TV Thread

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,695
I remember those but couldn't remember if they were enough to be felonies.
I think only one of them was.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I finally watched Fear The Walking Dead by the end I thought it was pretty good but if they spend too much time where they seem to be going it will be as bad as when The Walking Dead stayed on the farm.

Don't watch Walking Dead anymore because it seems kind of hopeless for everybody at this point at least with these people there is a little forward momentum in the quest.
 
D

Deuce

Guest
Then the story was that she was shot in the garage. Yet they didn't find a single drop in that crack in the concrete? It's not like he could clean in there and when you shoot someone blood gets everywhere. That place was a mess with a million surfaces. There was no way he could have cleaned everything.
Ya, the whole story is screwy. That's also why 7 jurors were for him to be innocent at the start. Too bad none of them had the guts to stand up to a few bullies before dropping a guilty on him.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
Last edited:

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,695
Last edited:

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
I am not 100% convinced of Avery's innocence, and apparently neither is his attorney Dean Strang. At the very least there was enough reasonable doubt not to convict. In any case, there is no way I buy the prosecution's sequence of events. They tore up the porous cement of the garage and found no blood where she was supposedly shot. No blood in the bedroom torture chamber. I am about 100% convinced of Brendan Dassey's innocence.

If I were to buy an alternate theory, my favorite is that Bobby Dassey and/or Scott Tadych did it. They were each other's alibi. They testified seeing Halbach heading to her death in Avery's trailer about an hour before the bus driver reports still seeing her walking around. Bobby had deep scratches on his back he claimed was from a puppy. Scott had recently sold off a .22 rifle and exaggerated the 10-foot tall satanic bonfire on the stand.

If it's them, the car being on the property doesn't require a big police conspiracy to place it there. Colburn is conducting an illegal search, makes that call, and the police direct the search party there. They plant the other evidence because they are so tunnel-visioned and sure that Avery is guilty (and they still think he got away with the rape).
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
There is a lot of zany stuff surrounding this case. If you get a chance, read up on "The German." Long story short, in 2005 a guy from the area blogged about a local woman who lived not far from the Avery property who reported that her German husband as acting crazy around the time of the Halbach murder. She found yellow panties that weren't hers, a claw hammer with red flecks, a red-stained pillow case, and her dogs found what she said were human bones. She told the authorities but it never went anywhere... you know, nbd. :lol
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,695
I think I have seen this talked about here, but if not, The Man in the High Castle is absolutely worth a watch and I'm only two episodes in. It's an Amazon series.
 
D

Deuce

Guest
I am not 100% convinced of Avery's innocence, and apparently neither is his attorney Dean Strang. At the very least there was enough reasonable doubt not to convict. In any case, there is no way I buy the prosecution's sequence of events. They tore up the porous cement of the garage and found no blood where she was supposedly shot. No blood in the bedroom torture chamber. I am about 100% convinced of Brendan Dassey's innocence.

If I were to buy an alternate theory, my favorite is that Bobby Dassey and/or Scott Tadych did it. They were each other's alibi. They testified seeing Halbach heading to her death in Avery's trailer about an hour before the bus driver reports still seeing her walking around. Bobby had deep scratches on his back he claimed was from a puppy. Scott had recently sold off a .22 rifle and exaggerated the 10-foot tall satanic bonfire on the stand.

If it's them, the car being on the property doesn't require a big police conspiracy to place it there. Colburn is conducting an illegal search, makes that call, and the police direct the search party there. They plant the other evidence because they are so tunnel-visioned and sure that Avery is guilty (and they still think he got away with the rape).
I absolutely agree with this.

I don't remember the part about Bobby having cuts from a dog, but they were the only two obviously lying that either weren't mentally retarded (Brendan) or an attention seeking teenage girl like his cousin. Hell, most of Bobby's testimony was really the testimony of his buddy from initial reports.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
If I were to buy an alternate theory, my favorite is that Bobby Dassey and/or Scott Tadych did it. They were each other's alibi. They testified seeing Halbach heading to her death in Avery's trailer about an hour before the bus driver reports still seeing her walking around. Bobby had deep scratches on his back he claimed was from a puppy. Scott had recently sold off a .22 rifle and exaggerated the 10-foot tall satanic bonfire on the stand.

