Author Topic: Making a murderer - The original wrongful prosecution of Steven Avery  (Read 4664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Making a murderer - The original wrongful prosecution of Steven Avery
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2016, 03:30:07 AM »
I have seen it and also read all the trial transcripts and court filings and appeal etc.

It leaves out certain things and gives a very false impression.

The goal of the project is to try to give the impression that the absurd happened.  You know how pathetic claims are of Jeremy Bamber being framed- well those claims are actually mild compared to the ridiculous claims in the Avery case.

For the past month I have been in heavy battle with Avery supporters. 

Avery supporters claim that the following occurred:

1) Police found Halbach's vehicle, remains and various belongings but rather than pursue the real killer decided to frame Avery

2) Police broke into the court Clerk's office and took some blood from a vial that was stored in the clerk office since 2002

3) planted his blood in her vehicle

4) took her vehicle to the Avery salvage lot and planted it then stuck some brush and junk on top of it including a hood from a different vehicle.

5) Removed the license plates, crumpled them up and then hid them inside a junked station wagon

6) Planted her burned remains in burn barrels 

7) Planted the burned remains of her camera

8) Planted the burned remains of her phone

9) Planted the burned remains of her palm pilot

10) used a swab containing Avery's DNA to plant his DNA on the key to her vehicle and then planed this key in his home

11) Planted a for sale sign in Avery's living room which that belonged to the victim and had been kept in her car

12) used a swab containing the victim's DNA to plant the victim's DNA on a spent bullet fired fro his rifle then planted it in his garage

13) used a swab containing Avery's DNA to plant his DNA on the hood latch of the victim's vehicle.

I have heard some pretty crazy things but saying police decided to let a killer go free so removed the DNA of the killer from all the items and planted all of the above takes the cake. 

Avery's appellate lawyers realized how ludicrous this sounded so in Avery's 2010 Appeal he accused his relatives of doing the killings and trying to frame him by planting the evidence. They had more opportunity and motive than would police.  such accusations failed though because he had no evidence of any framing by them or anyone else.

The documentary dishonestly suggest that Avery's lawsuit provided a motive for police to frame Avery.  The lawsuit in question wasn't against any current police it was against the former Sheriff and former DA as well as the county.  The suit had no potential to cause harm to any of the police that investigated the case.  The claim that by framing his this would end the suit is false.

The documentary suggests that the county's insurer refused coverage this is false. The Former Sheriff's homeowner insurance policy refused to defend him.  The county insurance did defend the suit. The suit was legally baseless.  The suit alleged negligence and that is not a basis to hold a local government liable so the government would have been dismissed if the lawsuit had not been settled.  The entire lawsuit would have been dismissed eventually because it was without merit. It would have costed over a million dollars in legal fees to get the case dismissed so the insurance company paid to settle it for $400,000. This is called a nuisance settlement.  The reason why the case was baseless is simple the facts are basically as follows:

An eyewitness said Avery raped her. a grand jury believed her and indicted him. A trial jury believed her and convicted him.  Around 1994 or so a prisoner told a story about how he got someone else snagged for a rape he committed in the county.  The jail officials notified the county that someone in their prisons made such claim.  They figured the guy was full of crap and failed to follow up. Subsequently his lawyers requested a DNA test and it matched the prisoner who had made the claim. the case basically is that they were negligent in not doing the DNA test sooner and he was thus in jail longer than he should have been if they were not negligent.  These facts are insufficient to establish a federal civil rights violation you need intentional wrongdoing not negligence. The local  government that employed someone sued for civil rights violations can only be held liable if policies of the local government caused the violation. So the suit was worthless.  You know it was worthless because Avery's lawyers settled a $36 million dollar suit for $400,000.  You only drop that low when you have no case. Under Wisconsin State law he would get $25,000 because that was what state law awarded people who were wrongly convicted and imprisoned. Obviously this is not much money so his lawyers sued to get him a nuisance settlement. The settlement was paid in February 2006, before all the evidence in the case was even processed.

Just like Jeremy Bamber lied about phone calls and yet his supporters ignore such so too do Avery supporters ignore his lies.  they won't discuss his lies at all and simply pretend they never happened no matter how many times you raise the lies.

Avery phoned autotrader in the morning saying he needed photos taken of a vehicle he wanted to sell and said  said he wanted the girl who came out in the past to come take more photos. Even though Avery himself would be handling the transaction he wanted to conceal such and gave the name B Janda (his sister is Barb Janda) and gave her phone number as a contact. It was Barb's vehicle being photographed but she wasn't around, he was the one who would be the one handling the transaction from start to finish including paying Halbach so providing her number and name makes no sense.  Halbach called that number and had to leave a message since Barb was not around to answer. That he was trying to conceal his involvement from the outset is suspicious. There could be a reason other than just that he was trying to distance himself so that police would not look into him when she went missing. One of Halbach's superiors said that Avery creeped her out

Anyway she left a message that she would be able to come to take the photos that day.  Avery phoned Halbach 3 times that day - at 2:25, 2:35 and 4:35.  He claimed that she was there around 2:10-2:20 and then after she left he decided to have her take photos of some more vehicles so called her to come back but she never answered. For the first 2 calls he used a feature known as *67 to block his name and number from showing up on her caller ID. He said she never answered any of the calls. The phone records show that she manually rejected the 2:24 call which sent him to her voicemail. He hung up rather than leave a voicemail. The 2:35 call he hung up right away, so fast that the call never even connected to her phone.  As such while it was on his bill is was not on her bill.
Why did he hang up so fast and why didn't he tell police he hung up too fast for it to even ring?  For the last call he didn't use *67 why did he not use it suddenly?  Police say it is because he knew at this point she was dead and simply made this call to provide himself with a cover.  Her phone was destroyed at this point so the call was forwarded instantly to her voicemail.

