Blood will clot when exposed to the air. Blood on a rag will dry, so it can't be wiped onto another surface and leave the smear that we see in the photos.
Making a Murderer - Netflix
- Thread starter Gerhardt
- Start date
Blood will clot when exposed to the air. Blood on a rag will dry, so it can't be wiped onto another surface and leave the smear that we see in the photos.
Are you positive about that? It wasn't clear to me watching it what the procedural history was. It is possible that the judge was simply considering a post trial motion that was filed in the trial court, and was not sitting at the court of appeals. Had it been the court of appeals, I would have expected more than one judge hearing the oral argument. I could be wrong on this, so if anyone knows and can set me straight, just say so. Thanks.
I thought the same thing. But for what it's worth, in the documentary, she specifically denied giving them permission. So, I don't know whom to believe on that front.
The conspiracy to frame him is getting more complicated by the day. So the blood on the car dash was from the vial yet the blood used to throw off the testing was from the rag. I am starting to lose track of the different interacting plots that are required to make this work.
The only thing that is established is that the seal on the bag was broken at one point in time. The blood gets into those containers by puncturing the rubber stopper and allowing the vacuum inside to draw in the appropriate amount of blood from either a phlebotomy needle or a syringe. In a adult*, the puncture hole only establishes that blood got into the container.
* when working with small children, I have filled EDTA containers by popping off the top and dripping the blood into them without penetrating the rubber stopper. That was done because we had very limited samples that we needed for several tests and we didn't want all of it get sucked into the first vial. The cell counter, which the EDTA vial is used for, is tolerant to varying concentrations of EDTA in the sample.
Last edited:
The trial judge was Willis. The appelate panel was Brown, Neubauer and Reilly.
Willis did hear the post-conviction motions. They are part of the initial trial and are heard by the court that held the trial. The appeals court reviewed Willis opinion and decision on the post-conviction motions and allowed them to stand.
Last edited:
Mike Smith
En-Route
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,627
- Location
- Prattville, Alabama
- Display Name
Display name:
Fresh Prince of PrattVegas
I have no opinion of Averys guilt or innocence, but the misconduct and outright sabatage in the Dassey trial was unbelievable. Dassey absolutely deserves a new trial.
bflynn
Final Approach
Ditto. There are better ways to waste time.
wilkersk
Pattern Altitude
It seems you make quite an assumption about my intelligence. In fact, 2 minutes is all I need to see where this "documentary" was headed, and that it was not my cup of tea. The only assumption I make is that the story will end predictably with much criticism of the justice system, and not much else.
Last edited:
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
I understand how the vacutainer is initially filled. But I believe that the documentary explained that the lawyer called LabCorp, who stated that they removed the cap to analyze the blood and replaced it with a fresh one afterwards.
Also, when I was a paramedic, every vial of blood I ever watched being drawn for forensic purposes was immediately sealed with a barcoded sticker that was attached to the stopper end of the vial itself, extending past the stopper to the glass. Then the sealed vial was placed and sealed into a barcoded bag with the case information written on it, so both the vial and the bag were barcoded and sealed.
I don't know what happened to the samples after that, but apparently the vials are placed in cushioned boxes, which are also barcoded and sealed, and sent to the crime lab. Aren't the vials re-sealed again after the analysis is done? It would seem pretty dumb not to considering that they're forensic evidence.
Whatever the case, however, in the Avery case, the evidence box itself was obviously and illegally unsealed, there was no record of any court order authorizing it, there was no record of it even having been done, and the only people with access to it were either LEOs or people from the prosecutor's office. That doesn't definitively prove that someone accessed the blood for evidence-planting reasons; but really, what other reasonable explanation is there for someone illegally unsealing and accessing a blood sample?
I'm not the sort of person who believes that cops in general are corrupt or would plant evidence. In fact, I think that's extremely rare. But it's hard for me to come up with a reasonable explanation for this particular sample, in this particular case, having been accessed and unsealed. There is no reasonable alternative motive, and no one else had physical access to it.
Can you come up with any non-malicious reason for that sample having been clandestinely accessed and unsealed, without authorization or documentation, that isn't outlandish? The only reason I can think of is an outlandish one: that some nut job wanted a sample of Avery's blood to auction off on eBay or for some similarly morbid collector reason.
Finally, the very fact that the evidence was able to be accessed and tampered with without authorization nor documentation doesn't speak well of the evidence-safeguarding and chain-of-custody procedures that were in place.
