Making a Murderer -- DID STEVEN AVERY REALLY KILL TERESA HALBACH?

[Blindgreed1]

Thanks for the link Gunnar. I've already read that article - it does not contain anything showing that the FBI testing of Avery's blood from Teresa's car contained EDTA.

I believe you're mistaken. I haven't personally read them all, but I have not seen any exhibits, any testimony, or any evidence that the FBI tests showed EDTA presence in Avery's blood collected from Teresa's car.

If there was evidence of positive EDTA results in those FBI docs and LeBeau lied under oath, we would have heard about it, in my opinion. There are thousands of people, including those working on Avery's new defense team, who were poring over the docs looking for any indication of positive EDTA test results when the docs were released several months ago. If it had been found, it would have been big news.

Instead, after the doc dump, the new defense team publicly questioned the validity of the FBI result by calling into question the testing parameters/protocols (which were based on the OJ Simpson case when his attorneys argued that OJ's blood at the crime scene had been planted for a vial -- ref: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/26/us/fbi...blood.html ).

Which is where home boy cut his teeth on EDTA contamination. He works for the FBI, unless of course he is getting paid to be a professional witness on the stand. Do your homework on these people HOtD. Eventually 2+2=4

[HairOfTheDog]

You don't present evidence or logic, Gunnar.

You oppose evidence and logic, make false claims, and tell people who explain their reasoning and provide sources that it's irrelevant (or suggest that they're not intelligent enough to know what they're talking about) if what they present doesn't support what you believe.

I don't think it's in your DNA to be able to engage in a rational exchange of opinion and fact when you've already dug your heels in.

In any case, I always do my homework, which is not limited to watching a defense mini-series. Upthread, you criticized that homework because only the tv show was relevant to you. Flip flop.

I read LeBeau's CV when the case went to trial and read it again years later when the Netflix series came out. You can view it here: content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-433-CV-of-Marc-LeBeau.pdf . He was a qualified forensics expert for years before the Avery trial. Some forensic professionals who watched the series attest to his findings. Others say that the testing protocols should be updated.

So, if new blood testing by a defense-approved expert using an approved updated protocol is conducted and it proves conclusively that Avery's blood collected from Teresa's car is negative for EDTA, will you acknowledge that the blood was not planted and the 'framed' theory is seriously weakened? Or, will you change course and claim that the new tests are irrelevant/tainted because they undermine your theory? I suspect the latter.

If ever you're interested in doing some homework, you can find the trial transcripts, evidence docs, expert CVs and such here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/ http://www.stevenaverycase.org/exhibits/

[Blindgreed1]

You don't present evidence or logic, Gunnar.

You oppose evidence and logic, make false claims, and tell people who explain their reasoning and provide sources that it's irrelevant (or suggest that they're not intelligent enough to know what they're talking about) if what they present doesn't support what you believe.

I don't think it's in your DNA to be able to engage in a rational exchange of opinion and fact when you've already dug your heels in.

In any case, I always do my homework, which is not limited to watching a defense mini-series. Upthread, you criticized that homework because only the tv show was relevant to you. Flip flop.

I read LeBeau's CV when the case went to trial and read it again years later when the Netflix series came out. You can view it here: content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-433-CV-of-Marc-LeBeau.pdf . He was a qualified forensics expert for years before the Avery trial. Some forensic professionals who watched the series attest to his findings. Others say that the testing protocols should be updated.

So, if new blood testing by a defense-approved expert using an approved updated protocol is conducted and it proves conclusively that Avery's blood collected from Teresa's car is negative for EDTA, will you acknowledge that the blood was not planted and the 'framed' theory is seriously weakened? Or, will you change course and claim that the new tests are irrelevant/tainted because they undermine your theory? I suspect the latter.

If ever you're interested in doing some homework, you can find the trial transcripts, evidence docs, expert CVs and such here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/ http://www.stevenaverycase.org/exhibits/

There's no flip flop, and I've presented facts. I happen to know a bit more about blood analysis than what you give me credit for and I can see flaws in the prosecutions theory that contamination vs. blood from an EDTA tube and I've examined it personally. You can't say without any doubt that the difference is a boatload of EDTA vs. trace amounts in a sample is conclusive. It all depends on the storage conditions, expiration date of the tube, how well it's mixed after collection and a multitude of other variables. What is conclusive is that EDTA doesn't exist in the human body.
If a reputable independent lab performs the analysis and finds there's no EDTA in the sample, I will concede, but trust me that isn't going to be the finding here. If you want to talk about flip flops, read back to where you stated the Avery family could pull off this elaborate coverup of a murder one day and praise Brandon's release the next. That's text book flip flopping.

[HairOfTheDog]

There's no flip flop, and I've presented facts. I happen to know a bit more about blood analysis than what you give me credit for and I can see flaws in the prosecutions theory that contamination vs. blood from an EDTA tube and I've examined it personally. You can't say without any doubt that the difference is a boatload of EDTA vs. trace amounts in a sample is conclusive. It all depends on the storage conditions, expiration date of the tube, how well it's mixed after collection and a multitude of other variables. What is conclusive is that EDTA doesn't exist in the human body.
If a reputable independent lab performs the analysis and finds there's no EDTA in the sample, I will concede, but trust me that isn't going to be the finding here. If you want to talk about flip flops, read back to where you stated the Avery family could pull off this elaborate coverup of a murder one day and praise Brandon's release the next. That's text book flip flopping.

You apparently don't know the meaning of "flip flop" or you're pretending you don't.

There is no contradiction or reversal in stating that people of low intelligence can and do commit terrible crimes (though you claimed the two were mutually exclusive) and believing that people of low IQ convicted of terrible crimes deserve a new trial when there is evidence of a coerced confession. That's what I've consistently said and that's where I remain.

I have never questioned your professional credentials or knowledge.

[Blindgreed1]

There's no flip flop, and I've presented facts. I happen to know a bit more about blood analysis than what you give me credit for and I can see flaws in the prosecutions theory that contamination vs. blood from an EDTA tube and I've examined it personally. You can't say without any doubt that the difference is a boatload of EDTA vs. trace amounts in a sample is conclusive. It all depends on the storage conditions, expiration date of the tube, how well it's mixed after collection and a multitude of other variables. What is conclusive is that EDTA doesn't exist in the human body.
If a reputable independent lab performs the analysis and finds there's no EDTA in the sample, I will concede, but trust me that isn't going to be the finding here. If you want to talk about flip flops, read back to where you stated the Avery family could pull off this elaborate coverup of a murder one day and praise Brandon's release the next. That's text book flip flopping.

You apparently don't know the meaning of "flip flop" or you're pretending you don't.

There is no contradiction or reversal in stating that people of low intelligence can and do commit terrible crimes (though you claimed the two were mutually exclusive) and believing that people of low IQ convicted of terrible crimes deserve a new trial when there is evidence of a coerced confession. That's what I've consistently said and that's where I remain.

I have never questioned your professional credentials or knowledge.

My claim was that they didn't have the mental capacity to pull off such an elaborate cover up. You claimed they could. Nobody has ever questioned that people of low IQ could commit terrible crimes. Quit trying to blur the lines.

[HairOfTheDog]

My claim was that they didn't have the mental capacity to pull off such an elaborate cover up. You claimed they could. Nobody has ever questioned that people of low IQ could commit terrible crimes. Quit trying to blur the lines.

Whatever the cause, your frequent blurred understanding and apparent memory loss is not caused by me or anyone else. It's your issue, Gunnar.

--Diminished mental capacity is typically measured by IQ when there's no obvious brain trauma/injury. Both Avery and Dassey were deemed competent to stand trial. But, I'm not challenging your layman's assessment of their mental capacity, regardless of how you choose to define 'mental capacity' now.

The fact is that people with low IQs or other forms of mental incapacity do sometimes commit horrible crimes and try to cover them up simply, chaotically, or elaborately (in your view).

--The semantics are irrelevant anyway since YOU did in fact directly state that you don't think any of the Averys are intelligent enough to have pulled off the crimes and get caught after unsuccessfully trying to cover them up. Those were YOUR words.
Reference:

I don't think anyone in the Avery family has the intelligence to pull off something like this.

[Blindgreed1]

My claim was that they didn't have the mental capacity to pull off such an elaborate cover up. You claimed they could. Nobody has ever questioned that people of low IQ could commit terrible crimes. Quit trying to blur the lines.

Whatever the cause, your frequent blurred understanding and apparent memory loss is not caused by me or anyone else. It's your issue, Gunnar.

--Diminished mental capacity is typically measured by IQ when there's no obvious brain trauma/injury. Both Avery and Dassey were deemed competent to stand trial. But, I'm not challenging your layman's assessment of their mental capacity, regardless of how you choose to define 'mental capacity' now.

The fact is that people with low IQs or other forms of mental incapacity do sometimes commit horrible crimes and try to cover them up simply, chaotically, or elaborately (in your view).

--The semantics are irrelevant anyway since YOU did in fact directly state that you don't think any of the Averys are intelligent enough to have pulled off the crimes and get caught after unsuccessfully trying to cover them up. Those were YOUR words.
Reference:

I don't think anyone in the Avery family has the intelligence to pull off something like this.

Yes, meaning the elaborate cover up that is being suggested. I don't believe you are really this dumb HOtD. You are really reaching and coming up empty.

