Why did the brother and ex access the voicemail and call records?

That is suspicious

Why did the brother and ex access the voicemail and call records?

That is suspicious

 

Why did the ex have a crap memory when faced with straight forward questions in court ?

 

He could not remember what time of day he last saw his ex girlfriend on the sunday, morning, afternoon or evening. But he could remember that he did see her that day as he was dropping something off for her house mate Scott Bloedorn, but he couldn't remember what he was dropping off either.

 

The only question he was very quick at answering was when he was asked if their was any romance between house mates Scott Bloedorn and Teresa Halbach, when he swiftly said "no", although how he could be completely sure of this i fail to see, as he was not living at the house, and was not seeing Teresa at the time. 

The only question he was very quick at answering was when he was asked if their was any romance between house mates Scott Bloedorn and Teresa Halbach, when he swiftly said "no", although how he could be completely sure of this i fail to see, as he was not living at the house, and was not seeing Teresa at the time. 

 

Wasn't he pals with Scott? I might be remembering that wrong, but if he was then presumably he'd have known (or thought he did) if there was anything going on between Scott and Teresa.

 

He still came across very badly though and didn't seem entirely honest/open. If Steven didn't do it then my money's on him. 

Wasn't he pals with Scott? I might be remembering that wrong, but if he was then presumably he'd have known (or thought he did) if there was anything going on between Scott and Teresa.

 

 

Yes they were all friends, but Ryan and Scott became friends through Teresa iirc.

 

In court Ryan was always answering questions like "If I recall" or "As far as I know" or other non-committed answers. Hardly ever did he just say yes or no.

 

So when asked if Scott and Teresa were romantically involved it was a bit surprising when he came straight out with a NO, rather than, "As far as I was aware no".

If like me you love watching these kind of documentaries, try these that I have seen and can recommend as they are all quiet shocking.

The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4299972/?ref_=tt_rec_tt

Capturing the Friedmans http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342172/?ref_=tt_rec_tt

Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117293/?ref_=tt_rec_tt

The Overnighters http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3263996/

Should add West of Memphis onto that list, the follow up to paradise lost

Yes I should have said all the "Paradise Lost" films.

 

In this order...

 

Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills     http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117293/?ref_=tt_rec_tt

 

Paradise Lost 2: Revelations     http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0239894/?ref_=tt_rec_tt

 

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory     http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2028530/?ref_=tt_rec_tt

 

West of Memphis    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2130321/?ref_=tt_rec_tt

Edited January 13, 201610 yr by coco

Yes they were all friends, but Ryan and Scott became friends through Teresa iirc.

 

To be fair, you've just smashed all 10 in a row, so chances are that you recall correctly 

 

Agree about him being a suspect, and like the brother, didn't come across particularly sad during any of it. My other suspicion with him is that, it's a bit odd that the ex-boyfriend is leading the search efforts. Maybe trying to hard to show he wasn't involved.

 

My longshot 'theory' is that the police (Lenk in particular) had something to do with the murder. The timing with Avery's settlement etc was just too convenient. If there's anything that would stop a bloke killing someone, it's knowing that you've got a truckload of money coming you're way from the state fairly soon. Maybe they got Agent 47 involved? 

‘Making a Murderer’: Steven Avery’s Ex-Fiancée Claims ‘Behind Closed Doors, He’s a Monster’

 

Some big claims there. It could be that she's just lashing out out of spite or to get revenge for something, or maybe she's telling the truth. I did find it a bit weird the way she took the opportunity to completely wash her hands of him, blaming it on police harassment. She definitely didn't share Steven's commitment to the relationship. It's an interesting read anyway, and correlates with a lot of what I've been hearing about Avery being quite a nasty piece of work.

 

 

“Capable of murder?” led Grace’s interviewer.

 

“Yeah,” Stachowski replied, nodding. “Hurting people. He told me once, excuse my language, ‘All bitches owe him’ because of the one that sent him to prison the first time. We all owed him.”

Despite me thinking he is guilty for whatever part of her murder I think sitting in US prison cell for 18 years would turn some folk into a bit of a resentful person..especially towards certain woman if it was on a false rape charge.

