that would be something you could use on appeal though, right? if a juror lied/didn't disclose something like that. seems like a major conflict of interest
On voir dire, you basically have to go by what a juror says. If they're biased and want to be empaneled, it's easy enough to hide your bias. Jurors aren't generally subjected to the kind of extensive background checks you would need to discover familial relationships. Maybe they would do that for a grand jury, but not a petit jury.
I'm not sure how that works. If the entire jury pool is biased from press coverage and you can't get a fair trial, that's one thing. But here you had a unanimous verdict so I'm not sure how much of an impact one juror could have from a legal point of view.that would be something you could use on appeal though, right? if a juror lied/didn't disclose something like that. seems like a major conflict of interest
If rape were the motive, why did the neighbor and prosecution witness say that Halbech was seen walking to Avery's trailer? That testimony was probably fabricated, at least as to the timeline since it conflicted with the bus driver, but still, why have him say that?
The fact of the matter is that there was no motive. There was no indication that there was either a rape or a murder except for a single bullet that was probably compromised. And Halbech was on the property photographing Janda's van, so Avery didn't even have anything to do with her being there.
I'd also point out that burning flesh has a very distinctive odor. Just ask anyone who survived a Nazi concentration camp. It's a smell you don't ever forget. So if Halbech had been burned on the property, someone would have smelled it. Yet you have an eye witness saying he was maybe 30 ft from the fire but there's never even a remark about the smell.
It just doesn't make sense. This was clearly a case where the prosecution had some of their own people on the jury and the best result Avery was EVER going to get was a hung jury.
I just started replaying episode 1 of The Jinx and damn it was so good. The Jinx >>> Making a Murder >>>>>>>>> Serial
Some of those are good points. In terms of the van, that belonged to a neighbor on the Avery property. Probably the only reason Steven even talked to her was because Janda asked him.Could be, I mean I haven't dug into this any further than what was presented to me in the documentary.
What does the neighbor's testimony about her walking to his trailer have to do with my accusation of? Isn't this accusation also a motive for murder then too?rape
I don't think the documentary made it clear that it was someone else's van. I didn't know that until I read the spoilers here.
Since 99.9% of the population has never been in a, I highly doubt the average joe knows what theNazi concentration campis like. Not to mention both Steven and Brendon admitted throwing various junk from the yard into the fire including tiressmell of a burning human, at least some.which could cover the smell
I don't know. It's not like I do investigations for a living. It also doesn't help that I was pretty bored from ep5-9.
Some of those are good points. In terms of the van, that belonged to a neighbor on the Avery property. Probably the only reason Steven even talked to her was because Janda asked him.
Like most criminal cases, you could go either way on this. I just think that the absence of a motive plus the lack of any blood evidence besides one small smear was enough for reasonable doubt. Especially since the bus driver blew up the timeline offered by Bobby Dassey and the only eye witness to the bonfire - Tadych.
As I understand it, yes. Although they never explain why Barb's surname is Janda and the kids are Dassey. I assume Tadych is the step father, so that makes sense.They didn't spend much time talking about that guy. Just poking around it sounds like he was more important than just a passer by. So he is married to Brendan's and bobbys mother?
As I understand it, yes. Although they never explain why Barb's surname is Janda and the kids are Dassey. I assume Tadych is the step father, so that makes sense.
Also it's not really clear why they are on the Avery property. The only thing I can guess is that Barb is a relative. I think they actually mentioned this at a couple points but I can't remember if she's a cousin or what.
I don't remember that but I wouldn't swear to it.I could be wrong, but in Ep9 or 10 wasn't her last name Tadych?
stop posting until the drugs wear off
Biggest red flags to me:
The license plate check. One of the cops, Lenk I think, called in and asked for an ID based on a plate... and read off the license plate of the victims car- BEFORE THE CAR WAS FOUND. After the lady on the other end identified it as the car of the victim, Lenk said "[year] toyota?" and the lady on the other end confirmed. I'm not sure how else you can interpret this other than that Lenk was looking at the car when he was reading the plate- this was days before the vehicle was officially found.
.
The other interesting tidbit that I read on Reddit or was part of the show. The murdered girls key. She owned it how long? And there was not any DNA from her (skin cells for example) but it only had Steve Avery's DNA on it? Really? Yet Steve Avery's DNA was on the hood latch (skin cells)? Also, I don't know so maybe someone can answer. What was the DNA on the key? Blood or skin cells?
I have now watched the entire thing.
There is no question the investigations and prosecutions of both Avery and Dassey were flawed. The incompetent representation of Dassey by Len Kachinsky likely had a significantly deleterious effect on both cases.
There are a number of pieces of evidence that cause me to have real questions about whether Avery and/or Dassey were guilty. In particular, the recorded calls of Avery talking to his fiancee the day of the murder - he sounds unhurried and calm - and the recording of the Manitowoc officer calling in the license plate from Teresa Haibach's car, days before it was found.
All of that being said, the film is told with a significant pro-defense bias, and in some ways it presents the evidence in what I consider a somewhat misleading way.
I have read the transcripts of the interviews of Brendan Dassey - they are at http://www.convolutedbrian.com/dassey_confessions_links.html (I have not listened to the audio or watched the video, however). To me the questioning is not unduly suggestive as a whole, and there's no question he is the one who originates much of the relevant information. In places he has included corroborated, incriminating details that were never referenced in the movie (e.g., he states that he and Avery put the car by the pit on the property, and Avery covered it with sticks and a car hood, which was in fact the way it was found, and he also states that Avery put the body in the car before deciding to burn it - this would account for the presence of bloodstains in the back of the car consistent with her bloody head touching the interior of the cargo area of the car). He also refuses to agree to certain things that are suggested by the detectives (e.g., he is adamant that he did not shoot Teresa Haibach despite being asked repeatedly whether he did). Certainly if I had conducted this interview I would be left with the impression that he was telling the truth. I was also troubled by the trial testimony by the female cousin, who told the authorities in March that Brendan had lost weight and seemed really upset for months after Halloween, and told her about the body being in the fire. I know she recanted at trial, but I thought this was still a fairly persuasive piece of prosecution evidence.
I find it hard to analyze the question of whether Avery and Dassey are guilty without having seen the entire trial, or learned more about whether there was any plausible alternative suspect. I frankly don't believe the police committed this murder, though I could certainly imagine them tampering with evidence. I know the defense was barred from naming anyone else as a potential suspect, but I gather they also really didn't have one, or the filmmakers would have referenced that. I know Teresa had received the unwelcome phone calls, but given how thorough Avery's attorneys were, and the fact that they had access to her cellular phone records, I assume they ran that lead to ground and it didn't point to a viable suspect. Based on that, we are left with the fact that the murder happened on the Avery property, and he was the last person known to have interacted with her.
Overall, I think it's likely (though far from certain) that Avery is guilty, and I would not be shocked if Dassey is as well. That being said, I think there was reasonable doubt with respect to both cases, and that they should probably not have been convicted.