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, that's good that you don't believe something that's not true this time, Gunnar; I'm not THAT dumb.

And, there have been no attempts to blur lines or reach on my part. Your post to which I responded read to me that you were focused on the "mental capacity" vs. "low IQ" verbiage. If I read you wrong, fair enough.

I understand now that you believe Avery DOES have the mental capacity/IQ to brutally murder someone, but he DOES NOT have the mental capacity/IQ to move a car in his salvage yard, clean up, and burn a body and personal belongings in a fire pit (then lie about it). There we have a difference of opinion.

Avery ran a salvage yard, had burned things in the fire pit many times, had stoked a bonfire after Teresa went missing, had previously doused his cat in gasoline and tossed it in a fire pit, and had survived 18 years behind bars with criminals. I think he has the mental capacity/IQ to move a car, clean up, and burn a body.

Whether Avery and/or Dassey did it or not, I have reasonable doubt about exactly where/how on the property Teresa was killed. I also suspect that her car key was planted in the room and that Dassey was improperly interrogated/coerced to build the case.

[HairOfTheDog]

This is a case where because his IQ is so low, he truly may not know the difference between right and wrong.

I personally believe he does know that what he did was very wrong.

It'll be interesting to see if the Hallbach's want him prosecuted again.

One thing that the Netflix series left out is the content of Brendan's recorded calls to his mother. If the prosecution and family do decide to retry him, I wonder if they'll use them at the new trial since the taped confession you posted won't be admissible.

The day after his videotaped confession, Brendan called his mom. In that call, along with telling her they did it (this was before he recanted), he tells his mom he told police about how Steven used to touch him and it made him uncomfortable. She seems upset that he didn't tell her about it before and he seems confused because he didn't stop Steven.

He asks about what will happen if Steven gets pissed off if he takes her advice and tells the police how Steven made him participate in the killing and wonders how much trouble he'll get in for cleaning up reddish black stuff from the garage. He also talks about how Steven 'fake pumped' other boys in the family and alludes to some other sexual impropriety between Steven and a girl as well.

It would probably be difficult to use the call records though. A few months later, during his psych eval, he answered 'no' when asked if he'd ever been sexually assaulted and it's hard to tell what's fact or fiction from Dassey (who was deemed highly suggestible by the psychologist who evaluated him, with an IQ above competency level in the lower average range). Avery's new attorney denied the molestation allegations on his behalf a few months ago.

I'll be surprised if Brendan Dassey is retried even if prosecutors firmly believe he helped Steven Avery kill Teresa Halbach given Dassey's unreliability and the physical evidence tying back to only Avery (unless possibly if Teresa's family absolutely insists on it).

Refs:
Dassey calls transcripts: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1nzus-...5uRTg/view
Dassey psych eval: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1nzus-...RfQ2s/view

[Blindgreed1]

The judge ordered Dassy be released pending his appeal.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Jud...38936.html

[HairOfTheDog]

^ Thanks for the update, Gunnar.

I read that Dassey's family was hoping to have him home by Thanksgiving and that he was supposed to be released tomorrow. Doesn't look like that's gonna happen now.



A federal appeals court just ruled ... Wisconsin prison officials should ignore the ruling of a lower court, ordering the release of Dassey.

The appeals court ruled it would be wrong to release the 27-year-old until prosecutors have a chance to appeal the ruling that the conviction was unconstitutional because it was based on an involuntary confession.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/11/17/brendan-da...-murderer/

[Midwest Spy]

I guess I'm not upset that Dassey is being released. After all, he's been incarcerated for 10'years or so.

I still personally believe he participated and also believe his uncle most likely encouraged him to do so, even if maybe he wouldn't have done something like that on his own.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yeah, he's served more time than a lot of convicted killers, actually.

But, Dassey's not being released -- at least, not for now. The appeals court overruled the lower court's ruling to release him pending appeal. So, Dassey will remain in prison until the State of Wisconsin can make a case challenging the lower court's ruling that Dassey's confession was involuntary. That could take quite some time.

If the Appeals court finds that the confession was involuntary, the State can either decide to drop the charges and set him free or re-try him for the murder (without being able to use his confession as evidence in the re-trial). I don't think they'd re-try without the confession, but it's possible.

[HairOfTheDog]

I guess I'm not upset that Dassey is being released. After all, he's been incarcerated for 10'years or so.

I still personally believe he participated and also believe his uncle most likely encouraged him to do so, even if maybe he wouldn't have done something like that on his own.

He's not going anywhere.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that Dassey's confession wasn't coerced or unreasonably obtained, by a vote of 4 to 3.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...tands.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/arts/....html?_r=0