If it's them, the car being on the property doesn't require a big police conspiracy to place it there. Colburn is conducting an illegal search, makes that call, and the police direct the search party there. They plant the other evidence because they are so tunnel-visioned and sure that Avery is guilty (and they still think he got away with the rape).
This was my thought exactly. Both guys came off as very suspicious to me. I think they killed her offsite (Where they found bones, and clearly they drove her body in that car) and then probably moved the bones to the location of the fire figuring they could set Steven up. That officer who basically said he thinks Steven still did the rape deserves a big kick to the face. I couldn't stand that guy and honestly he is the stereotype of the worst kind of officer. Someone who fucks everything up but still puffs his chest out and refused to acknowledge it. Additionally hangs the evidence of it like a badge of honor.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
There is a lot of zany stuff surrounding this case. If you get a chance, read up on "The German." Long story short, in 2005 a guy from the area blogged about a local woman who lived not far from the Avery property who reported that her German husband as acting crazy around the time of the Halbach murder. She found yellow panties that weren't hers, a claw hammer with red flecks, a red-stained pillow case, and her dogs found what she said were human bones. She told the authorities but it never went anywhere... you know, nbd. :lol
It's sad but that's kind of how the officers there were. They cared more about finding their initial suspect as guilty as opposed to finding the real killer (rapist). It's exactly what happened in Steven's original case. It's like once a suspect is brought to their attention they get tunnel vision about convicting that person at all costs. It's like a game where winning becomes more important then actually helping the public.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
'Making a Murderer': 10 Questions We Still Have

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-10-questions-we-still-have-20160107#ixzz3wa18UXYI
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
The 10-part Netflix series Making a Murderer is the latest entry in America's newfound obsession with serialized true crime storytelling, coming on the heels of the hugely popular podcast Serial and HBO's The Jinx. In each case the show ends but the story continues – and questions persist.


Filmed over a decade, the docu-series follows the strange case of Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man exonerated after spending 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, only to be arrested and ultimately convicted of a murder for which he also maintains his innocence.

There are, of course, some major questions that people have been asking since the show first started streaming in mid-December: Why did it take so long to find the RAV4 key and the bullet? Why was anyone from Manitowoc law enforcement even allowed on the site that late in the investigation? Here are some other questions we have – some smaller, some bigger, all perplexing (spoilers galore).

1. Who the hell is the international recording artist who was released from the jury?

Richard Mahler, listed in the documentary as an "international recording artist," is actually just a local dude with a local band, according to TMZ. Mahler's outfit, the Rick Raybine Band, played the National Anthem at a NASCAR event once; as for how he got the label, Mahler told the site that a reporter described him that way once and it just stuck. Mahler was ultimately dismissed from the jury for a family emergency after he sat in deliberations for four hours.

2. What went on with the jury deliberations?

The much more interesting part about Mahler is his new allegation that two fellow jurors were related to officials in Manitowoc County, where Avery was initially wrongfully convicted. Once the trial was over, Mahler discovered, "[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy," and that "another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office," according to an interview he gave to People.

Maybe that's what defense attorney Jerry Buting was getting at in the final episode, when he made a comment about unanswered questions that he had about jury deliberations. After all, according to Mahler, the original count was that only three jurors were convinced Avery was guilty. In an interview with the Today show, filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos said a juror contacted them after the series aired and claimed his or her decision to vote guilty was made under duress. "The person lived in the county, feared for their safety, and also said, 'If they could frame Steven Avery, they could do it to me,'" Ricciardi said in a follow up interview with Time.


3. Why did the defense team for Brendan Dassey seek to further the State's case?
Len Kachinsky – the original defense attorney for Avery's nephew, Brendan Dassey – is arguably be the most inscrutable element of Making a Murderer. His initial comments to the press that implied Dassey's guilt (and by extension, Avery's) were so unprofessional that, when later questioned about them on the stand at a hearing, Kachinsky purports to have forgotten he said what he said.