While trying to conceal his identity is a problem that is not the biggest problem.  His biggest problem is that he lied about her arriving and leaving prior to 2:25 and calling her at 2:25 to ask her to return.  Avery was her third (and final) scheduled appointment. She scheduled her second appointment for 2PM.  At 2:12 she phoned her second appointment to try to ask for directions because she was having a hard time finding the house. No one answered so she left a voicemail saying that she was in the neighborhood and having trouble finding the house but should be there in a few minutes. A little bit later (around 2:15) she walked up to Mrs Zipperer as asked if she was at the right place and Mrs Zipperer confirmed she was. She was outside gardening so didn't hear the message until a little bit after Halbach left.  Halbach told her she had trouble finding it and had left her a message a few minutes before. Mrs Zipperer said she was there about 10 minutes. So this means she was looking for the Zipperer house at 2:12 not at the Avery lot like he claimed. This is further confirmed by a phone conversation the victim had with autotrader. Right after she left Zipperer Dawn Plizska of autotrader called her and from 2:27-2:29 they had a conversation.  Plizska asked if she would be able to go to the Janda appointment.  Halbach told her that she was on her way there now. If she was on her way there at 2:29 then how could she have already left prior to 2:25?  His claim he called her at 2:25 to ask her to return was an obvious lie. Further evidence he lied is that Bobby Dassey said that at 2:45 he saw Halbach at the lot and when he drove away from the lot at 3 her car was still parked there.  Why did he lie and why did he really call her?

The only logical explanation for his call is that he was getting worried she would not show and called to try to make sure she was still coming.  The 10 minutes later he did the same.  Why did he end the second call after only a few seconds?  Police suspect he saw her vehicle pulling in so then he ended the call but who knows, maybe someone was walking near him and he didn't want the to hear. 

The 4:35 call he made knowing she was dead just so he could say he was trying to reach her and thought she was still alive.  That is why he didn't use *67. Police believe he planned to claim she never showed up but when he realized witnesses saw her there at the scene and police found the receipt she left him then he had to change things so claimed she left and he tried to get her to come back. 

He should have stuck with that but he got greedy. Instead of saying the 2:25 an 2:35 calls were to ask where she was and the 4:35 call was to ask her to return he claimed all 3 were to ask her to return.  This snagged him in a big lie. 

The all important question is why did he lie and say he called to ask her to come back?  There is only one reason to make up such a lie. He wanted to pretend that there was evidence that she left though she didn't. The only reason to say she left and that he called her to ask her to return is to give the false impression that she left.

The evidence shows that he shot her and then burned her body and belongings. When he shot her a couple of bullet must have passed through her thus leaving her DNA on one bullet. One bullet was conclusively matched to his rifle the other was too mangle and just had the same class characteristics but not the same incidental characteristics. He cut his hand at some point, perhaps while trying to junk the car and then bled in numerous places in her vehicle. He also got DNA on the hood latch, the experts said the volume and appearance of the DNA on the latch was not consistent with blood based DNA so they did not presumptive blood tests. This is why the defense suggested it was planted from a swab of hi mouth. The blood pattern experts said the blood had the appearance of being deposited by a bleeding hand. He did have a cut on his hand and left blood int he bathroom when he washed his hand. There were thousands of vehicles in the lot he figured no one would notice one more. he moved it to a ditch, did some damage to it so it looked old and junked, disconnected the battery thus getting his print on the hood latch, bled on the ignition among other places inside that he touched, removed the plates, removed everything with her name or number on it including a for sale sign, and buried it under various pieces of junk and brush.  He crumpled the plates and stuck them inside a junked station wagon. He figured people walking through would not tie it to her they would have to check the VIN and he figured they would not go around looking at every vehicle to VIN them. He figured that with her body burned they would never know if she died or just ran away. He hid the for sale sign in his living room and the key behind a bookcase in his bedroom in case he ever needed to move the car. He left his DNA on it in the process.

They were able to match some teeth to her and a DNA test to her remains. They matched the remnants of her phone, camera and palm pilot as well. He didn't fully incinerate everything like he hoped. He didn't think police would be able to get a warrant and seize and DNA test everything though.

There is nothing at all to suggest he was framed. 

There is no evidence that police knew blood was being stored in the Court clerk office since 2002 let alone any evidence they broke in to steal some blood from such vial to plant at the scene. The volume in the vial matched the amount that was supposed to be there. The documentary made a big deal about the stopper haveing a pin hole.  All vials have that hole the way blood is deposited inside is the needle is pushed through and then the plunger pushes to deposit the blood. No blood was missing that was the key. Since the defense was alleging the blood was planted from such vial the FBI was asked to test the vial and all blood exhibits for the presence of EDTA. The blood in the vial tested positive for EDTA while the blood exhibits were EDTA free. EDTA is an agent to preserve blood by keeping it from coagulating. The FBI test was extremely sensitive it could test  13mg/L which means they could test a sample as small as a microliter.

Most of the allegations made in the documentary were made to the jury and rejected. They fail to mention all the evidence that explains why the jury rejected the claims.

All of those who lived and worked at the Avery property submitted their DNA. none of their DNA was found on any of the evidence only Avery's.

Avery was innocent of the 1985 rape but guilty as sin in the murder of Halbach.



« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 04:36:34 AM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli