Sign up and stay connected to your favorite communities.

sign uplog in
0
Stickied postModerator of r/MakingaMurderer

Please ask any questions about the documentary, the case, the people involved, Avery's lawyers etc. in here.

Discuss other questions in earlier threads. Read the first Q&A thread to find out more about our reasoning behind this change.

0
comment
57
Comments are lockedStickied postModerator of r/MakingaMurderer

Doxxing is not now and has not ever been allowed on reddit. Sharing personal information about other redditors is not now and has not ever been allowed on reddit. Nothing has changed in the past week or two, but we have had a spate of doxxing attempts.

To reiterate, you may not share personal information about other redditors. Posting the information on Twitter, then coming here and encouraging users to go check Twitter, is not a way to evade the rule. Posting what you think of as clever hints is not a way to evade the rule. Do not try to be cute. Do not try to see what you can get away with. You will be permanently banned from the sub.

Brigading and spamming subs is also against sitewide rules, and will lead to your permanent ban from the sub.

The MaM-related subs have come under admin scrutiny in the past for doxxing, sharing personal information, brigading, and general shit-stirring. A number of formerly-prominent redditors were permanently banned, including IP bans. A few of the subs received restrictive rules banning the use of normal reddit functions. That behavior is strictly banned on this sub, so that we can keep using it without admin-imposed restrictions- or a total ban of the sub.

You are free to discuss the case and people from the documentary; you are not free to discuss personal information about any reddit user, on this sub or any other.

57
comment
10

I keep trying to find info on if they've decided to take up the case. I'm failing. Will it be a while before they decide?

6

Thursday, 8:30 a.m. -- Bobby Dassey will take the stand for cross examination very shortly.

Yesterday, Bobby caused quite the stir when Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz asked him about a comment Steven Avery made to him, one of his brothers and his friend Mike on November 3, 2005, the day Teresa Halbach was reported missing.

Bobby said Steven asked him, “Do you want to help me get rid of the body?” Strang asked for a mistrial, because he said he was unaware that Bobby was going to testify to this, and that he was only aware that Bobby’s friend Mike had told law enforcement about this statement, and that Mike had told the cops that Steven made the comment on November 10, 2005, but Kratz said that was impossible, because Steven was in custody at that time. Kratz said that he clarified this with Bobby, during an interview for witness prep. Dean Strang said he was caught off guard, “completely unaware,” and asked to have time to interview Bobby.

CBS 5 legal analyst Jeff Oswald said he thought that Kratz should have told the defense about this, in a supplemental discovery document.

The dirtier the better for Ken Kratz. #WINNING #KENKRATZCRIMINALDEFENSEATTORNYEXTRAORDINAIRE

5

Given the interesting spread of opinon on the positives/negatives resulting from KZ's previous filing (remand to circuit court), how would truthers, guilters and fence sitters like to see this one play out?

As a follow up question, how would you expect KZ to respond to the result?

0

Think any of us would be here if he did? Think anyone would know who KZ was? Think the docutwats would be living in a mansion?... He'd have gotten smoked on the stand and there would be no such thing as an 'islander' either ...for this case anyways..

9

Hi Reddit, it’s been a while.

I’m curious if anyone (or everyone?) would want Avery exonerated released on a technicality rather than definitive proof of his innocence?

No new evidence, no DNA testing, no new trial, no new suspects or arrests. Just Avery's conviction overturned.

Your thoughts?

0

Stop with your rumor mill because your source is you or CK Book. You are arguing his except same spewage.

No bud you are not going to simply type in a name and scrub medical records away. Do you least even consider how they are stored. Who is all storing them and lets not forget a backup of the backup in case a server is lost. Did you forget the insurance company also has your records along with any doctor or hosp you may have been to in your life. Pre computer is all scanned onto microfilm and stored. If you are over about 25 see what hopps you need to jump t get them.

When you figure out how an estate works take, clearly you are lost there.

What healthy 25 year old who was likely still on her parents ins is going to worry about life ins. You don't. At 25 your are young and carefree and will live forever. Im sure AT was not offering her this great insurance package either. For her few hundred a month in sales she made them. Not likely.

Leave this girl and her family alone once and for all. No her parents did not donate her to SA fire to help frame him. A person they did not know was on the same plant they were until he killed there daughter.

Your desperation for it to be anyone but SA and once again blaming it on the victim herself and her family is more than deplorable. Are you that confused about who the victim is? Let me help you. Teresa Marie Halbach. She is the only one who was killed on 10-31-05.

I certainly would not want my son in prison but I;d be much more happy with him in prison that in a cold box in the ground, at least what your buddy left of her to be laid to rest.

Your deportation at your 5 mins is gone on to long and to far. So when will you start making fake Halbach accounts to push your crap. Did you start your FB group yet to do this?

I hope you get the hell sued out of you. Get it Teresa was a 25 year old healthy female, there was no secret hidden medical condition. No matter how much you want to pretend there was. You are dead wrong.

Are you that butthurt your buddy did not get you your 30 seconds on MaM 2, that you are not hoping Rech with want to get you on film. Dont hold your breath there either.

Wow dude at just what level do you stop.

edit to add. Im an not trying to be mean or even a bi%ch. but really enough is enough. Let it go. These people have been through enough. Its time to let it go, and move on from them. Let them have their sanity and what's left of there shattered lives. They own not one of us an answer to anything. They gave them years ago. Its not my fault or problem you dont get to see them, call your favorite atty.

6

Others can drone on and on about how the CD isn't exculpatory, but it is. Strang tried to get a mistrial because of Bobby's testimony against Avery. If Strang had that CD to use against Bobby, it would be clear to any semi-intelligent person that Bobby testified against Avery under pressure because of the internet searches.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dean Strang did what lawyers often do. It’s what he’s paid to do; defend his client. And this morning he asked Judge Willis to declare a mistrial.

Strang made that request after Bobby Dassey, Avery’s nephew testified that on November 3rd, before Halbach was reported missing, Avery jokingly asked him and a friend if “they wanted to help him get rid of a body.” Strong stuff from a blood relative. The kind of testimony a defense attorney does not want to come from the witness stand.

Strang told the judge he had information that this alleged statement was made on November 10th and that Avery made it to Dassey’s friend, not Bobby. By that time Avery had already been arrested for murder. So when was this comment made and who said what to whom? Good question. But Strang claimed he had no idea it was coming. The judge after some consideration said witnesses are often wrong about dates and the defense can clear it up in cross examination. Motion denied.

But you have to give Dean Strang credit for trying and I’ll bet we’ll hear the cry of “mistrial” once again.

18

I say the Supreme Court is going to hear the case and then say the confession was illegal. So what do the guilters think? Don't be shy.

1

Hey folks, I know the 'Making A Murderer" documentary is old news now, but I just finished the Staircase and decided to rewatch the Steven Avery story again since I was already in the mood. I used to think he was innocent, but after rewatching and then doing some internet research I'm thinking he DID in fact rape and murder Theresa. I'm just wondering about others' opinions and maybe any additional information you're aware of that makes you have the opinion you do? The only reason I have a question about his guilt is... If his IQ was really only 70, as suggested in the film, then it would be tough for him to pull off that murder and successfully clean the DNA out of that garage the way he did.

BUT I have seen a lot more compelling info online implying that he did do it. Other sexual assault accusations (including rape and molestation accusations from young family members), the fact that he *67 called her twice that day, the fact that she didn't want to go there because she said he creeped her out previously, that would be a hell of a confession for Dassey to just "make up", and other inmates said when he was in prison for the first rape that he fantasized about building a chamber to rape and torture women when he got out.

6

I assume it's pretty uncontroversial that she got to the salvage yard around that time, what does everyone believe happened for her remains and blood and SA's blood and DNA to be found near her car and on the compound? I'm not saying that you have to prove what happened to establish reasonable doubt, just curious what truthers actually think?

2

....can his testimony in his first trial be used against him?

In other words is he free to walk completely away from the narrative he supplied to the court in 2007?

In which case he is still claiming to have had a bonfire with Steven Avery on the night of the murder and to have cleaned up a spot on the garage floor on that same night.

So to completely disassociate himself from the murder his lawyers would need to argue that the bullet and the cremains were planted or face having his testimony in his first trial quoted against him?

Alternatively can he use a variant of the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine and that because his trial testimony was so conditioned by what would presumably have been a confession gained in contradiction of his constitutional rights (if the Supreme Court was to so rule) that it should not be used either?

10

From Cty R to the west @ 8:00 a.m., all the way to the LAKE(Michigan that is), a distance of about 13 miles, I went by NO OTHER VEHICLES in the whole 13 miles, NOT one, there was 1 bicyclist. Ahhhhh, theres 3302 a small Farm with an old farmhouse....... then a Big Wet woods full of Ash trees that will all soon be DEAD by the Ash borer that is coming this way......Then a very small farmette with sheds for animals with another property IN BACK of it with a treeline that travels to the METZ place.....hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, what a spot to pick if you didn't want to be disturbed.......

0

The following quotes are from the Wisconsin Supreme Court in reference to the Denny's direct connection to commission of the crime prong:

courts are not to look merely for a connection between the third party and the crime, they are to look for some direct connection between the third party and the perpetration of the crime. ... is there evidence that the alleged third-party perpetrator actually committed the crime, directly or indirectly? This is the direct connection prong. Logically, direct connection evidence should firm up the defendant's theory of the crime and take it beyond mere speculation

No bright lines can be drawn as to what constitutes a third party's direct connection to a crime. Rather, circuit courts must assess the proffered evidence in conjunction with all other evidence to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the evidence suggests that a third-party perpetrator actually committed the crime.

Mere presence at the crime scene or acquaintance with the victim, however, is not normally enough to establish direction connection.

Nothing Buting claimed to have meets this for any person and nothing Zellner has meets this for any person.

Hilariously Zellner cited Buting's claim in an affidavit that he had such evidence instead of actually trying to prove it to the court like she was supposed to do. here is nothing under the totality that supports anyone else killing and burning Halbach (other than Brendan aiding Avery)

Avery supporters keep saying that Bobby being there when Halbach first arrived and Tadych dropping off Barb is evidence of commission of the crime though neither of these facts helps support their theory of the crime whatsoever.

They need evidence that suggests she was in fact shot elsewhere by the person they want to accuse and that such person had a fire capable of burning her body.


Edit: currently 88 comments and not a one features one of the supposedly tens of thousands of Avery supporters who are on reddit providing any evidence that would satisfy Denny's requirement of a direct connection to commission of the crime by someone other than Avery...

1

I keep seeing people claim that it was the prosecution's responsibility to turn over the CD as part of discovery and not the defense's responsibility to request it. Admittedly I'm not too familiar with this part of the law, so I looked it up on Wikipedia and that certainly doesn't seem to be the case.

To my untrained legal eyes, the wikipedia article on discovery seems to suggest that the prosecution is only required to turn over exculpatory information to the defense without request. Everything else must be requested by the defense:

Under the rule set forth in Brady v. Maryland, the prosecutor is obligated to provide to the defendant any information that is exculpatory or potentially exculpatory, without any request by the defense. Further discovery is available if initiated by the defendant. For example, a discovery demand might be for production of the names of witnesses, witness statements, information about evidence, a request for opportunity to inspect tangible evidence, and for any reports prepared by expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

Brady v. Maryland also suggests that in order for a successful Brady claim, the withheld evidence must be "material" in the sense that there is a reasonable probability that the conviction would have been different had the prosecution disclosed it.

