There isone bit of evidence for the defense that doesn't look good for the police in terms of framing, and for which there was never any sufficient explanation. Two days before "discovering" the RAV4 on the Avery property, Colburn called in the plates to identify the car. The tape of this call was played and was just left hanging there. This is the smoking gun for the frame up in my mind.

Teague wrote:So he sued for 36 million but had to settle for $400k to pay the court fees.

I'm not sure where you got this from but it appears to be incorrect. The ~$400k was not a settlement from his lawsuit. Rather it was a sum that the Wisconsin legislator was going to outright give him to compensate for his false conviction and 18 years in prison. This is an important distinction made in the show because with this money Avery wouldn't have to settle with the county in his suit and could go for full damages. This goes to motive for the county to set him up for the second time because the insurance companies were already preparing to deny coverage for the county due to their misconduct meaning the individuals involved stood to lose massively if the Avery's suit went against them.

It does appear a lot of information relevent to the case was left out of the docuseries as every day more "What was omitted" articles about the program become available. I'll just have to keep reading them, I suppose.

Not saying it leads me to believe Avery is guilty - I don't have an opinion ion on that - but I'm certain the case is more complicated than the program portrayed it.

I agree it's probably more complicated and less one sided but some of these "what was omitted" details are pretty spurious. A lot of it is character stuff about Avery which has nothing to due with his guilt or innocence yet I can see both why the prosecution would want to use it against him and why the producers of this series would leave it out in favor of making him more sympathetic.

Of the 14 omissions list here
http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html
Only one or two has directly implications towards his guilt. The rest range from outright ridiculous to being a stretch and in some you have to wonder if the prosecution is intentionally misrepresenting a detail to make it out to be something it's not.

Like Avery "giving a false name" when he gave his sister's name rather than his own when contacting Auto Trader. The car he was dealing with belonged to his sister so it makes sense he would give them her name (not falsely). And since it's a feminine name you'd also have to believe he was impersonating a woman if he was using it deceitfully. That would seem to be a pretty big detail in and of itself if that in fact happened, which seems rather unlikely.

Teague wrote:


Apparently, from that list, they went over point 6 in the trial.

Also, point 4, so I'm told, their garage is full of crap and apparently the victim was shot in this garage 11 times (how do they know this?). The garage was apparently cleaned though not one single piece of dna of the victim was found. How do you clean a garage full of crap that thoroughly after shooting someone 11 times?

I'll get a chance to watch this tonight.

The lack of DNA in the garage or house was ultimately the deal breaker for me. Their theory of the crime and what took place....its just hard to square that with complete lack of forensic evidence supporting it.

Most of what they have is circumstantial and most of that was found under rather questionable circumstances.

GT2211 wrote:

Teague wrote:


Apparently, from that list, they went over point 6 in the trial.

Also, point 4, so I'm told, their garage is full of crap and apparently the victim was shot in this garage 11 times (how do they know this?). The garage was apparently cleaned though not one single piece of dna of the victim was found. How do you clean a garage full of crap that thoroughly after shooting someone 11 times?

I'll get a chance to watch this tonight.

The lack of DNA in the garage or house was ultimately the deal breaker for me. Their theory of the crime and what took place....its just hard to square that with complete lack of forensic evidence supporting it.

Most of what they have is circumstantial and most of that was found under rather questionable circumstances.

It seems like the case relies largely on the jury having to believe that Avery was simultaneously very thorough in covering up the murder and very sloppy in not covering up the murder.

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:So he sued for 36 million but had to settle for $400k to pay the court fees.

I'm not sure where you got this from but it appears to be incorrect. The ~$400k was not a settlement from his lawsuit. Rather it was a sum that the Wisconsin legislator was going to outright give him to compensate for his false conviction and 18 years in prison. This is an important distinction made in the show because with this money Avery wouldn't have to settle with the county in his suit and could go for full damages. This goes to motive for the county to set him up for the second time because the insurance companies were already preparing to deny coverage for the county due to their misconduct meaning the individuals involved stood to lose massively if the Avery's suit went against them.

No it comes up later. The state changes its mind on the payout to Avery. So he then has no choice but to settle with the county to pay for a defense team

GT2211 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:So he sued for 36 million but had to settle for $400k to pay the court fees.

I'm not sure where you got this from but it appears to be incorrect. The ~$400k was not a settlement from his lawsuit. Rather it was a sum that the Wisconsin legislator was going to outright give him to compensate for his false conviction and 18 years in prison. This is an important distinction made in the show because with this money Avery wouldn't have to settle with the county in his suit and could go for full damages. This goes to motive for the county to set him up for the second time because the insurance companies were already preparing to deny coverage for the county due to their misconduct meaning the individuals involved stood to lose massively if the Avery's suit went against them.