In one disturbing scene, the lawyer's investigator, Michael O'Kelley, appears to coerce Dassey into massaging his statement so that it aligns perfectly with what the prosecution needs. And in an email between O'Kelley and Kachinsky – remember, both technically working for Dassey – the former all but admits he's helping for the opposition. "I am not concerned with finding evidence to placing Brendan inside the crime scene, as Brendan will be State's primary witness," O'Kelly writes. "This will only serve to bolster the prosecution."

Dassey's post-conviction lawyer, Robert Dvorak, presses O'Kelley on this unbelievable admission. "So your goal is not only to get Brendan [Dassey] to confess, but also to help the State in its prosecution. Correct?" Dvorak asks.

"That's correct," O'Kelley replies.

Kachinsky isn't there for the meeting between O'Kelley and Dassey, nor is he there the following day when two officers interrogate his client in an attempt to replicate what O'Kelley extracted. As the film notes, this level of cooperation between a defense attorney and prosecutors is unheard of. And to take it one step further, it appears to go beyond bad representation and raises questions of backdoor collusion or a quid pro quo. What possible motive do Kachinsky and O'Kelley have to affirmatively advance the prosecution's case? We don't know, but even really bad lawyering (which Kachinsky has copped to) doesn't usually translate to sleeping with the enemy.

4. Is there any innocent explanation for the pinprick hole in the vial that held Avery's blood?
No, really: Is there any convincing, non-nefarious explanation for why a box of evidence was opened, a blood vial apparently punctured with a syringe, and then the box taped back up? Is there any scenario in which that's standard operating procedure for re-examining evidence? Even if you think it's far-fetched that one or two cops would plant blood in the RAV 4, what other account is there that makes any sense?

5. Has testing for EDTA advanced?

Initially it looked like the blood vial is going to be a huge win for the defense. An FBI expert determined, however, that three swabs he ran in his lab didn't contain the chemical EDTA, an additive that would have been in the blood vial — but not in blood itself — that came from a living body. That finding ended up being a major blow.

In the final episode, all of Avery's former defense attorneys sit together discussing how their ex-client could get a new trial. Jerry Buting floats one idea that, as another attorney notes, bears a striking parallel to Avery's first case. "If we could do a test today that was scientifically acceptable and valid, that actually proved there was EDTA in those blood stains, that would be newly discovered evidence," Buting said. If that kind of test is possible, and shows what Buting hopes, it would be the second time new technology exonerated Avery of a crime he didn't commit.


6. Is it common for defendants to be barred from arguing that someone else did it?
When we learn in the film that Avery's team won't be able to advance alternate theories to who killed Halbach, we were stunned. What was going on there?

The short answer is that Wisconsin has a third-party liability law that prevents a defendant from pointing the finger at somebody else without giving the court 30 days notice prior to trial, and having good reason to believe the third party had "motive, opportunity, and a direct connection to the crime." Avery's defense team wasn't allowed to suggest anyone else could have been the culprit, which he later appealed. It's not entirely clear how often defendants in other states are prohibited from advancing alternate theories for whodunit, but in this case it seems to have had a detrimental effect on Avery's ability to defend himself.

7. What's the story behind the deleted voicemails?

Halbach's ex-boyfriend Ryan Hillegas testified on the stand that he was able to guest Teresa's username and password and listen to several voicemail messages left on her phone. Avery's defense lawyers argue that since the mailbox was full, and then some messages were deleted after her death, that someone knows more than they're letting on.

When defense attorney Jerry Buting attempts to pursue this line of inquiry, though, the judge stops him on ground it will violate the third-party liability prohibition. If the State argued that Avery had already destroyed the phone, why didn't the police follow up on any and all people who might have had a motive to delete Halbach's voicemails?

8. Why was Halbach's pelvic bone discovered in the quarry?
At trial, defense attorney Dean Strang cross-examined forensic anthropologist Dr Leslie Eisenberg about whether Halbach's remains had been moved or not. Dr Eisenberg testified that she believed the primary burn site was the burn pit 20 feet from Avery's bedroom, but acknowledges remains were found in a separate barrel, as well as a quarry that's far away from the other two sites.

The State argued that the burn pit was the primary burn location, while the defense argued it could have been elsewhere – implying, possibly, the quarry. If the State's theory is correct, what accounts for Halbach's pelvic bone being discovered in the quarry?


