"Making A Murderer"

[Tacori E-ring]

I just picked this back up again - I just finished Episode 5 so I made sure not to read through the thread.

Just wanted to say that the defense lawyers are doing an amazing job. I am enthralled by the details they are uncovering.

I agree. They also seem like they really care about justice.

***Spoiler alert*** (not sure if there are others on this thread, but just in case...)

Yes.

They seemed genuinely upset on a broader level by Steven's verdict (saw that episode today).

And they just both seem like nice genuine men. I really like them both.

On another note, I have to say, I don't think he should have been convicted. I don't particularly "like" him and I hate that he was cruel to a cat - hard for me to get over that - but there are just too many questions and weird things going on with all the evidence.

(now that I know the first verdict is it safe to go through the thread or is Brendan's verdict revealed somewhere?)

I would wait until you finish. One of my friend's had the shorter lawyer as a law professor. I guess he is just as nice IRL. I agree that he is not a saint but there seems to be a lot of reasonable doubt.

 

[CJ2008]

I would wait until you finish. One of my friend's had the shorter lawyer as a law professor. I guess he is just as nice IRL. I agree that he is not a saint but there seems to be a lot of reasonable doubt.

Really? Cool. And so nice to hear he is just as nice in real life. I'm not surprised, based on how genuine he comes across.

I feel terrible for saying this but there's something about Teresa's brother I don't like - can't put my finger on it.

And thanks for the warning to not look through the thread. I'll wait.

 

[missy]

I just picked this back up again - I just finished Episode 5 so I made sure not to read through the thread.

Just wanted to say that the defense lawyers are doing an amazing job. I am enthralled by the details they are uncovering.

I agree. They also seem like they really care about justice.

***Spoiler alert*** (not sure if there are others on this thread, but just in case...)

Yes.

They seemed genuinely upset on a broader level by Steven's verdict (saw that episode today).

And they just both seem like nice genuine men. I really like them both.

On another note, I have to say, I don't think he should have been convicted. I don't particularly "like" him and I hate that he was cruel to a cat - hard for me to get over that - but there are just too many questions and weird things going on with all the evidence.

(now that I know the first verdict is it safe to go through the thread or is Brendan's verdict revealed somewhere?)

CJ, I felt the same way after watching the whole documentary. Keep in mind it's been a while since I watched it but I remember seeing something afterwards with them being interviewed and I remember thinking (and this could be inaccurate because my memory is not always great) OK so now the money has run out and they are no longer helping him. So they were nice while they were being paid but now there is no more money coming in so they are no longer helping him. I know most of us would not work for free but isn't there such a thing as pro bono work? Just saying if they are so genuinely concerned about Steven being wrongly imprisoned why did they just stop helping him once the money was gone?

Again if I am remembering incorrectly I apologize but this is what I thought when I saw a segment with these lawyers discussing the case.

 

[CJ2008]

You know what, missy?

I didn't pay attention to whether Steven's lawyers were being paid or if they were pro bono all along. It's a detail I missed.

If they did stop after the money stopped...I don't know what to make of that. Definitely they could continue helping but at the same time who knows the reality - maybe they charged a lot less than they should have all along. Or they have things going on that would make it difficult to do it pro bono.

I don't know. It definitely puts a little bit of a ? for sure though.

The short guy seemed really affected by the outcome. Based on how he acted I'd say that if he/they did stop because they were no longer paid he'll eventually get involved again at some point. It looked like it was really eating him up. I hope it wasn't all for show. But still I understand - to a degree - that sometimes there are just things we may not understand why someone would / would not do something (which I do know you mention missy).

 

[telephone89]

I assume they were getting paid. SA had to settle the 36M$ lawsuit for 400k so he could afford a lawyer.

I don't fault them for not doing more pro-bono. Lets say they got ALL of this 400k, that's 200k each. And if they worked since the settlement to the end of the trial, that's 2 years. And those guys did A LOT. $100k/year isn't bad, but that's low for lawyers. *IF* they had other cases at the time that weren't pro-bono, they were basically working their asses off for this case, and getting little in return. I'm not sure what the going rate for billable hours is for a defense attorney, but even at say $500/hr that's only 200 hours of work/yr. That's 5 weeks of a 9-5 day. That is NOTHING, and I can almost guarantee that they did more than 5 weeks of work on the case (10 weeks total over the 2 years).

eta - Also, all of the other lawyers he's contacted (SA) since his conviction have turned him down for whatever reason. ONLY after the documentary came out did his current lawyer agree to take him on. That was still 8 or 9 years before this new person thought the case was worth anything. So, if you're faulting Strang and Buting, you should also look at all the other lawyers as well.

 

[missy]

Another possibility is that Steven Avery's previous attorneys are not so sure of his innocence.


On CBS good morning this past Friday Dean Strang was interviewed about this.

"Is Steven Avery guilty or innocent in the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach? Dean Strang, one of his lawyers featured in Netflix’s wildly popular docuseries Making a Murderer, put up a strong defense, but admitted during an appearance on CBS This Morning on Friday, January 15, that he has some doubts about the convict’s innocence."

“Sure, absolutely,” Strang replied when one of the hosts asked if he and co-counsel Jerry Buting think Avery could possibly be guilty. “And if it was OK to convict people on maybes, I wouldn’t be worried about this, but it’s not.”

snip...

eta - Also, all of the other lawyers he's contacted (SA) since his conviction have turned him down for whatever reason. ONLY after the documentary came out did his current lawyer agree to take him on. That was still 8 or 9 years before this new person thought the case was worth anything. So, if you're faulting Strang and Buting, you should also look at all the other lawyers as well.

Telephone you didn't understand the context. CJ and I were discussing how admirable these specific 2 attorneys were and how strongly they fought for Steven and we were not discussing the other attorneys past and present. We were specifically discussing Strang and Buting.

 

[telephone89]

Another possibility is that Steven Avery's previous attorneys are not so sure of his innocence.

On CBS good morning this past Friday Dean Strang was interviewed about this.

"Is Steven Avery guilty or innocent in the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach? Dean Strang, one of his lawyers featured in Netflix’s wildly popular docuseries Making a Murderer, put up a strong defense, but admitted during an appearance on CBS This Morning on Friday, January 15, that he has some doubts about the convict’s innocence."

“Sure, absolutely,” Strang replied when one of the hosts asked if he and co-counsel Jerry Buting think Avery could possibly be guilty. “And if it was OK to convict people on maybes, I wouldn’t be worried about this, but it’s not.”

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Lawyers *in general* don't ever say yes or no. They say they will defend, get a fair trial, show the evidence, blah blah.

And anyways, what he said is 100% true. A criminal trial requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not 'eh, maybe!'.

 

[telephone89]

@Missy - Yes I know. I was just further defending them. I don't think it's necessary to look at someone after a job (trial) has been done and say 'well they should have continued for free if they believed he was innocent'. That's not a practical or realistic view in most cases.

 

[missy]

Yes I agree a criminal trial demands proof beyond a reasonable doubt and we all know how great the USA's justice system is right. I mean look at OJ. He was innocent right? Our system has major flaws for sure. I doubt anyone would argue with you there. It is corrupt just like our government. IMO.

 

[missy]

@Missy - Yes I know. I was just further defending them. I don't think it's necessary to look at someone after a job (trial) has been done and say 'well they should have continued for free if they believed he was innocent'. That's not a practical or realistic view in most cases.

If I felt so strongly about a miscarriage of justice and I was a criminal defense attorney working on that case but my client ran out of money well let's just say I would move mountains to continue defending that client. Pro bono does exist as do other organizations that help prove innocence for people who cannot afford to pay their attorneys. We are talking about a life on the line. But then again I know not everyone is the same and this world is imperfect and I accept that as I have no other choice.

I was just chatting with CJ about how yes they seemed great while they were being paid to defend Steven but once the money ran out they were gone. Just sharing my observation that they are like all the rest. IMO.

 

[telephone89]

Hah yes. Speaking of OJ, he is getting his own TV movie soon (or maybe it's already out?)

 

[missy]

Hah yes. Speaking of OJ, he is getting his own TV movie soon (or maybe it's already out?)

IDK but there is a show about OJ on TV right now that I think is poorly done. Boring. I watched part of the first episode. A docudrama I believe. MY dh is watching it though.

 

[CJ2008]

@Missy - Yes I know. I was just further defending them. I don't think it's necessary to look at someone after a job (trial) has been done and say 'well they should have continued for free if they believed he was innocent'. That's not a practical or realistic view in most cases.

