Why if Teresa Halbach was afraid of Steven Avery and he had sexually harassed her nude with a towel did she willingly return to his home and enter unescorted, to get a story for Auto Trader? That makes zero sense. She was not a stupid or clueless woman.

And the towel story is entirely uncorroborated. It's myth directly from Mr. Sexting's lips alone. There is no evidence that ever happened.

Anonymous wrote:As I watched the police interrogate Brendan and Steven, I kept asking where the f**k are their lawyers. My father was s defense attorney who told me if I am ever in an adversarial position with the police I should do two things: shut my yap and request a lawyer. I will impart this some advice to my daughter.

I agree and it's unfortunate most people do otherwise. Even if I'm accused of a crime and am innocent, I am going to request an attorney and say nothing till they get there. I always thought that the only people who request attorneys right away and stay silent are the guilty ones, but obviously this is far from true.

FWIW, I believe Avery most likely did do it but I don't think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think Brendan had anything to do with it.

As I watched the police interrogate Brendan and Steven, I kept asking where the f**k are their lawyers. My father was s defense attorney who told me if I am ever in an adversarial position with the police I should do two things: shut my yap and request a lawyer. I will impart this some advice to my daughter.

Anonymous wrote:I have to find the article, but one of the jurors in the Avery trial felt pressured to get a guilty verdict bc of fear for his/her own life and family safety

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

I have to find the article, but one of the jurors in the Avery trial felt pressured to get a guilty verdict bc of fear for his/her own life and family safety

Anonymous wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2016/01/making_a_murderer_is_so_emotionally_manipulative_it_left_me_angry.html

This may help explain why the jury verdicts seem so inconsistent with the evidence after watching the show.

Not for me. The fact that the first vote in Avery's jury was 7 not guilty and 2 or 3 guilty suggests to me that the views of the jurors who saw all the evidence was not that different from the documentary viewers. And I think it is completely absurd to suggest that Avery and Dassey successfully cleaned up all the blood that would have been in that mess of a garage (that had a floor filled with cracks all over).

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2016/01/making_a_murderer_is_so_emotionally_manipulative_it_left_me_angry.html

This may help explain why the jury verdicts seem so inconsistent with the evidence after watching the show.

Anonymous wrote:I just finished watching the series. It makes me sick to know that people like Lenk and Coburn are still in their jobs.

Question for attorneys - I didn't understand why Avery's attorneys were prevented from presenting theories of other potential killers during the trial. Isn't it pretty typical for a defense attorney to present other theories that can create reasonable doubt? They were instructed that they couldn't present any argument other than Brendan Dassey as a real potential killer. Is this really permitted?

I'm also really struggling with what the heck happened on those juries? Brendan's jury - seriously? And even what happened on Avery's jury - it sounded like one dominant voice pressured the others into voting guilty?

I think they said it was a Wisconsin state law. I'm not sure how many other states have that kind of law. It does seem bizarre

After watching the entire show, I just can't believe that 24 people (2 sets of juries) voted guilty. It's crazy that not one person had any sort of reasonable doubt in their mind. I just don't see how it's possible. Nothing was irrefutable, lots of evidence was tainted and they never found any REAL proof in my mind. Sure he may have done it, but he may not have.

and poor Brendan!!!! They mentioned he had learning disabilities, but I think it went beyond that. I think he imagined the whole thing. So sad.

I just finished watching the series. It makes me sick to know that people like Lenk and Coburn are still in their jobs.

Question for attorneys - I didn't understand why Avery's attorneys were prevented from presenting theories of other potential killers during the trial. Isn't it pretty typical for a defense attorney to present other theories that can create reasonable doubt? They were instructed that they couldn't present any argument other than Brendan Dassey as a real potential killer. Is this really permitted?

I'm also really struggling with what the heck happened on those juries? Brendan's jury - seriously? And even what happened on Avery's jury - it sounded like one dominant voice pressured the others into voting guilty?

Anonymous wrote:Based on what I have been reading there was a lot of evidence not shown in the documentary that really proves him to be the murdered, including that the DNA was sweat not blood, her DNA is on a bullet fired frm his gun etc..Was he framed for the rape yes? but he also sounds a like he in mentally ill and had already been accused of stalking hallback etc.

They covered the bullet - it is the one found in the garage on umteenth search months later (I think in one of the searches after Brendan "confessed"). But the Manitowoc police were involved in the search when it was eventually found. Much like the key - which had none of Hallbach's DNA which is basically impossible but did have non-blood DNA from Avery. Is there anyone that doesn't think they cleaned the key of all DNA (thus removing Hallbach's) and then put Avery's on it and then planted it? I see the bullet circumstances or possibilities as similarly fishy given the time that had passed and who was present when the bullet appeared. I'll allow that it was not out of the realm of the possibility that the bulled was missed on all the prior searches given what a mess that garage was. I still don't give it much weight given the lack of any other evidence nearby. If she was shot in the garage, he would not have been able to rid it of all DNA (blood and otherwise). It would be impossible given the materials, the mess and Avery's level of knowledge and ability to clean up.

Avery's non-blood DNA was found under the hood of her car. The DNA collection and processing was a mess so personally I can give it any weight, again given the absence of other DNA evidence. If she was killed on the property or brought to the property after she was killed her DNA would be everywhere. Again, Avery just doesn't have the capacity to do such a thorough and complete clean-up. We ain't talking about Dexter here.

Personally, I think Avery may have killed her but given what we do know about at least some of the evidence, I can't conclude that beyond reasonable doubt. And the fishy nature of the evidence we saw doubt on other evidence we may not have seen.

Anonymous wrote:Re 22:19 - That's not entirely correct. If the cops acted willfully and deliberately outside the scope of their employment, the insurance may be off the hook for damages awarded (depending on the claim and basis) and the individuals may be personally liable for them. This actually can create an interesting dynamic and dilemma in some cases -- you want to allege that the defendants did something really awful to get attention/settlement/etc., but it can't be so bad that it goes outside the insurance coverage because that's where the $$$ is. I am sure Avery and his lawyers discussed this issue carefully. There was mention that it wasn't about the money for Avery and I suspect this issue is part of where that comment came from. Of course the personal liability would bankrupt individuals, and they likely got a reservation of rights letter from the insurer telling them that it may not have to cover the damages. Under the circumstances of the first Avery case, and especially that phone call that they have the wrong guy, I would expect this to scare the bejesus out of the individuals. One could see how it might be possible for this to motivate someone to do the framin' and plantin', especially if you give them the benefit of doubt and assume they really believed Avery did it but just weren't sure they had the evidence to prove it.

(For lawyers out there, I recognize I am simplifying this for ease of discussion and am ignoring the issue of covering the defense costs so don't jump all over me!)

[Lawyer too here] -- you're talking about whether insurance would cover it. But that's not the only factor in whether they'd be personally liable. As officers of the state, it's pretty hard to find someone personally liable. If they purposefully deceived people, that's one thing. But there have been a number of cases now where DNA evidence exonerates someone who was convicted and no police officers have been found to have been acting outside their official capacity in those cases. You may do a fair amount of insurance work and that's why you're focused on that aspect. It's different for state employees acting in their official capacity. They would almost have to be acting criminally. (Bear in mind, we're talking about the assault conviction here that was overturned. If they indeed planted evidence in the murder case and that was proven, I think you'd have a good argument they were acting criminally. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the civil lawsuit following the exoneration on the assault conviction.) I personally think it's likely they did plant evidence, I just don't think there was a real fear that they would personally have to pay.

Based on what I have been reading there was a lot of evidence not shown in the documentary that really proves him to be the murdered, including that the DNA was sweat not blood, her DNA is on a bullet fired frm his gun etc..Was he framed for the rape yes? but he also sounds a like he in mentally ill and had already been accused of stalking hallback etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if he really did do it but then the cops planted evidence because they didn't have enough. But I'm only on episode 6. The one thing I found hilariously implausible was when the one cop said he wasn't sure the DNA evidence from the first conviction was legit. I mean, doesn't anyone think anyone associated with the Averys would have the ability to plant fake DNA evidence?

I have a friend who wrote a paper about this in law school. I guess a lot of evidence not shown here points to Avery and many people believe the cops planted evidence to seal the deal.

I could see that. It's kind of the only thing that makes sense.

How does that make sense at all? If there was enough evidence, the police wouldn't have to plant more. And planting evidence is grossly illegal and unethical in any case.

Well, of course none of us knows. And of course it's entirely possible that the documentary is not a fair representation of the evidence. But, as a viewer, I think it does make sense that he did it. I didn't say there was "enough evidence". I think it's very possible that he did it, and there wasn't enough evidence, and the cops wanted it to be a slam dunk conviction so they (or one of them) planted the key and/or the blood. So much of what the defense lawyers laid out points to planting evidence. Why would cops plant evidence if they really thought the guy was guilty? Because they wanted the conviction. Lots of guilty people aren't convicted.

And why did the cops so desperately want to convict Avery?? Because he was suing them! And insurance wasn't going to cover it so they were going to have to pay out of their own pockets. By Avery being convicted of a crime, they hit the jackpot with getting out of the $36 million lawsuit against them. There is a tremendous amount of motive for the cops to plant evidence. I'm not totally convinced they didn't have something to do with the murder either. Why couldn't they have seen Theresa driving off the Avery property, find a reason to pull her over, shoot her and then plant evidence? It's a bit hard to believe, but possible.

And for the life of me I cannot figure out why if Avery did do the murder he would park Theresa's car on his own property? He cannot possibly be that stupid.

Pretty sure you're wrong about this point. I don't think the cops personally would have to pay out the lawsuit. That's not how it works. They are sued in their capacity as officers, not personally. So the police department would have to pay, and it's possible a cop might lose his job, but it's not like the cops have to pay the judgment.
THat's not to say that the lawsuit wasn't a motivating factor anyway -- just the animosity it would create and the bad press alone might be enough motive to plant evidence. But it's not like they wanted him behind bars because otherwise the officers would have to come up with a million dollars.

You're right. I was wrong about that point. Not pay out of their own pockets but the either the city or police department would've had to pay. That would not be good for the cops regardless, but not as drastic as their own bank accounts, I agree.

Re 22:19 - That's not entirely correct. If the cops acted willfully and deliberately outside the scope of their employment, the insurance may be off the hook for damages awarded (depending on the claim and basis) and the individuals may be personally liable for them. This actually can create an interesting dynamic and dilemma in some cases -- you want to allege that the defendants did something really awful to get attention/settlement/etc., but it can't be so bad that it goes outside the insurance coverage because that's where the $$$ is. I am sure Avery and his lawyers discussed this issue carefully. There was mention that it wasn't about the money for Avery and I suspect this issue is part of where that comment came from. Of course the personal liability would bankrupt individuals, and they likely got a reservation of rights letter from the insurer telling them that it may not have to cover the damages. Under the circumstances of the first Avery case, and especially that phone call that they have the wrong guy, I would expect this to scare the bejesus out of the individuals. One could see how it might be possible for this to motivate someone to do the framin' and plantin', especially if you give them the benefit of doubt and assume they really believed Avery did it but just weren't sure they had the evidence to prove it.

(For lawyers out there, I recognize I am simplifying this for ease of discussion and am ignoring the issue of covering the defense costs so don't jump all over me!)