‘Making a Murderer’: Steven Avery’s Ex-Fiancée Claims ‘Behind Closed Doors, He’s a Monster’

 

Some big claims there. It could be that she's just lashing out out of spite or to get revenge for something, or maybe she's telling the truth. I did find it a bit weird the way she took the opportunity to completely wash her hands of him, blaming it on police harassment. She definitely didn't share Steven's commitment to the relationship. It's an interesting read anyway, and correlates with a lot of what I've been hearing about Avery being quite a nasty piece of work.

 

IIRC- She was hounded by the law, but because of her own alcoholism, she wasn't meant to be drinking and was on probation. She was ordered to leave the area and get a job or go back to prison. And why did she not reveal any of this during the hours and hours of filming the documentary ?

 

 

Now, Stachowski says she lied about the phone calls,

 

When you get to ^ that bit, you have to stop reading what she says, she cannot be trusted.

Edited January 14, 201610 yr by coco

IIRC- She was hounded by the law, but because of her own alcoholism, she wasn't meant to be drinking and was on probation. She was ordered to leave the area and get a job or go back to prison. And why did she not reveal any of this during the hours and hours of filming the documentary ?

 

"Now, Stachowski says she lied about the phone calls,"

 

When you get to ^ that bit, you have to stop reading what she says, she cannot be trusted.

 

Well if you keep reading for a couple more lines she explains why she felt she had to lie (and also why she did not reveal anything during her participation in the documentary):

 

 

She now claims that she pretended to be supportive of Avery because she was afraid he would hurt her otherwise. “He told me how to act. He said smile, be happy. I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t want to get hurt.”

 

I probably find it more believable that she might have been bullied into supporting Avery's story rather than she just decided to make up a load of very serious allegations during an interview with a reporter (for what motivation? attention?).

Well if you keep reading for a couple more lines she explains why she felt she had to lie (and also why she did not reveal anything during her participation in the documentary):

 

 

I probably find it more believable that she might have been bullied into supporting Avery's story rather than she just decided to make up a load of very serious allegations during an interview with a reporter (for what motivation? attention?).

 

But how can he hurt her when he's inside prison ? And if she was that scared of him, why didn't she speak out and make sure he stayed in prison, why give him an alibi if it means he could be released to hurt you ? Doesn't make sense. Why lie ?

 

I can understand why Brendan lied like he did, he just wanted to go back to school the next day after admitting being part of a gruesome murder.

But how can he hurt her when he's inside prison ? And if she was that scared of him, why didn't she speak out and make sure he stayed in prison, why give him an alibi if it means he could be released to hurt you ? Doesn't make sense. Why lie ?

 

I can understand why Brendan lied like he did, he just wanted to go back to school the next day after admitting being part of a gruesome murder.

 

I'm pretty sure she left him quite early on in the investigation, so she wouldn't have had much of an idea how long he was gong to stay in prison. She didn't come across as the sharpest tool in the box anyway. Maybe she was afraid of the family as well. You hear about similar stories all the time, abused women sticking by/supporting their abuser even though the only sensible thing to do is to get rid. I don't understand this either because I've never been in that position and I'm no psychologist; it could be out of fear, or maybe even some misplaced feeling of loyalty that diminishes with time.

 

The way I see it, she either lied then or she's lying now, and it's easier for me to understand why she would have lied back then. 

Maybe your'e right, maybe she did lie, but not for the reason of helping Steve the murderer, but more for helping Steve the innocent soon to be millionaire. She could not know for sure if Steven did or did not kill Teresa, but she did know about the money, the £36m payout coming his way, so she probably had her head turned by that amount of dollar, and she obviously knew Steve was into her like a puppy dog, with him not being the brightest or easiest person on the eye, you would have to wonder what the attraction was for her if not the multi million dollar payout. She probably finished with him after he had the $450k payout when he was on remand, the same money he used for his own defence.

 

Yeah I'm now convinced she was in it for the money, I mean look at him.

Despite me thinking he is guilty for whatever part of her murder I think sitting in US prison cell for 18 years would turn some folk into a bit of a resentful person..especially towards certain woman if it was on a false rape charge.

 

I agree, but imagine 18 years locked up, you have to have some hate build up inside you for the system and people who put you in there all that time. But he never once showed any hate for those people in all the footage Iv'e seen. In fact he even forgives the rape victim who mistakenly ID'd him as the rapist.

The jury in the Steven Avery murder case may have deliberated improperly or considered highly inflammatory evidence that wasn’t presented at trial, which could open the door for a new trial, a world exclusive In Touch investigation has uncovered.

 

In Touch spoke in person exclusively to 13 of the 16 jurors on the case (including alternates) and while some had little to say, four of them opened up and gave new details of what happened in the jury room for the case that spawned Netflix’s viral 10-part hit, Making a Murderer.

 

One juror, when asked why they voted guilty and what they thought happened to murder victim Teresa Halbach, said “Torture and rape. Then he shot her in the head. He cut her up and put her in a burn barrel.”

 

The juror’s comments are significant because no evidence of Teresa being raped and tortured was allowed in Avery’s trial. That information comes from a confession given by Avery’s nephew Brendan Dassey and was part of a pre-trial press conference given by prosecutor Ken Kratz.

 

The juror’s explanation is a bombshell because it may now open the door for a new trial says a top attorney.

 

“If a jury made its decision on incomplete, improper or withheld evidence then there are absolute grounds for a new trial,” New York criminal defense attorney Bruce Baron explains. “The jurors now may well be brought before an appellate review and ordered to describe whether they discussed certain inadmissible details they should not have brought into their deliberations.”

 

Even current Manitowoc County prosecutor Michael Griesbach – who believes Avery is guilty – says the judge made it clear the jury was not to consider the rape and torture scenario that was part of a controversial confession by Avery’s nephew but not introduced at the trial.  

 

“The judge warned the jury to only consider details that they heard in court. You know he was referring to Brendan’s confession which was never spoken about in open court.”

 

In Touch’s exclusive information comes after a several week investigation by the magazine on the ground in Wisconsin, where jurors – most of whom wanted to remain anonymous – revealed what happened in the deliberation room and why they voted guilty.

 

One of the prosecution’s key pieces of evidence against Steven was his DNA, found on the hood latch of Teresa’s car — even though no fingerprints were detected. Asked how that could be, unnamed Juror #2 acted out the motion of putting on gloves.

 

“Sweat,” the juror explained, wiping their face. “If you’re worked up, there are plenty of ways to get sweat on there.”

 

Steven’s lawyers, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting, built their case by attacking the police and claiming evidence was planted. Teresa’s car key was found — in plain sight in Steven’s bedroom on the fourth day of searching — by James Lenk, one of the cops named in Steven’s $36 million suit against the county for wrongfully convicting him in a 1985 rape case (Avery spent 18 years in prison before DNA evidence freed him).

 

“I don’t know what happened there,” unnamed juror No. 2 admitted about Lenk’s late discovery of the key.

 

In Touch discovered that one juror was in regular contact with the judge during the trial. This never-before-revealed detail comes from the juror, who said they are skeptical of Steven’s guilty verdict.

 

“I questioned things all the time,” reveals the juror, who was let go before deliberations began.

The juror, who’d planned to vote not guilty, claims, “I’d send notes to the judge and he’d call me in to talk about it. A lot of questions weren’t answered.”

 

One question that has perplexed viewers of the series is why the jury found Steven guilty of murder — but not guilty on the count of mutilating Teresa’s body.

 

“Why was that even a count? There was no proof. That’s why he was not guilty,” another juror said, adding, “There are a lot of things [about the case] that don’t make sense."

 

The rest of the jurors have no doubt they reached the right verdict, however.

 

“Everything pointed to [steven]. I have a clear conscience,” says unnamed juror No. 2. “I don’t have trouble sleeping at night. Never did then, not till this day, even.”

