Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Lenk and Colburn are crooked as shit. There's no question in my mind that Lenk planted the RAV4 key in Steven's bedroom. Colborn's call to dispatch about the RAV4 was suspicious as well, he definitely acted like he was looking at the vehicle when it was still missing. Somehow evading the log of officer's coming and going was suspect too.
Yea, Colborn especially seemed a bit shady.
The key thing is what blew my mind. I must have missed it if it was in the film but I remember it being such a huge deal that ONLY Avery's DNA was on the key and not Hallbach's. Someone says that the key was probably cleaned and then planted with some of Steve's DNA.
Did they ever explain why they didn't bring that fact up in the trial? Maybe it wasn't shown but I thought for sure that'd be a big deal that it didn't have any DNA from the victim even though it was her key she's had for a long time.
I don't know if it was actually brought up in trial or not, but it wasn't shown in the film if it was.
And why would Teresa's blood be in the back of the RAV4 if Steven killed her? We're supposed to believe that Steven and Brendan raped her in the bedroom, took her to the garage to shoot her, then put her body in the back of the RAV4, and then move the body to the bonfire? C'mon.
There's just so much that doesn't make sense. To say he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt blows my mind.
I'd love to know what happened in that jury room. Especially if 7 initially were thinking not guilty like the excused juror says.
And the fact that hey prosecuted Steven and Brendan with different versions of what happened. I don't understand that.
Post by TRANTER INDUSTRIES on Jan 5, 2016 19:54:08 GMT -5
Just watched the first episode. Has Netflix made anything bad yet? Everything they've done is very highly well received. OITNB, new Arrested Development, Daredevil, and now this.
Just watched the first episode. Has Netflix made anything bad yet? Everything they've done is very highly well received. OITNB, new Arrested Development, Daredevil, and now this.
Just watched the first episode. Has Netflix made anything bad yet? Everything they've done is very highly well received. OITNB, new Arrested Development, Daredevil, and now this.
Fuck S4 of Arrested Development.
What didn't you like about it? I thought it was done really well. Plus the dramatic irony of George-Michaels story was beautiful
Just watched the first episode. Has Netflix made anything bad yet? Everything they've done is very highly well received. OITNB, new Arrested Development, Daredevil, and now this.
Fuck S4 of Arrested Development.
Ohhhh come on now Rothy-poo. It wasn't as good as the other three seasons, but it wasn't bad.
Edit: My vote would go towards F is for Family. It is totally not my style of "humor" and just makes me feel sad, and not in an empathetic way.
Last Edit: Jan 5, 2016 20:18:28 GMT -5 by Jaz - Back to Top
5.5/four tet, daphni b2b floating points, avalon emerson 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.21/serpentwithfeet 5.25/hozier 6.12-16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 6.29/goose 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.27-29/making time 10.17/air
Ohhhh come on now Rothy-poo. It wasn't as good as the other three seasons, but it wasn't bad.
Edit: My vote would go towards F is for Family. It is totally not my style of "humor" and just makes me feel sad, and not in an empathetic way.
You're right, it wasn't bad, but it certainly fails to compare to its former glory. And when you add in the years of hope after S3, it just stings even more.
Honestly, I never even made it through all of S4, maybe 2/3 or so. I was too disappointed to really go on. And then I got sucked into other shows and never had a strong desire to finish. I plan to sit down and rewatch S4, just haven't yet.
S3 had even started to falter a little bit. I'd put S1 and S2 in the 9.5 range, with S3 dipping down into 8-9. Still really great, and love to rewatch them, just a little lower than the first two. Maybe writer changes?
And I know S4 was plagued by the issue they couldn't all shoot together, but it just didn't have the same feel. So much of it felt forced.
Just watched the first episode. Has Netflix made anything bad yet? Everything they've done is very highly well received. OITNB, new Arrested Development, Daredevil, and now this.
Fuck S4 of Arrested Development.
It's still funny. Just.....different. I appreciated a lot of the weird callbacks to things that didn't make sense originally but they were definitely too ambitious with trying to originally make it so it could be watched in any order. I hope if they do more episodes they have a better focus but we'll see if that ever happens.
The article that abrakapokus posted on FB is what convinced me in one direction or another. Before one as leaning very down the middle. Now I think he did it.
Like a lot of people, I don't think they should've been convicted based on the evidence in the trial. There was just way too much reasonable doubt to be guilty. But I do think they did it. The way Breneden was treated was infuriating, but this is also an edited documentary. So it's easiy to manipulate footage to make it look worse than it may have been. Which is what I think happened. I think Dassey helped, but under clear instruction from Avery.
The most damning thing against Avery, which was left out of the film, was that he had specifically requested Halbach be the one to come from Auto Trader. She had also requested to not be sent to his home anymore due to inappropriate behavior exhibited by him. Apparently he made 3 calls to her earlier that day as well, making 2 of them as *67 calls. You don't do things like this if you're just acquaintances with someone. He had a thing for her and she was not only aware of it, but it made her uncomfortable enough that she didn't want to be around him.
So yea, I think they did it. I think they were way too harsh on Brenden due to the ease at which he can be coerced into things, but I think he did help. Avery is an idiot. After 18 years of prison, why would you turn around and do this. It's all just sad. I felt bad for their families more than anything. That poor, poor family. I can't imagine spending my life fighting for my family in prison. And now Brenden too, so young. It's just sad.
The article that abrakapokus posted on FB is what convinced me in one direction or another. Before one as leaning very down the middle. Now I think he did it.
Like a lot of people, I don't think they should've been convicted based on the evidence in the trial. There was just way too much reasonable doubt to be guilty. But I do think they did it. The way Breneden was treated was infuriating, but this is also an edited documentary. So it's easiy to manipulate footage to make it look worse than it may have been. Which is what I think happened. I think Dassey helped, but under clear instruction from Avery.
The most damning thing against Avery, which was left out of the film, was that he had specifically requested Halbach be the one to come from Auto Trader. She had also requested to not be sent to his home anymore due to inappropriate behavior exhibited by him. Apparently he made 3 calls to her earlier that day as well, making 2 of them as *67 calls. You don't do things like this if you're just acquaintances with someone. He had a thing for her and she was not only aware of it, but it made her uncomfortable enough that she didn't want to be around him.
So yea, I think they did it. I think they were way too harsh on Brenden due to the ease at which he can be coerced into things, but I think he did help. Avery is an idiot. After 18 years of prison, why would you turn around and do this. It's all just sad. I felt bad for their families more than anything. That poor, poor family. I can't imagine spending my life fighting for my family in prison. And now Brenden too, so young. It's just sad.
That's what I don't get either, why would Avery do it? He just got out of prison, was about to get $450k, and was suing for $36M.
The stuff about him calling Halbach and Halbach requesting to not go out there definitely doesn't look good. But I'm not willing to put someone away for life because they might be a creeper.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't take a massive conspiracy to make this happen. It only takes 2 crooked cops (Lenk and Colburn) to pull off planting the evidence like they did. The RAV4 key was planted.
The EDTA test the FBI did was bullshit too.
Like I said, I'm not 100% Avery is innocent, but I do believe Dassey is innocent. However, the fact that this can happen to someone in this way is truly terrifying.
And the prosecution's theory of events just flat didn't happen. There's not a doubt of it in my mind.
There was not a rape/throat slitting in the bedroom of the trailer. She was not shot in the garage.
It just didn't happen. There would be DNA evidence all over the place. They searched for 8 days, and it took them 4 or 5 days just to "find" the RAV4 key. Then they come back 4 months later and find the bullet just sitting in the garage? Like they didn't check the garage before during their 8 day search? Like Avery didn't pick up the fucking bullet sitting in his garage for 4 months if he actually did do it?
I believe the cops really do think Avery did do it, which is why they think their planting of evidence is justified. They had tunnel vision from the start, and didn't look elsewhere.
A few of the cops (forget which specifically) wouldn't even admit that Avery was innocent of the first rape he was did 18 years on. They still said they thought he did the first one! They had their target, and were going to do whatever was necessary to make sure he was locked up. The ends justified the means to them.
I'd still like to do some more digging into Scott, Brendan's step dad. Something about his just seems off to me, and there are parts of his story that just don't add up to me.
Scott's time of when he was at the Avery property don't match up with reality. The school bus driver contradicted him. Scott's description of the bonfire changes from less than 3' initially, to over 10' at the end. That's an important part imo, you're not incinerating a body with a 3' fire. Scott continually tries to pressure Brendan's mother to convince Brendan to take a plea deal. Scott miraculously hands the only camera to the search team that found the RAV4, as if he knew where it was going to be found.
Couple more things about Scott that piqued my interest, but not recalling them right now.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jan 6, 2016 10:45:21 GMT -5
Probably Brendan's brother who did it all. He knew his uncle would take the fall and that Brendan wouldn't be able to help explain anything. He also had an alibi because of Brendan. Probably had a crush on Hallbach who had come to the property a few times to photograph cars already.
Basing this on nothing, really. Just looking for a twist.
Probably Brendan's brother who did it all. He knew his uncle would take the fall and that Brendan wouldn't be able to help explain anything. He also had an alibi because of Brendan. Probably had a crush on Hallbach who had come to the property a few times to photograph cars already.
Basing this on nothing, really. Just looking for a twist.
Yeah, it seemed like the defense alluded to several potential suspects without directly naming people as required by pretrial order:
Brendan's stepdad Brendan's brother Some combination of Brendan's stepdad and brother Teresa's roommate Teresa's ex
I had some gut suspicion about Teresa's brother, but it was based on absolutely nothing. The guy just rubs me the wrong way.
My final thoughts after watching this all the way through:
Steve I think that Steve's defense attorneys did a stellar job. Based on what the documentary presented of the state's case in chief, I personally would have had a reasonable doubt, but I think reasonable minds could have differed and I do not believe the jury's decision to convict was clearly erroneous as some have suggested. Now that we know about additional evidence presented at trial that was not featured in the documentary, the decision by the jury to convict appears even less erroneous.
That being said, there was clear police misconduct, and the officers involved should have received some form of punishment. Ken Kratz also engaged in some unethical behavior during the investigation and trial. I think righting that wrong is the best case scenario from this documentary with respect to Steve. I do not think this documentary will or probably even should absolve Steve, unless it leads to some major revelation not previously known.
Brendan Brendan's story is the true miscarriage of justice in this documentary. Not only did Len Kachinsky and his investigator ineffectively represent Brendan's interest, they both assertively f*cked this CHILD. The fruits of his Court-ruled improper second "confession", which includes the drawings, should have never been entered into evidence during his case in chief. Something that has not been highlighted enough is that Brendan's attorneys at trial failed him as well. We were not told about their reasoning in the documentary, but their agreement to stop the first confession tape rather than playing it through to the portion in which Brendan discusses how the officers "got in his head" is baffling to me.
Once again, there may be more evidence during the trial against Brendan than the documentary showed. If Steve committed this crime, Brendan may very well have been involved in at least the body burning activities. However, the most important evidence in the state's case against Brendan was highly improper. Brendan deserves relief, and this documentary may very well accomplish this for him. Hopefully this documentary additionally will lead to some form of punishment for Len Kachinsky and Investigator O'Kelley.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jan 7, 2016 16:13:31 GMT -5
I just listened to a minute or two of what Nancy Grace was saying about why this documentary is so terrible and it made me have a thought.
She talks about the bones being found, after she had been raped, killed, and burned.
Is there any actual way to prove that she was raped? Like....if all they found were bone fragments from a fire then is there an actual way to test and prove that she was sexually assaulted if all they had were burnt up bone fragments? As far as we know it's only based on testimony from Brendan who was clearly being manipulated.
I just listened to a minute or two of what Nancy Grace was saying about why this documentary is so terrible and it made me have a thought.
She talks about the bones being found, after she had been raped, killed, and burned.
Is there any actual way to prove that she was raped? Like....if all they found were bone fragments from a fire then is there an actual way to test and prove that she was sexually assaulted if all they had were burnt up bone fragments? As far as we know it's only based on testimony from Brendan who was clearly being manipulated.
Just give the FBI 2 weeks, they'll come up with a test to show it.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jan 7, 2016 18:12:25 GMT -5
Update: Avery juror volunteered for Manitowoc Sheriff's Dept. during trial
Carl Wardman was an official and very active volunteer for the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department at the same time he was serving as a juror on the Steven Avery murder trial, Sheriff Robert Hermann confirmed to OnMilwaukee on Wednesday.
According to the court file, Wardman was a regular voting juror in the Avery case and was not one of the two jurors excused before deliberations. The jury was not sequestered.
Hermann – and court transcripts – also confirmed that Carl Wardman's son, Chris Wardman, worked as a Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department supervisor in the jail during the trial. He was a sergeant for the department at the time his father served on the Avery jury, ultimately finding Avery guilty of murdering photographer Teresa Halbach.
This matters, at least to some, because Avery’s defense focused on allegations that officers with the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department had framed Avery and planted evidence.
Furthermore, the Netflix "Making a Murderer" documentary about the case focuses on that narrative: the same department was also involved in Avery’s earlier wrongful conviction case, for which he spent 18 years in prison before being exonerated by DNA evidence.
According to the court transcripts of the jury selection process, Wardman disclosed his volunteer work and son's employment, but neither the state nor the defense made a motion to strike him. He was quite open about his ongoing Sheriff’s Department ties, saying at one point that he wasn’t sure he wanted to be a juror because, "I like what I do for the Sheriff’s Department. I hate to miss it."
Asked whether he actually had a squad car that he drove around as a safety volunteer, he said, "Yeah. It says ‘volunteer’ on the side."
In jury selection, Wardman was asked if his sergeant son "had any involvement in the Steven Avery case?"
Wardman replied, "Yeah. He’s standing outside the door."
He was asked, "Okay. So, um, so he’s had du—duties here in – in the courthouse, right?"
Wardman: "Yes."
Why didn’t defense attorneys strike Wardman?
This may have been because, during questioning, Wardman, who used to work in a foundry, said that he had been arrested once for OWI 10 years ago, during which an officer from another agency took $3 cash he had and then lied under oath about Wardman "robbing" him, suggesting Wardman might be open to a framing defense despite his ongoing ties to the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Department. Asked if he thought officers could plant evidence or alter evidence, he said in jury selection "depends if they didn’t like him." He also said he had "no opinion" about Avery’s guilt or innocence and that he believed he could give Avery a fair shake.
"I ain’t really got no view," he said.
He also said he believed that police officers are capable of lying under oath, and that he had not talked to his son about the Avery case. "No," he said. "But he had to take training or something for some kind of gizmo they’ve used. Other than that, no." He said he was referring to a stun belt, according to the court transcripts obtained by OnMilwaukee.
"Do you think that, um – do you think the police officers would come into court and lie?" Wardman was asked during jury selection. "Yeah," he said. "Because they can get away with it. Some judges believe them." Juries, too, he agreed.
I guess it's tough for me to believe he did it. I feel like every piece of evidence was either planted or inconclusive. I know the documentary was biased, but the case against him was littered with holes.
When did it ever say that he had called her multiple times? It said some number was calling her and she wouldn't answer it and acted bothered by it. It could've been her ex or anyone
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jan 7, 2016 23:45:42 GMT -5
I have no idea who did it. I don't think the cops decided "Hey.....if we kill this girl it will put him away" but I do believe that some cops were presented with evidence and decided to make it 100% sure that Steven was the one who did it.
It's that weird middle ground. The prosecution got jurors to go with the "If Steven didn't do it then you are saying that these cops killed, moved, and manipulated this to make it look like Steve did" but I believe the theory that there's a middle ground. Others may have killed her and police were doing their best to tie Steven to it. There was a theory going around about how two different groups were working separately (the actual killers and the police dept.) to blame Avery for something with neither of the sides knowing the other was active.
Honestly....it feels weird to try and decipher what we saw and come to a 100% verifiable conclusion. I'm no lawyer or cop and have no experience with any kind of cases. So me saying "this and this seems obvious" feels off but I can't help but think that there was a lot of shady policework done in this case.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jan 8, 2016 0:01:30 GMT -5
To go to the other side of things......I don't trust Brendan's mother. I feel she would say/do anything to make sure her son gets out free whether it's true or not. Not to be offensive but I don't find her to be very intelligent. She seems sketchy as all hell and I feel like she's just looking to blame ANYONE but her son as opposed to logically finding the truth.
To go to the other side of things......I don't trust Brendan's mother. I feel she would say/do anything to make sure her son gets out free whether it's true or not. Not to be offensive but I don't find her to be very intelligent. She seems sketchy as all hell and I feel like she's just looking to blame ANYONE but her son as opposed to logically finding the truth.
I definitely agree with this. She believes Brendan didn't do it, so anything else is better than the current situation. Sorta how the cops believed Avery did it, so were willing to go along with anything to lock him up.
I also believe in the middle ground. I don't think the cops killed Teresa at all. I think the linely scenario is someone close to Avery killed her, knowing it could be pinned on Avery. The cops were looking for anything to lock up Avery, so they went with it. The enda justified the means.
And agreed that Brendan's mom isn't intelligent either, she didn't know what inconsistent meant as well.
I feel so sorry for her though. She doesn't understand the legal system, and is either working with a lawyer who is actively working to incarcerate Brendan, a state appointed who means well but is just average, or stuck trying to muddle through it herself.
And wtf was up with the judge in the case? He made tons of really shady calls about what could and could bot be allowed in court.
Just watched the first episode. Has Netflix made anything bad yet? Everything they've done is very highly well received. OITNB, new Arrested Development, Daredevil, and now this.
Just watched the first episode. Has Netflix made anything bad yet? Everything they've done is very highly well received. OITNB, new Arrested Development, Daredevil, and now this.
Season 3 of House of Cards was pretty lackluster.
I hate that this is such a widely held opinion. I liked season 3 a lot, probably more than season 2. Claire became such an important charachter in season 3 and IMO she's the best of the series so it was great!
Post by bansheebeat on Jan 11, 2016 3:47:28 GMT -5
I spoke with a friend who is a lawyer about this a couple days ago - apparently they discussed the case in a class of his. There's a bunch of physical evidence that the documentary never mentions tying Avery to the crime. He said it was a great documentary and highly entertaining, but no chance that Avery was innocent of the second crime. He said the most important thing to takeaway from watching it was how imperfect the justice system is at every single level. Just his 2 cents though.
Post by bansheebeat on Jan 11, 2016 3:52:57 GMT -5
My personal opinion was stated by the lawyer - the girl was murdered by SOMEBODY (no clue who). The cops weren't involved in the murder (duh). BUT they did see an easy "out" and that was making the evidence point towards Avery. Avery wasn't "framed"; the cops just refused to accept any version of events that didn't involve him being the murderer. So they did what they could to steer the investigation towards him, and given the circumstances it wasn't that difficult to do.
I spoke with a friend who is a lawyer about this a couple days ago - apparently they discussed the case in a class of his. There's a bunch of physical evidence that the documentary never mentions tying Avery to the crime. He said it was a great documentary and highly entertaining, but no chance that Avery was innocent of the second crime. He said the most important thing to takeaway from watching it was how imperfect the justice system is at every single level. Just his 2 cents though.
Did your friend say what that evidence was? The only thing I've found that seemed particularly damning to me was the dna on the car hood. While that certainly points to him, I don't think it, by any means, eliminates the chance that he was innocent. Everything else I've heard is the stuff about him calling her or buying handcuffs. Sure, these things don't look good for him, but they don't justify a murder conviction, at least as far as I can tell. Without having sat through the trial, it's impossible to say whether I'd have voted guilty or not, but I think it's particularly interesting that seven of the jurors initially were apparently ready to vote not guilty at the close of trial. If that's really the case, I have a hard time believing the evidence against him was so strong that there's not a chance he is innocent.
I get that you are just saying what your friend's thoughts on it were, but I've been seeing multiple people say similar things, and I have yet to see one give a really convincing explanation for why they believe he's definitely guilty. I absolutely know the documentary was hugely biased, and I don't necessarily think he's innocent. I'm just trying to understand why some people are so convinced that he is guilty.
Post by manoverboard on Jan 11, 2016 11:27:15 GMT -5
Just finished this last night. So many feelings.
I cant say if Steven definitely killed her or not, but there is obviously no doubt that someone in the Avery family was involved. Theresa clearly never made it off the property, and her bones were found buried behind Steven's garage.
For a while my theory was that while Brendan is completely innocent and knew nothing, Steven did in fact do it. My problem with this though is that would mean Steven is watching his nephew get life in prison for a crime that he is solely responsible and he never spoke up. I just cant imagine Steven would let his nephew join him in prison for a crime he had no involvement in.
My problem with this though is that would mean Steven is watching his nephew get life in prison for a crime that he is solely responsible and he never spoke up. I just cant imagine Steven would let his nephew join him in prison for a crime he had no involvement in.
Steven spent 18 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit. I could see that messing with your head and making you think/act differently. If your theory was the case I could see Steven not feeling too bad about another person going through what he went through.