If I felt so strongly about a miscarriage of justice and I was a criminal defense attorney working on that case but my client ran out of money well let's just say I would move mountains to continue defending that client. Pro bono does exist as do other organizations that help prove innocence for people who cannot afford to pay their attorneys. We are talking about a life on the line. But then again I know not everyone is the same and this world is imperfect and I accept that as I have no other choice.

I was just chatting with CJ about how yes they seemed great while they were being paid to defend Steven but once the money ran out they were gone. Just sharing my observation that they are like all the rest. IMO.

The one thing that has been bugging me is that not a lot was said about finding other ways to run that EDTA test (unless I missed it. I have to admit I binged on the episodes and at times I was on PS and just doing things on the PC )

Can't a third party come up with a solid test to test EDTA?

(of course I am sure this is all very expensive and more complicated than I am making it sound - but this would answer the question once and for all. Isn't there ANYONE out there with the means capable of making this happen? I feel like that is probably the one thing - if I was unwilling or unable to do anything else - that I would continue to research or try to make happen (the EDTA test) if I truly believed there was a miscarriage of justice here. I would be reaching to other people/agencies who could make this happen.)

 

[CJ2008]

Just ran into this interview...going to read it all now...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2016/01/24/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-explains-the-real-cost-of-defending-steven-avery/#ddf07763d635

 

[GlamMosher]

From memory, of the $400k settlement, $140k of it had to pay the lawyers involved in the settlement. The $260k was used for the TH trail lawyers. So they did a lot of work for not that much more than the dude that arranged the settlement.

I'm pretty sure they ran with it until they couldn't any more? At that stage unless more evidence was found there wasn't much they could do. Now, 10 years on, the new lawyer is saying testing etc is being done again.

Edited because maths...

 

[Tacori E-ring]

From memory, of the $400k settlement, $140k of it had to pay the lawyers involved in the settlement. The $260k was used for the TH trail lawyers. So they did a lot of work for not that much more than the dude that arranged the settlement.

I'm pretty sure they ran with it until they couldn't any more? At that stage unless more evidence was found there wasn't much they could do. Now, 10 years on, the new lawyer is saying testing etc is being done again.

Edited because maths...

I agree.

Missy, I think both his lawyers genuinely cared and tried to help him. Don't forget he is also out of appeals. Unless they find NEW evidence, he will not be granted a new trial. I don't think anyone of use would expect them to dedicate their lives to freeing him. My friend said he was a great professor and a nice guy. So I will go on that opinion instead of what you see on Netflix.

 

[missy]

Thanks Tacori and Glam Mosher for the info. CJ, I am going to check out that interview, thanks.
I guess I still am leaning towards feeling he is guilty (partly a gut feeling) and I also remember what one of his defense attorneys said. That they sort of hope he *is* guilty otherwise how to make sense of all the years he has already spent in jail.

 

[missy]

Just sharing this interview. I have not yet read it and am running behind schedule today but will read it later. It's easier to click the link than to read what I copied and pasted but I copied and pasted for those of you who hate clicking links. But I think it's easier to read if you click the link.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/making-a-murderer-nancy-grace-856328

The HLN host says the filmmakers behaved irresponsibly as their hit series neglects key evidence proving Avery and his nephew raped and killed Teresa Halbach.

[Warning: This interview contains graphic details from Netflix's Making a Murderer and the Steven Avery case.]

Count HLN host Nancy Grace among those who think Steven Avery — the subject of Netflix's smash-hit docuseries Making a Murderer — is guilty of murdering 25-year-old Teresa Halbach, whose charred remains were found on his Wisconsin auto salvage property in 2005. Avery, who had previously served 18 years for a rape he did not commit, is currently serving life without the possibility of parole, as is his nephew, Brendan Dassey, who at age 16 admitted to being an accessory to the crime in what many viewers consider to be a coerced confession.

Grace has been covering the case since the murder investigation, having interviewed Avery on her show while the search for Halbach was still underway. (As she reveals in this interview, it was that conversation that tipped her off to Avery's guilt.) Grace recently devoted an hour to the topic, sharing a startling sit-down with Jodi Stachowski, who is portrayed in the series as Avery's devoted fiancee. But Stachowski now says she was coerced by Avery into maintaining his innocence on camera and that he is in fact a "monster" who she is certain is guilty. Also mentioned in the broadcast were portions of a detailed Dassey confession that did not make it into the series, a full transcript of which Grace shared with The Hollywood Reporter.


Here now is THR's conversation with Grace about the case that has riveted the country.

You appear in Making a Murderer. You covered the case early on, and one of the things you latched on to were letters Avery had sent the mother of his children while wrongfully imprisoned for rape — letters in which he writes things like, “I hate you, you got your divorce now you will pay for it,” and “If you don’t brang up my kids I will kill you. I promis. Ha. Ha. [sic]” What about those letters suggested to you that Avery was capable of the crimes for which he'd later be found guilty?

I’m going to talk about another letter first. I saw this letter, it was produced by his fiancee, Jodi Stachowski, and in it he is threatening her from behind bars. He’s telling her if she does not give him money that he will frame her for drunk driving. On other occasions she said — and I found her to be believable having worked with so many domestic violence victims — that if she did not make him look good to the Netflix documentarians, well, it was basically, “Do it, or else.” I’ve met women who would practically do anything rather than take another beating. It really struck me that she chose to eat rat poison just so she could get away from him and go to the hospital.

How did you get this interview with her?

When we first started covering the case, I had contacted so many people and we ended up getting to speak to her. She’s taking a lot of heat now, and I understand that because it’s easily argued that, well, when is she lying, then or now? However, having dealt with so many domestic violence victims, I don’t find it unusual that she chose to lie for him. Not at all.

And so nothing she told you in yesterday’s interview surprised you at all?

No. Not at all.

Before you had this information, what made you so confident of his guilt?

I hope you’re sitting down because this might take a while. Let me start with the most compelling evidence, which is the DNA evidence, mixed with the logistics, the timeline and common sense.

Starting at the beginning, Steven Avery was wrongfully convicted of rape. Why was he in the photo lineup to start with? Just before the victim was raped, Steven Avery had either rammed into a woman or run her off the road in his car and then pulled a gun on her. She happened to be married or related to a sheriff’s deputy. Another relative, a young female relative, had claimed that Avery molested her. The police knew this. When the rape victim gave her description and it sounded like Avery, who was on their minds because of the other incidents, they put him in the photo array — which is totally constitutional. She picked him out. It was not a plant by police — he was in the lineup with four or five other guys. This was in the late ‘80s, when you had to go on blood evidence, witness ID and corroboration. He was wrongfully convicted.

Now we fast-forward to this. He’s out two years. The DNA evidence is as such: His blood is found in six locations in her vehicle. Her DNA is on a bullet fragment in his garage. That bullet is without a doubt fired from his weapon which is hanging from a wall in his bedroom. Ballistics are like a fingerprint. Only one gun makes particular markings on a bullet as it hurtles down the barrel. It was from his gun and it had her DNA on it. It would be a very difficult thing for police to do to put her DNA on a bullet fragment that can only be identified under a microscope, in his garage.

Also very, very compelling is sweat DNA [found under the hood of his car that was not mentioned in the series]. Why is that compelling to me? Have you ever heard of a warrant for someone’s sweat? No. Because it doesn’t exist. You cannot extricate sweat from a human pursuant to a warrant. Blood, yes? I’ve done it a million times to get DNA. Hair? Yes. Pubic hair? Yes. Photographs of a naked body? Yes. Fingerprints? Yes. Walking sample? Yes! Writing sample? Yes! Speech? Yes! Sweat? No.

[Former Avery defense attorney] Dean Strang says there’s no such thing as sweat DNA — that you could never determine whether or not sweat is the source of someone’s DNA.

According to the trial lawyers, sweat was under the hood of Teresa Halbach’s car and it was his sweat. And there’s more. The day that Teresa goes missing she had been working for Autotrader. She had previously been to the Avery auto salvage lot on four or five occasions. She stated she did not want to go back [because] Avery creeped her out when he answered the door in a towel. They talked her into going back. That was about 2 o’clock in the afternoon. She was never seen alive again. If we’re talking about a conspiracy then I guess Ma Bell is in on it, because the phone records show that Steven Avery hid his identity through *67 and called her twice to get her over, pretending to be somebody else. Why did he do that? He even tells me on my show that she came over that afternoon.


When did you talk to him?

I guess it was 2005 when we were trying to help find Teresa Halbach. And that’s on camera. He says she came over, but then, that afternoon at 4:35 p.m., he tried to cover his tracks. He does not hide his identity this time. He calls her from his phone and says, “Hey, how come you never came over? Where are ya?” So he’s pretending she didn’t come to throw police off the track. But he tells me on the air that she came!