The main argument that Avery supporters are making about the CD is that it wasn't turned over and therefore is an automatic Brady violation. But I don't hear many people suggesting that the information on the CD is exculpatory and likely would have led to a different verdict. The fact that B&S knew about the information on the computer and chose not to pursue it certainly suggests that they didn't think it was a game changer.

So putting aside the issue of whether the CD was disclosed, who actually believes that A.) The CD contains information that B&S weren't already aware of, and B.) it contains information that would have led to a different verdict?

19

OK so Avery apparently was the inspiration for Dexter with his crime scene cleanup skills, well established. The house is spotless of any evidence. The garage is spotless of evidence less one casing found months after the initial search. The RAV completely absent of Avery’s fingerprints presumably due to wearing gloves that still allow blood from a cut finger to be deposited.

So why didn’t he do a better cleanup of the pit? Surely he checked things out the following morning if for no other reason than to relive his crime. If he did cremate TH and chop up and rake the bones surely he would have known some larger bone fragments were there and would have cleaned up better.

Same with the burn barrels. Why so sloppy and careless with them?

2

Ok this is proof the woman is lost in space on toilet bowl hooch. She most definitely acquired a taste for. This not boxed wine.

What is she actually thinking, than to say the original biased against him no longer exists?

Certainly from a procedural easability I can see the reasoning. AFter all everything is contained in MC.

The rest of her flip flop request is totally insane. Of course there is still prejudice against him. Because a judge retired does not remove the people who have been pissed off and abused by the snowflakes. Whos businesses have been hurt by the bad reviews from people who never stepped foot in WI much less Manti. Not to forget the hideous accusations made against the people there.

Then of course you have the lower courts will never be the ones to decide this case we always knew this. So why bother to get yet another court involved and take the time for them to get up to speed? When you just plan to push ahead on yoru appeals.

0

First of all the only thing that could be on a computer that could establish Bobby to be guilty would be communications with someone where he admits guilt and planting of evidence.

If this had actually been on the computer then Zellner would have noted such in her argument in both her reconsideration motion as well as her Brady motion to the appellate court. There is no way she would have failed to mention such if it existed.

Instead all she alleged was that evidence on the computer establishes Bobby had motive which is far from establishes his guilt and then the lie that this was sufficient to enable Denny to be met to accuse Bobby in court.

So by virtue of simple logic we know for a fact that there was nothing on the computer to directly link Bobby to the crime even though we have not seen it.

Logic- people should try it sometime...

13

According to guilters, if you didn't live on Avery salvage yard. It is impossible that you could be involved in this crime.

So anyone planning on committing murder can just dump their victims vehicle off at someone elses property and never be a suspect. Makes perfect sense. The only way Avery had help if he is truly guilty, is if the other person lived on Avery salvage yard. You guys are fucking classic, don't ever change.

0

Regardless of whether one tries to argue ineffective assistance of counsel, new evidence on the basis of alleging new technology was used to find new evidence or a Brady violation the burden is the same- the defense has to establish that the evidence is reasonably likely to cause a jury to acquit.

Nothing on the Janda computer constitutes evidence suggesting Avery didn't commit the crime but rather someone else did. Nothing on the computer has the ability to refute any of the evidence that convicted Avery.

There is no hope of using anything on the Janda computer to establish reasonable doubt.

There is no evidence on the computer that suggests Bobby or anyone else did anything let alone attack Halbach alone and framed Steven.

No court will vacate just to allow worthless allegations against people that have no ability to cause a jury to acquit.

In the meantime there is no ability to accuse anyone at a trial anyway because Denny requires the same sort of evidence or it is not admissible.

That is if one even bothers to look at the merits of the claim. The defense received DVDs of the hard drive and had the ability to examine the evidence like Zellner had an expert do. That alone ends any ability to claim a Brady violation and the technology to extract the information existed in 2006. So that only leaves ineffective assistance which still requires same.