 

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/steven-avery-making-a-murderer-87155

Edited January 15, 201610 yr by coco

Maybe your'e right, maybe she did lie, but not for the reason of helping Steve the murderer, but more for helping Steve the innocent soon to be millionaire. She could not know for sure if Steven did or did not kill Teresa, but she did know about the money, the £36m payout coming his way, so she probably had her head turned by that amount of dollar, and she obviously knew Steve was into her like a puppy dog, with him not being the brightest or easiest person on the eye, you would have to wonder what the attraction was for her if not the multi million dollar payout. She probably finished with him after he had the $450k payout when he was on remand, the same money he used for his own defence.

 

Yeah I'm now convinced she was in it for the money, I mean look at him.

 

I hadn't considered that, it's possible but I find it a bit of a leap to make since there's nothing (that I'm aware of) to support that theory. I think it's important to remember that she wasn't much of a catch either; a troubled alcoholic who was in and out of jail, so I can imagine they had a lot in common. But even if she was in it for the money then that wouldn't exclude her from having been the victim of Avery's abuse.

“Poor people lose...poor people lose all the time,”

Good read ..

 

http://gawker.com/making-a-murderer-is-good-but-what-is-it-good-for-1749904524

 

 

 

 

Halbach family spokesperson Mike (Teresa’s brother) doesn’t help things at all by creepily grinning when discussing his sister’s murder trial, and by blindly investing faith in the police (“We love the police!” he gushes at one point). Did he need closure so much that he refused to see the defense’s reasonable suggestion that his sister’s actual murderer might still be somewhere on the loose, or did he need to show solidarity with the police, for some other reason?

At the point when I realized that, I had far less emotional connection to the Halbachs than then Averys,

Just finished this series. Blitzed it all in 4 days (not all at once like that mad-man Coco! LOL) .

 

What can I say that the rest of you haven't already said? A set-up from start to finish. Dassey had f**k all to do with Teresa's murder, just a poor, stupid confused kid who got coerced into testifying by those rats Fassbender and Wiegert.

 

I don't think Steven did it either. I think someone in his family may have. What's scary is that the person who did is still out there. I also thought that Teresa's brother didn't seem that bothered by the fact he has lost his sister. I have a younger sister and if it was her you would never see me happy for the rest of my life.

 

America is f**ked up. In the last episode, Steven's lawyer said something to the effect: "I hope in a way that Steven was guilty, because that means our system works".

 

You and me both. 

Edited January 25, 201610 yr by Blueblur

Nailed on set up, the way the poor nephew with learning difficulties was treated disgusted me.

 

Another take on it

 

Just finished this yesterday, might be a bit late since it's all been discussed here but still. Carshalton Blue's post is an interesting take on this, I hadn't thougt of that, but it's all pure guesswork. 

 

I'm not 100% sure Steven Avery didn't do it, I want to believe him but based on what I've seen there's no way to be sure. The trial was an absolute farce though, I had trouble watching it. Even if he did do it, a big giant cluster f**k up like this by the police cannot be accepted.

 

The part about the key has been mentioned repeatedly, I think it's fair to say either Lenk or Colburn put it there, but didn't they also say the key had no DNA from Theresa on it? Just Stevens DNA? She used that key for years, it's clear that it was wiped clean. 

 

Why wasn't there more emphasis on the blood tube? It was in some kind of evidence room, the seals were even broken. Isn't there a security camera or some kind of log that keeps track of who looks at what? There was clearly a hole poked in there by (something similar to) a needle. Was it just left out in the show or did they leave it for what it was? The EDTA tests of the blood found in the RAV4 were sketchy as well. 

 

I too hope that Steven did do it, if he didn't it's just horrible. It's obvious that there were many mistakes made by the police, heads should roll.

 

I just want to add that I'm glad my nations legal system doesn't require a jury to make big decisions like this. I don't know a lot about it but it seems like a sh*tty legal system to be honest.

Making a Murderer subject Brendan Dassey's conviction overturned

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37066686

http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/news/a48344/steven-avery-making-a-murderer-case-development/

On 12/08/2016 at 22:46, coco said:

Making a Murderer subject Brendan Dassey's conviction overturned

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37066686

And released ..............  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37980721