Now to get to where her car was found on the edge of his property. It was hidden behind limbs and leaves and another car hood and plywood. To get to it, you had to pass by an office of sorts where he is. So how did somebody get her car after she left, plant his blood in it, plant his sweat under the hood and leave it in the back of the lot without him seeing them come in? Not only that, but her bones, there’s about 270 bones in the human body, just about every bone including the tiniest one in your pinky, every single one was found in his burn pit. All of them. So she was killed, murdered somewhere else, and all of her bones are burned and transported there? And they didn’t drop one? Also there's her tooth and a rivet of her "Daisy Fuentes blue jeans" that she was wearing the day she goes missing. All of this is found in his burn pit in his backyard.

What about the lack of blood?

What about it?

Well, Making a Murderer puts the question forth that if she was truly raped and stabbed to death in his bedroom, there would be blood evidence on the floors and walls. Same with the garage where she was supposedly shot. Investigators cut up the floor and went deep into cracks and found nothing.

Brendan Dassey’s family saw bleach on his pants that day and he said that there was a bleach cleanup. We know that Avery thought to burn all her clothes and everything to do with her person and hack her body up. The tool used to cut her body up was found in the burn pit along with her. Her camera, her phone, all that was found burned as well. If she were killed on the floor, on a sheet, because he was so thorough in burning everything, he would have burned that too.

He had a deep gash on his finger and his blood, I assume from dismembering her body, was found in his laundry room and around the door frame as well. So the logistics of her being there that afternoon, disappearing and never being seen alive again; her bones being found in his burn pit; her clothes; her tooth; her camera; her car; her DNA on a bullet fired from his gun in the garage. And she is never seen again. That evening, an Avery relative sees Avery sitting at his fire pit watching the fire. So how someone else could catch Teresa Halbach after she leaves sometime after 2:30 p.m., kill her, dismember her, bring her back to the fire pit, hide her car in time for him to be sitting there tending the fire that evening is ludicrous.

And her bones are not just dumped in the fire pit as if she was killed elsewhere, burned and dumped there — and this is critical. Her remains are interwoven with the steel-belt radials of the tires in the fire. That proves that is where they were burned. They were not burned elsewhere and brought there.

And his nephew Brendan Dassey?

Brendan Dassey is a Pandora’s box. I spoke with his lawyer [Len Kachinsky], who says he had his defense investigator there at the time of the confession and that he had his cellphone with him and was available to be reached if any issues came up. His family was there. And if you watch the confession, you see him clearly telling about how he came in and Teresa Halbach was already face-down on a bed and she was [bound by] all limbs and he said, "Go have sex with her" and Dassey did. And then Avery killed her and he described it in chilling detail. Now everybody’s saying Dassey wasn’t there, he didn’t do it. Well, his confession jibes with the forensic evidence.


You didn’t find his confession coerced?

Now when you say coerced — and that rolls so easily off the tongue of a journalist, doesn’t it? — but other U.S. Supreme Court rulings [state that] coercion is not “continuing to ask questions.” No one was yelling at him. They didn’t even raise their voices for Pete’s sake. No cursing, no beating, no slapping, no threatening, no tricking. Nothing. They keep asking him questions in a very calm manner, I might add. But where’s the coercion? I don’t buy the whole coercion thing. I watched the videos and, yes, they keep asking him questions over and over. If I were a relative of Teresa Halbach’s, I’d hope that they do keep asking him questions. But even without Dassey, Avery can be convicted stand-alone. It’s overwhelming.

But doesn’t he deserve to at least have a lawyer present? Kachinsky wasn’t even there.

As I just said, I spoke to his lawyer — who, P.S., is battling leukemia and is getting death threats including, “I hope you die of cancer,” which I guess technically is not a threat. But the police did not grab Dassey and spirit him off in the night. His defense lawyer knew he was there. The defense lawyer sent the defense investigator there. His family knew he was there. [Brendan] never said, “I don’t want to talk to you.”

Do you think he was intellectually capable of saying such a thing to figures of authority?

People have pointed out that he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And that may be true. Is everybody so conditioned by the media that every [criminal] is like Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can? No! It’s not like that. Cops and defendants are everyday people. Not everybody has a Ph.D. Some people have a high school degree. Some don’t even have that. That does not mean you cannot commit a crime and in this case a heinous crime. [Dassey is now] 25 years old.

You mentioned a confession where Brendan goes through it and it all matches the evidence. What confession is that, because I did not see that on Making a Murderer?

I played portions of it on the air last night. Let me see if I can find it. [She calls her office and has a copy emailed to THR.] It’s during one of his confessions, and remember not all of his confessions came into evidence. Dassey’s confessions did not come in against Avery. But they had taped hours worth of confessions.

Here we go: “Dassey: He went to go pick up some stuff around the yard then after that we, he asked me to come in the house cuz he wanted to show me somethin'. And he showed me that she was laying on the bed, her hands were roped up to the bed and that her legs were cuffed. And then he told me to have sex with her and so I did because I thought I was not gonna get away from 'em cuz he was too strong, so I did what he said and then after that, he untied her and uncuffed her and then he brought her outside and before he went outside, he told me to grab her clothes and her shoes. So we went into the garage and before she went out, when before he took her outside, he had tied up her hands and feet and then was in the garage and he stabbed her and then he told me to.”

This is part of a four-hour confession. “And, after that he wanted to make sure she was dead or somethin' so he shot her five times, and while he was doing that I wasn't looking because I can't watch that stuff. So I was standing by the big door in the garage and then after that, he took her outside and we put her on the fire and we used her clothes to clean up the, some of the blood. And, when we put her in the fire, and her clothes, we were standing right by the garage, to wait for it to get down so we threw some of that stuff on it after it went down.”

As best as I can recall, that particular confession never made it into any of the 10 hours of Making a Murderer.

Correct. I mean he goes on and on.

That's a lot of detail.

I know, and I’ll tell you another thing: A lot of times what you see in the documentary he’s pausing, he’s waiting, he’s looking down — that doesn’t mean he’s stupid. When I have to say I’ve done something wrong or something I wish I hadn’t done, I catch myself looking down. I see defendants do it, I see my children doing it. It’s normal. You feel bad. You’re embarrassed. You don’t want to admit it. I’m not at all surprised that he was looking away and slow to answer. Who wouldn’t be at a time like that?

OK, here’s a little more:

“BRENDAN: [H]e said that he was gonna take her out to the garage and stab her and shoot her.

POLICE: He actually says that to her or does he say that to you or — who's he saying that to?

BRENDAN: To both of us.

POLICE: And what is [Teresa] saying when he tells her that?

BRENDAN: To not do that."

It goes on and on. I mean really, I’ll tell you the truth. (Crying.) I don’t like reading his statement. I don’t like reading it out loud. It makes me feel terrible to think what she went through.

What would you say to the filmmakers, then? Do you feel they behaved irresponsibly in the way they told the story?

Yes, I do. And I do not understand why I and other people that are pointing out the truth are taking so much heat for this. To blame the cops. And, by the way, Avery is now blaming his own blood brothers. He’s also trying to blame Teresa Halbach’s brother for the murders and framing him. "Blame anybody but me." And then there’s the testimony of his cellmates behind bars about how he fantasized about building the perfect torture chamber to torture, rape and murder women. And how the best way to get rid of the body is to burn it. Of course, anybody behind bars is going to be attacked for their credibility. Does that mean they’re lying? No. But when you look at all this evidence, it’s overwhelming. And to mislead viewers and make them think this horrible injustice has taken place is wrong.

One thing does hearten me and that is that people care. They care that somebody is wrongfully convicted in their eyes. They want to set it right. They want the right thing. I understand where people are coming from — but they have made their decision based on this documentary. And that is not right.

You’ve gone out on a limb on a lot of cases. Are you taking more heat on this one than other ones?

(Laughs.) Gee, that’s kind of hard to compare. What’s hotter: a white flame or a blue flame? I don’t know. They both burn, let me put it like that. Yes, it’s hurtful. Of course it’s hurtful. I’m not a robot. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t have any skin in the game. My deal with HLN doesn’t have anything to do with ratings. I don’t think that’s right for what I do. I’m not going to get a big bump in pay or raise or a promotion if I get 5,000 more viewers. My paycheck remains the same if I get a ton of viewers or very few viewers on a night. The reason I am speaking out is that I have been on the Halbach case since the get-go, when it was just a missing person. And I remember talking to Steven Avery about where she was. And I can remember the moment. I knew right then that he was lying. And if he was lying, then he killed her.

What was it that he said that tipped you off?

It was very simple. Him lying about her car being on the property. He was trying to explain that the car had gotten there and he never noticed. To buy the theory that the cops did this, you would have to believe that they knew that he called Teresa over that day; that they killed her; that they burned her body and planted all this evidence. It’s inconceivable. It cannot all be explained away. Why? Because it’s the not the truth.

If you had Steven and Brendan back on your show now, what would you tell them?

I know that they would lie. So frankly, having them on, other than for the pure prurient sensationalism of having them on and questioning them, I don’t know that they would ever tell the truth about anything. But if I did have them on I would like them to go through the timeline to prove once and for all what “really happened that day.” Because Steven Avery never took the stand. He knew he could not endure cross-examination so he never took the stand. So what supposedly happened when Teresa Halbach left? How could someone get on his property to plant all this evidence? Did he enlist the phone company to make up the fact that he hid his ID to lure her over? And why would he call her to say, “Hey, you never showed up?” What innocent reason could excuse that nefarious behavior? Why would he be covering his tracks if he had not killed her? Why would Dassey give a statement like that? No one was beating him, threatening him, disallowing him to leave. Nothing like that. He even implicated himself. Steven Avery killed Teresa Halbach. It’s just that simple.

Assuming then that Steven Avery is inherently bad, what does that make Brendan Dassey?

I think that when you choose to stand by when a murder and rape and torture takes place, then you’re just as bad. Standing by while this evil plays out is wrong. I’m not labeling anybody good or bad. I’m not here to make a moral judgment. I’m here to speak what I believe is the truth, and this is the truth.

 

[CJ2008]

I was JUST in the middle of posting back to you to say that the interview I had posted was a little thin I was hoping for more from it, when I saw your post.

Thanks Missy!

I'll definitely read this.

 

[missy]

Thanks CJ. I will read the Nancy Grace interview later. It's a bit early in the morning for me to read Nancy Grace lol.

 

[missy]

I read the Nancy Grace interview and I have to say I still think he is guilty and not just my gut is saying that but every spidey sense I have. Reading her interview just reinforces my feeling of his guilt. And now I am not so sure of Brendan's innocence either.

 

[telephone89]

From memory, of the $400k settlement, $140k of it had to pay the lawyers involved in the settlement. The $260k was used for the TH trail lawyers. So they did a lot of work for not that much more than the dude that arranged the settlement.

I'm pretty sure they ran with it until they couldn't any more? At that stage unless more evidence was found there wasn't much they could do. Now, 10 years on, the new lawyer is saying testing etc is being done again.

Edited because maths...

Holy smokes. Well my math for the length of trial was way off, but this quote was shocking:

Editor's Note: So if we do the math and estimate the expenses in the Avery case at 10 percent of the total, that means Strang and Buting were working for about $54 an hour. After expenses, which Strang estimated as over $45 an hour when he started his practice (back in Part I of the interview), he and Buting were working for about $9 an hour, or a little more than minimum wage. And that's the best case scenario.



Good for them. It just makes me like them more haha.

 

[House Cat]

The burned bones have always been a huge point of contention for me. To read that they were intertwined with the burned tire says something to me.

Nancy did exaggerate the huge gash on Steven's thumb. It was little more than a cut.

I am still not able to see how he could clean up blood in the cluttered areas where he lived. There would be spatter all over the areas where the assaults occurred.

He supposedly shot her with a .22. According to my husband who is extremely experienced with firearms, a .22 caliber firearm can't shoot clean through a rabbit, let alone make its way through a human body and maintain enough force to lodge itself into a wall.

His letters to his wife and girlfriend paint a very different picture of who he is. Not so much the smiling, sweet, forging man these producers want you to believe he is.

 

[telephone89]

Alright, some responses to the NG interview. And fwiw, I'm not totally sold on a guilty or not guilty for SA. Alls I know is I think the cops ****ed up. So I think a new trial would be fair.

It would be a very difficult thing for police to do to put her DNA on a bullet fragment that can only be identified under a microscope, in his garage.
I 100% believe it was a bullet fired from his gun. So what? I'm sure he shoots a lot of random shit. The FACT that this was contaminated in evidence and was shown as inconclusive means more to me than being the ONLY SINGLE piece of evidence with her dna on it.

He says she came over, but then, that afternoon at 4:35 p.m., he tried to cover his tracks. He does not hide his identity this time. He calls her from his phone and says, “Hey, how come you never came over? Where are ya?” So he’s pretending she didn’t come to throw police off the track. But he tells me on the air that she came!
This is interesting. Changing stories always has me a little suspicious.

Not only that, but her bones, there’s about 270 bones in the human body, just about every bone including the tiniest one in your pinky, every single one was found in his burn pit. All of them. So she was killed, murdered somewhere else, and all of her bones are burned and transported there?
I was under the impression that some were found at the quarry? This doesn't seem to add up.

The confession part was interesting. I knew they had left parts out of the documentary. I *think* what I had posted a few pages back was that their first confession was NOT video taped. I had originally thought THIS was when he had fully confessed, but it wasn't fully admissible for whatever reason. Then, on the later video taped confession, it does seem like the investigators already KNOW what he needs to say, so they are 'probing' him for the answers.

If this goes to a new trial, I'd certainly watch it. But not much we can really do until then.

 

[House Cat]

From now on, I will always keep in mind the real facts about Steven Avery when thinking about this case:

The facts that we actually know are that he is a cat torturing, woman abusing individual who has fantasized out loud about torturing and killing women. We also know his temper is so bad that he has landed himself in jail for running a woman off the road.

This seems like a deeply disturbed man to me.

 

[CJ2008]

The lack of any blood spatter whatsoever really bothers me.

The inconsistencies and "weird" things that the police were called out on really bother me. The breach of various protocols really bothers me (like allowing the ex boyfriend to be part of the search party, etc.)

The fact that the car was covered by like 3 tree branches (exaggerating here) and 10 feet (and here) into the salvage lot when it could been placed much deeper / hidden in or crushed really bothers me.

The fact that evidence (like the key and the bullet) were not there during numerous visits over a period of time but then suddenly appears really bothers me.

(feel free to correct me if any of the above facts are wrong)

After reading the interview with Nancy Grace, the following things bother me:

The change of story with the phone calls. But - believe it or not I see that as somewhat minor. Especially if it is true that Steven's first phone call was to Teresa's office, not to her cell phone.

The "sweat DNA" really freaked me out. Until I then read that there is no way to tell where DNA comes from. And that the guy collecting the evidence was possibly the one that contaminated the hood of the truck. (and BTW - I am not a scientist - but if it is true that there is no such thing as "sweat DNA" this needs to be debunked once and for all. If there is an absolute yes or no answer it needs to be debunked. These kinds of things drive me nuts.)

There are just too many questions. I don't like Steven Avery - and even if the ONLY thing that was true about him is that he tortured that cat then we are probably all better off with him behind bars. BUT - there are too many nagging questions that were not answered. I hope he did it and that Brendan did it so the right 2 people are in jail. But if they didn't...wow. Not to mention there is a killer still out there.

Poor Teresa - she seemed like a nice person in the video they played of her.

 

[telephone89]

@CJ - that car was super sketchy. And that girl (ex Private investigator) found it in 15m? On a 40 acre lot? Yeah, okay not weird at all...

 

[CJ2008]

@CJ - that car was super sketchy. And that girl (ex Private investigator) found it in 15m? On a 40 acre lot? Yeah, okay not weird at all...

Yes - that goes hand in hand with the car being 10 feet away from the entrance with 1 branch on top of it - and wasn't she Teresa's aunt, actually? Or someone's aunt?

But yeah - that too (plus her whole affect bothered me. Something was off.)

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I also HOPE he is guilty because the thought that someone would be wrongly imprisoned not once but TWICE would be so difficult to accept.

Anyone else find Teresa's videos extremely strange? Most people do not leave good bye videos. It is almost as if she knew something would happen to her. Personally the ex-BF is extremely shady. He has also had restraining orders against him.

 

[House Cat]

I also HOPE he is guilty because the thought that someone would be wrongly imprisoned not once but TWICE would be so difficult to accept.

Anyone else find Teresa's videos extremely strange? Most people do not leave good bye videos. It is almost as if she knew something would happen to her. Personally the ex-BF is extremely shady. He has also had restraining orders against him.

Ex-BF was super shady, but given the extreme bias of the documentary, I wonder if they skewed his image to appear as if he were the potential murderer.

I didn't see the entire video of Teresa. Was it really a farewell video? Why would anyone (not suicidal) do such a thing unless it was a "Bye! Going off to college!" Sort of thing?