9. What's going on when Sgt Andrew Colborn called in the read the license plate for Halbach's RAV 4?
In Episode Five, defense attorney Dean Strang asks Sgt Colborn about a phone call he made to his dispatcher prior the discovery of Halbach's vehicle on Avery's property. In the recording of the call, Colborn asks dispatch to run a license plate number, and gets a hit for Teresa Halbach, who at that point was listed as a missing person. Colborn then immediately says "Ninety-Nine Toyota?"

To Strang – and likely to many viewers – it sounds like Colborn is looking at the very SUV that wouldn't be discovered for another two days. "I shouldn't have been and I was not looking at the license plate," Colborn responded on the stand.

Maybe. But what was he looking at?

10. Who killed Teresa Halbach?

This remains the most important unanswered question in the case. Redditors have been floating alternate theories about who killed Halbach since the show premiered in late December. Since Avery himself wasn't able to pursue this question at trial, and the filmmakers have said it wasn't their job to investigate the case independently, we're left with little more than speculation. If it was Avery, then it seems clear it didn't go down the way Dassey described it. Could Avery have sterilized two crime scenes to eliminate virtually all traces of Halbach's presence? It seems unlikely.

Ultimately, the responsibility for answering this question shouldn't be that of Internet detectives. And although disgraced prosecutor Ken Kratz is waging his own media blitz to assure the public justice was done, that seems to be a lonely battle at this point.
 

Texas Ace

Teh Acester
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,400
About making a murder....

I don't know if Avery and Dassey are innocent, but what I do know is that neither man received a fair trial and both men deserves new cases.

Avery's case clearly had a number of examples that could be considered as conflict of interest. That alone was enough to warrant a new trial. But when you throw in the fact that the prosecution simply had no evidence to support most of their claims, I can't see how on earth you could convict him.

And Dassey? My goodness.....from start to finish, his defense was the perfect example of all the things a defense team shouldn't do. I was appalled as I watched how he was continuously manipulated and how his "defense" team looked more like an extension of the prosecution.

I mean.....how the hell was all of this admissable?

Making a Murderer was a fascinating watch and a shocking revelation of how flawed our justice system remains.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
In response to Ace

That guy was an embarrassment to all criminal defense lawyers. That guy was there for the publicity and nothing else. Hell even he know what he did was wrong. The first time the media talked to him he implicated his own client in the murder and then later on when he took the stand in the appeal tried to claim that he never said that. Of course the dumb idiot was recorded doing it. I said it before, that guy should not have a license to practice law anymore.

I think part of the problem with the Avery case is that evidence was presented to us viewing the film that wasn't actually presented to the jury. Meaning we all had the Dassey story that we were comparing the evidence to and saying it doesn't make any sense. But the jury didn't really have that in front of them. They just kind of had all of this random evidence surrounding Avery presented with no real story to piece it all together. I think the prosecuting attorney was a little afraid to put a story to it because it either would have been wildly different then that of Dassey, or if they present the Dassey story as true the evidence contradicted it so bad that the jury wouldn't have been able to convict. How Dassey was ever convicted it beyond me. Absolutely none of the evidence supported his confession. Yet, they convicted him entirely on that same confession.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,730
Through three episodes of Making A Murderer. Very impressive documentary.

I will try to binge most of the remainder I don't get through tonight tomorrow.
 

Carl

RIP Brother
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,372
I finally finished the 10th episode. I thought it was just an ok presentation. I do feel bad for the young nephew; but the whole show was way too long. My only real comment is that if you get through life and don't get caught up in the "system", you are fortunate. Because if you do get caught up, the odds are not in your favor.

If you want to watch a better documentary, I'd suggest "The Staircase". Though I think it may only be on Sundance TV.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I'm really surprised at how many people are surprised by this case, this stuff happens a lot, especially in small towns where the police and prosecuters are so entwinned.

And the truly sad part is it's not always malicious it's more ego driven than anything.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I just finished ep 8 of MaM
and I'm fucking hot. How fucking incompetent are these judges? I hope that Kratz mfer gets ass cancer.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom