of the posts, long or short, by experts and novices -- it's all interesting to me. You're obviously free to skip posts that don't suit your fancy.

You can keep bullshitting and critiquing me and my posts instead; you'll have free rein to do so without further response from me.
Reply
#52
Here's the Nancy Grace segment and new interview excerpts with Jodi Stachowski, Avery's ex-girlfriend.



Reply
#53
(01-14-2016, 01:55 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:
(01-14-2016, 01:11 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: It's neither really. I just don't ever read your incredibly long replies because 1) usually the meaningful content is but one or two sentences and 2) You really aren't an expert when it comes to anything but puns and picking the nit. Blowing-kisses

Your reply confirms that it's both, really.

1) Obviously, if you didn't read my incredibly long posts, you wouldn't be able to categorize what you consider meaningful or not.

2) And, you just restated what I already said -- I don't claim to be an expert, you just keep falsely claiming that I claim to be one. Plus, your definition of "picking the nit" appears to be that which is inconvenient for you.

I'm going to focus on the case in this thread, Gunnar. As always, I'll read all of the posts, long or short, by experts and novices -- it's all interesting to me. You're obviously free to skip posts that don't suit your fancy.

You can keep bullshitting and critiquing me and my posts instead; you'll have free rein to do so without further response from me.
So I take it this wasn't your idea?
https://teespring.com/manitowoc-frame-shop
Reply
#54
(01-14-2016, 02:12 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Here's the Nancy Grace segment and new interview excerpts with Jodi Stachowski, Avery's ex-girlfriend.



Drinky DUI ex-GF will never see the stand.
Reply
#55
I find her to be very believable.

Also, anyone that is capable of burning to death an animal is equally capable of doing what was alleged to Teresa Hallbach.
Reply
#56
(01-14-2016, 01:42 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: pouring gasoline on the family cat and throwing it into a bonfire.


I hope he sits right where he is for the rest of his miserable life.

The only things I know about this case are what I've read in this thread. It takes a fucked up individual to deliberately hurt a defenseless animal. I wish him nothing but the worst for that alone. I hope he dies alone in agony.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#57
I'm not reading these posts unless/until I finish the series. I started watching it just a couple of days before it became major news and they totally spoiled it for me. Now I know where he is (and apparently how the murder trial ended). ? I'm not listening anymore and hoping I still enjoy the show and THEN I'll comment about it.
Commando Cunt Queen
Reply
#58
(01-14-2016, 04:32 PM)Duchess Wrote:
(01-14-2016, 01:42 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: pouring gasoline on the family cat and throwing it into a bonfire.


I hope he sits right where he is for the rest of his miserable life.

The only things I know about this case are what I've read in this thread. It takes a fucked up individual to deliberately hurt a defenseless animal. I wish him nothing but the worst for that alone. I hope he dies alone in agony.
He did own up to committing other crimes when he was younger. In 1981, he was convicted of burglary, according to a 2005 article from the Associated Press. According to footage in the Netflix series, in 1982, he pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after he threw his family's cat over a bonfire, causing it to ignite. He has always owned up to the crimes he's guilty of committing. That is the one thing through all of this that has really stood out for me. He's never claimed to be innocent of a crime he committed.
Reply
#59
For me, pleading guilty to stealing and to torturing a pet to death, after being witnessed and charged, doesn't make Avery an honest guy who would confess to murder for integrity's sake. Those undeniable criminal acts just show that he's dishonest and deeply cruel.

Pleading guilty to the burglary and animal cruelty would likely be advised under those conditions and result in a lighter sentence than going to trial and being found guilty. Pleading guilty served his self-interests.

Pleading guilty to a premeditated brutal murder he committed as an adult, where it's basically a life or death sentence only, would be a different story.
Reply
#60
(01-14-2016, 10:53 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Cutz, all of your points make some sense except for: A) the cops burning the body? So, they either brought her on to the Avery property and burned her while no one watched, or, you're suggesting, they burned her elsewhere and transported her remains back to Avery's? That's a tough one for me to buy.

I agree. It's both logistically and normatively questionable. If her body was in the car, it'd be easier to pin the framing case. It's hard to believe the cops burned her before, somehow while nobody was watching, or after, imaginably with tons of cops watching. Maybe burning her offsite and moving her? Then it's even harder to imagine they stuffed her body in a furnace somewhere, pulled out all the bones, and nobody sees it. Just gets more and more complicated, ya know. How'd they know he was having a bonfire if they did it before? Why go through the trouble if they could just plant her body on the premises? Very grey.

I don't think Avery is a great dude. Him killing the cat is disgusting. He's not the goofy, lovable guy that Netflix presents. But the cops look guilty as shit. Dirty cops don't get support. The fact that the FBI bent over backwards to try to prove them inculpable is appalling.

The lead investigators just look like garbage. Not necessarily in on any conspiracy, but the way they berated that kid is awful. How you pull a 16 year old out of school without parental consent escapes me. I have a friend who told me about cops doing a similar thing to her. There's great cops and there's really terrible people that become cops... just like any other profession I guess. In this case, it looks like the cops broke the law. I'd revoke the conviction.
Reply