A US Supreme Court case from last year helps demonstrate the evaluation of what is likely to cause a jury to acquit or not:

Undisclosed evidence:

Freeman, the vendor who discovered Fuller’s body in the alley garage, testified at trial that, while he was waiting for police to arrive, he saw two men run into the alley and stop near the garage for about five minutes before running away when an officer approached. One of the men had a bulge under his coat. Early in the trial, codefendant Harris’ counsel had requested the identity of the two men to confirm that her client was not one of them. But the Government refused to disclose the men’s identity.

In their postconviction review of the prosecutor’s files, petitioners learned that Freeman had identified the two men he saw in the alley as James McMillan and Gerald Merkerson. McMillan lived in a house which opens in the back onto a connecting alley. In the weeks following Fuller’s murder, but before petitioners’ trial, McMillan was arrested for beating and robbing two women in the neighborhood. Neither attack included a sexual assault. Separately, petitioners learned that seven years after petitioners’ trial, McMillan had robbed, sodomized, and murdered a young woman in an alley

The prosecutor’s notes also recorded an undisclosed interview with Willie Luchie, who told the prosecutor that he and three others walked through the alley on their way to an H Street liquor store between 5:30 and 5:45 p.m. on the evening of the murder. As the group walked by the garage, Luchie “heard several groans” and “remembers the doors to the garage being closed.” App. 25. Another person in the group recalled “hear[ing] some moans,” while the other two persons did not recall hearing anything unusual. Id., at 27, 53; id., at A992. The group continued walking without looking into the garage or otherwise investigating the source of the sounds. They did not see McMillan or any other person in the alley when they passed through.

Evaluation:

Petitioners’ main argument is that, had they known about McMillan’s identity and Luchie’s statement, they could have challenged the Government’s basic theory that Fuller was killed in a group attack. Petitioners contend that they could have raised an alternative theory, namely, that a single perpetrator (or two at most) had attacked Fuller. According to petitioners, the groans that Luchie and his companion heard when they walked through the alley between 5:30 and 5:45 p.m. suggest that the attack was taking place inside the garage at that moment. The added facts that the garage was small and that Luchie’s group saw no one in the alley could bolster a “single attacker” theory. Freeman’s recollection that one garage door was open when he found Fuller’s body at around 6 p.m., combined with Luchie’s recollection that both doors were shut around 5:30 or 5:45 p.m., could suggest that one or two perpetrators were in the garage when Luchie walked by but left before Freeman arrived. McMillan’s identity as one of the men Freeman saw enter the alley after Freeman discovered Fuller’s body would have revealed McMillan’s criminal convictions in the months before petitioners’ trial. Petitioners argue that together, this evidence would have permitted the defense to knit together a theory that the group attack did not occur at all—and that it was actually McMillan, alone or with an accomplice, who murdered Fuller. They add that they could have used the investigators’ failure to follow up on Ammie Davis’ claim about James Blue, and the various pieces of withheld impeachment evidence, to suggest that an incomplete investigation had ended up accusing the wrong persons.

Considering the withheld evidence “in the context of the entire record,” however, Agurs, supra, at 112, we conclude that it is too little, too weak, or too distant from the main evidentiary points to meet Brady’s standards. As petitioners recognize, McMillan’s guilt (or that of any other single, or near single, perpetrator) is inconsistent with petitioners’ guilt only if there was no group attack. But a group attack was the very cornerstone of the Government’s case. The witnesses may have differed on minor details, but virtually every witness to the crime itself agreed as to a main theme: that Fuller was killed by a large group of perpetrators. The evidence at trial was such that, even though petitioners knew that Freeman saw two men enter the alley after he discovered Fuller’s body, that one appeared to have a bulky object hidden under his coat, and that both ran when the police arrived, none of the petitioners attempted to mount a defense that implicated those men as alternative perpetrators acting alone.