No it comes up later. The state changes its mind on the payout to Avery. So he then has no choice but to settle with the county to pay for a defense team

But that was after he was charged for murder right? So the motive for the county to go after him was still there prior to him being charged. And obviously once he's charged there's no going back on trying to convict him if it was indeed a setup.

Surely this kind of show is only interesting as an exercise in seeing how much they can distort the facts for their own agenda.

If it were clear he was guilty there would be no show, if it were clear he were innocent it would be a news story about his aquittal. They only have a hit show if everyone is talking about 'did he/didn't he'. If they had an actual smoking gun, or cast iron alibi or whatever they wouldn't be able to include it.

(I might still get around to watching it but I suspect the hype about will fizz out and there might not seem much point if any of these 'facts they left out' that appear everywhere turn out to tip the balance decisively).

ED209 wrote:Surely this kind of show is only interesting as an exercise in seeing how much they can distort the facts for their own agenda.

If it were clear he was guilty there would be no show, if it were clear he were innocent it would be a news story about his aquittal. They only have a hit show if everyone is talking about 'did he/didn't he'. If they had an actual smoking gun, or cast iron alibi or whatever they wouldn't be able to include it.

(I might still get around to watching it but I suspect the hype about will fizz out and there might not seem much point if any of these 'facts they left out' that appear everywhere turn out to tip the balance decisively).

That seems to be accurate in regards to the murder case which the show is primarily about. But the original charges that had him locked up for 18 years were seem to be clearly a miscarriage of justice, possibly even criminal. I think that's what makes this a compelling story.

Normally if you had a guy like Avery vs the police/DA people would think he was just another low life criminal and the police should be believed because they are the police. But the backstory between the two sides basically flips that narrative on it's head.

ED209 wrote:Surely this kind of show is only interesting as an exercise in seeing how much they can distort the facts for their own agenda.

If it were clear he was guilty there would be no show, if it were clear he were innocent it would be a news story about his aquittal. They only have a hit show if everyone is talking about 'did he/didn't he'. If they had an actual smoking gun, or cast iron alibi or whatever they wouldn't be able to include it.

(I might still get around to watching it but I suspect the hype about will fizz out and there might not seem much point if any of these 'facts they left out' that appear everywhere turn out to tip the balance decisively).

You place way too much faith in the government, especially when agents of said government are supposedly actively trying to fuck this guy over... why in such a case would we expect an acquittal?

They can present any evidence for any jury, which is what is said happened. So where would this magical acquittal come from if this were true?

ED209 why the fuck are you speculating on something you've not seen. If you do see it - you will be appalled.

I don't think you need to necessarily see it to know that it's an entertainment program and the producers are making it with a focus on entertainment over accuracy. It doesn't take all that highly trained of a critical eye to see where the producers do manipulate details to support a narrative which better entertains than gives the most realistic impression.

That said, it doesn't mean the whole thing is completely invalid nor that the reality of the situation isn't appalling.

It's necessary to see it to make any sort of judgement call and you use "entertainment" in a slighting manner.
It's meant to be engaging like any good documentary ...entertainment implies "fluff" ala Dancing with the Stars etc.

This is far far from that.

Here is a good series of resources.

http://digg.com/2016/making-a-murderer- ... at-to-read

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:So he sued for 36 million but had to settle for $400k to pay the court fees.

I'm not sure where you got this from but it appears to be incorrect. The ~$400k was not a settlement from his lawsuit. Rather it was a sum that the Wisconsin legislator was going to outright give him to compensate for his false conviction and 18 years in prison. This is an important distinction made in the show because with this money Avery wouldn't have to settle with the county in his suit and could go for full damages. This goes to motive for the county to set him up for the second time because the insurance companies were already preparing to deny coverage for the county due to their misconduct meaning the individuals involved stood to lose massively if the Avery's suit went against them.

Thanks for the correction and provides a bigger motive. I watched the first episode last night and enough came out in that of his original conviction to send my bullshit meter off the scale. To think that they were cleared of "wrong doing" in handling the case is baffling until you realise how fucking corrupt the legal system is over there.

This case makes a mockery of the law so blatantly it couldn't be any more in your face if you tried. So it leaves a few questions.

1) Why the fuck aren't they being investigated by the FBI

2) I thought Avery was a US citizen so why is it that the US gov't is not getting involved here. Obama can't get him out but I bet he could send the FBI to investigate them or do something.

The guy spent 18 years in jail when none of the evidence pointed to him at all and he had a fuck ton of witnesses telling the police he was with them at the time. You couldn't get more corrupt and obviously so with this case that I'm amazed this is even possible. There were no facts supporting any case that Avery raped that woman.

purplerat wrote:I agree it's probably more complicated and less one sided but some of these "what was omitted" details are pretty spurious. A lot of it is character stuff about Avery which has nothing to due with his guilt or innocence yet I can see both why the prosecution would want to use it against him and why the producers of this series would leave it out in favor of making him more sympathetic.

Of the 14 omissions list here
http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html
Only one or two has directly implications towards his guilt. The rest range from outright ridiculous to being a stretch and in some you have to wonder if the prosecution is intentionally misrepresenting a detail to make it out to be something it's not.

Like Avery "giving a false name" when he gave his sister's name rather than his own when contacting Auto Trader. The car he was dealing with belonged to his sister so it makes sense he would give them her name (not falsely). And since it's a feminine name you'd also have to believe he was impersonating a woman if he was using it deceitfully. That would seem to be a pretty big detail in and of itself if that in fact happened, which seems rather unlikely.

So maybe we should look at the first case where there is clear fabrication going on. They were out to get him and we're now expected to think they did a fair job a second time? Some of the things he wrote in jail were him getting mad because his wife was threatening to murder his kids so the torture picture bollocks is just that, bollocks

Also, Avery has an IQ in the 70's so he's going to react to things differently. None of the "omitted" stuff is really relevant to anything either. The cat he killed was when he was young and his mates were negging him to through it through the fire and he did and it went up in flames. Porn - really? FFS it's all irrelevant BS and has nothing to do with the trial for the most part, certainly not against the mountain of crap going against the prosecution.

ED209 wrote:Surely this kind of show is only interesting as an exercise in seeing how much they can distort the facts for their own agenda.

If it were clear he was guilty there would be no show, if it were clear he were innocent it would be a news story about his aquittal. They only have a hit show if everyone is talking about 'did he/didn't he'. If they had an actual smoking gun, or cast iron alibi or whatever they wouldn't be able to include it.

(I might still get around to watching it but I suspect the hype about will fizz out and there might not seem much point if any of these 'facts they left out' that appear everywhere turn out to tip the balance decisively).

There's the 3rd option where you show a guy set up and hounded by the police and locked up for 18 years of his life, completely innocent and then when he gets out and tries to sue the people that put him away, they go after him again in the exact, same, manner to the point we're questioning if evidence was planted to convict him. I don#'t think anyone is asking "did he, didn't he" I think they watch the show for the massive miscarriage of justice and why there's a huge petition to get him out of jail.

purplerat wrote:I don't think you need to necessarily see it to know that it's an entertainment program and the producers are making it with a focus on entertainment over accuracy. It doesn't take all that highly trained of a critical eye to see where the producers do manipulate details to support a narrative which better entertains than gives the most realistic impression.

That said, it doesn't mean the whole thing is completely invalid nor that the reality of the situation isn't appalling.

Well it's not like his first case wasn't manipulated to the point of gross vindictiveness so I suppose this balances things out though I've only seen episode one so far.

purplerat wrote:I don't think you need to necessarily see it to know that it's an entertainment program and the producers are making it with a focus on entertainment over accuracy.

I don't see why you jump to that conclusion. You've got to be sceptical but there's no need for prejudice.

purplerat wrote:

It doesn't take all that highly trained of a critical eye to see where the producers do manipulate details to support a narrative which better entertains than gives the most realistic impression.

It's a very highly trained eye that can see without watching.

ED209 wrote:
Surely this kind of show is only interesting as an exercise in seeing how much they can distort the facts for their own agenda.

If it were clear he was guilty there would be no show, if it were clear he were innocent it would be a news story about his aquittal. They only have a hit show if everyone is talking about 'did he/didn't he'. If they had an actual smoking gun, or cast iron alibi or whatever they wouldn't be able to include it.

(I might still get around to watching it but I suspect the hype about will fizz out and there might not seem much point if any of these 'facts they left out' that appear everywhere turn out to tip the balance decisively).

haven't seen it have you ??

•••

The vial of blood and key found in plain sight after 3 searches of the same room and only after one of the county cops was present without supervision...

Simply zero physical evidence in the bedroom where a woman supposedly was butchered. He had dealt with the wwoman before, had a squeeze of his own and about to get at least 1/2 million in compensation and more to come.

The county cop verifying with HQ the plate of the Subaru two days before it was found

The biggest puzzle for me is his nephew...the treatment by the county police was abysmal

This is a very very complex case and the county comes off looking guilty as hell BUT what actually happened to the poor victim???
Is it a repeat where the actual perp got off??.....

I find it a stretch to think a cop did her in.
One thing that I did not hear.....were the bones in the fire pit actually ID'd via DNA....that hot a fire I'd think would be pretty destructive.