Is it reasonably probable that adding McMillan’s identity, and Luchie’s ambiguous statement that he heard groans but saw no one, could have led to a different result at trial? We conclude that it is not. The problem for petitioners is that their current alternative theory would have had to persuade the jury that both Alston and Bennett falsely confessed to being active participants in a group attack that never occurred; that Yarborough falsely implicated himself in that group attack and, through coordinated effort or coincidence, gave a highly similar account of how it occurred; that Thomas, a disinterested witness who recognized petitioners when he happened upon the attack and heard Catlett refer to it later that night, wholly fabricated his story; that both Eleby and Jacobs likewise testified to witnessing a group attack that did not occur; and that Montgomery in fact did not see petitioners and others, as a group, identify Fuller as a target and leave the park to rob her.

Note how they considered the entire record including all evidence. That is what Avery needs to do is establish how in light to the entire record and evidence used at trial that wildly accusing someone would be able to cause a jury to acquit.

Of course he can't even get that far since to be admissible Denny requires evidence suggesting someone else committed the crime that is beyond mere speculation. Here is how the Wisconsin Supreme Court put it:

Essentially, the Denny legitimate tendency test requires a court to answer three questions. First, did the alleged third-party perpetrator have a plausible reason to commit the crime? This is the motive prong.

Second, could the alleged third-party perpetrator have committed the crime, directly or indirectly? In other words,does the evidence create a practical possibility that the third party committed the crime? This is the opportunity prong.

Third, is there evidence that the alleged third-party perpetrator actually committed the crime, directly or indirectly? This is the direct connection prong. Logically, direct connection evidence should firm up the defendant's theory of the crime and take it beyond mere speculation. It is the defendant's responsibility to show a legitimate tendency that the alleged third-party perpetrator committed the crime.

Courts may permissibly find——as a matter of law——that no reasonable jury could determine that the third party perpetrated the crime in light of overwhelming evidence that he or she did not.

Nothing on the computer amounts to evidence "that the alleged third-party perpetrator actually committed the crime" and take allegations beyond mere speculation. Indeed Zellner's only argument was to try to claim the evidence on the computer can try to help come up with a plausible motive. Denny requires far more than just positing a motive.

16
  1. He knew that violent porn, torture, and mutilation on a computer gives motive. This is why in his search warrant request affidavit he stated theses things would be found on SA computer.
  2. How to falsify an affidavit

If violent porn, torture and mutilation on a computer is motive, then why overlook BoD and what disturbing things he was searching on his computer? I guess one answer is that BoD didn’t have a lawsuit against MTSO.

Violent porn, torture, and mutilation on a computer = Motive Motive = Potential suspects Sounds like a Denny violation to me

9

So pretty much everyone that insists Avery is guilty also will state that Avery burned all the evidence, specifically the sheets from the bed, clothing and anything that was burnable.

Well if he burned the sheets to coverup any blood, semen, other DNA, then why is their no evidence of this on the mattress? If he laid a tarp down that allegedly captured all DNA, then why the need to burn the sheets?

Considering he was so busy scrubbing the premises of evidence, seems a bit overkill when a tarp did the job.

1

It is a very big difference, and there is more than enough evidence to prove it to any rational person willing to accept reality.

His blood in her Rav4 is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was, at a minimum, a party to the crime. So all the bickering about lack of evidence SA actually pulled the trigger is completely pointless.

Whether he raped her or slashed her throat, pointless.

Where she was killed, pointless.

His blood in the Rav4 found hidden on the ASY, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a party to the crime.

Claims that said blood and Rav4 were planted, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and completely pointless.

12

Except for SA blood in the RAV4. That's the tipping point for me. If it ever came out the rest of the evidence was planted, moved, or even faked, I could believe it with the circumstances surrounding how each was said to be found. But there is absolutely no way that blood got there in any other way than SA actively bleeding in the RAV4.

Community Details

54.5k

Subscribers

159

Online

He served 18 years for a crime he didn't commit. Now he's on the line again, and some want to see him put away for good.

Create Post

r/MakingaMurderer Rules

1.
Toxic language
2.
Misleading post
3.
Off-topic
4.
Doxing
5.
Witch-hunting
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.