So in the end, I still have to say that I would have voted to acquit, not because I would have been sure that Avery was innocent, but because my confidence level in the integrity of Lt. Lenk, the evidence-safeguarding procedures in place, the chain of custody, and therefore the integrity of the evidence itself, would have been sufficiently damaged as to create reasonable doubt in my mind.
Rich
Last edited:
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Based on this thread and from the recommendations of others, we started watching this weekend. Got to the end of part three, when they get the evidence package with the broken seal. It was late, and I actually considered pulling an all nighter to watch the rest.
I know it's a documentary, and I always have to question if there is a slant to those. But for pure drama, I don't remember seeing anything better.
I know it's a documentary, and I always have to question if there is a slant to those. But for pure drama, I don't remember seeing anything better.
Gerhardt
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,534
- Display Name
Display name:
Gerhardt
I know it's slanted, and I've read that there are important details omitted. Personally, I think Avery may very well be guilty. It's just that the misconduct on the part of the state is so bad that it's unfathomable.
You have to youtube the Seth Meyers spoof.
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
He may be guilty, but the standard of "reasonable doubt" makes one think the wrong verdict was reached.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
watched episodes 5 & 6 tonight.
I've never been called for jury duty, but if I ever am I think my ability to keep an open mind has been expanded.
I've never been called for jury duty, but if I ever am I think my ability to keep an open mind has been expanded.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Finished the series tonight.
I decided two things: either there was way more stuff that wasn't shown in the Brendan Dassey part of the show (his appeal for a new trial), or that kid really got burned. I'm kind of feeling like Avery's lawyer that said, "Part of me hopes he's guilty, because if he isn't the alternative is almost too much to take." (my paraphrasing.)
I decided two things: either there was way more stuff that wasn't shown in the Brendan Dassey part of the show (his appeal for a new trial), or that kid really got burned. I'm kind of feeling like Avery's lawyer that said, "Part of me hopes he's guilty, because if he isn't the alternative is almost too much to take." (my paraphrasing.)
Captain
Final Approach
The whole thing makes me sad. I doubt he did it. Why would he? He was about to be stupid wealthy from the scum that set him up....the first time.
The deputy called in the car before it was found? Wtf? That right there blows their alibi.
And yeah, no DNA despite supposedly raping and slitting her throat...no DNA despite supposedly shooting her...no grid when exhuming her bones...her bones all over the place in three sites...key found in plane sight on eighth search by cop being sued...bullet found by same cop.
I could vomit.
Even if he did it (he didn't) he should be acquitted for such a bungled investigation.
Oh, and the dismissed juror is very suspicious too. His sister is hospitalized and he just happens to be the one saying the case is crazy...in front of the sheriffs deputy who is ON THE JURY??? Holy frame job batman. They had him coming and going.
The deputy called in the car before it was found? Wtf? That right there blows their alibi.
And yeah, no DNA despite supposedly raping and slitting her throat...no DNA despite supposedly shooting her...no grid when exhuming her bones...her bones all over the place in three sites...key found in plane sight on eighth search by cop being sued...bullet found by same cop.
I could vomit.
Even if he did it (he didn't) he should be acquitted for such a bungled investigation.
Oh, and the dismissed juror is very suspicious too. His sister is hospitalized and he just happens to be the one saying the case is crazy...in front of the sheriffs deputy who is ON THE JURY??? Holy frame job batman. They had him coming and going.
The house and the garage were a pigsty. They supposedly cut her throat, and shot her. Yet the police investigators found no evidence of her DNA anywhere? What, are these guys criminal geniuses like Dexter? Did they set up a kill room? I never understood that. Also, I don't see how the police supposedly overlooked that bullet for months after initially searching for eight days straight.
JB1842
En-Route
There was DNA. And not just his blood.
Lindberg
Final Approach
All these posts should be prefaced with, "According to the producer/writer/director, who want me to believe Ayers is innocent..."
I hope someone at Netflix is raking in big bonus dough for what this series has done for the channel.
I hope someone at Netflix is raking in big bonus dough for what this series has done for the channel.
Gerhardt
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,534
- Display Name
Display name:
Gerhardt
Like I said, Avery may very well have done it, but I just don't see how a jury could get beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dassey, on the other hand. I'm as furious with his mother as I am the police, judge and prosecutor.
Dassey, on the other hand. I'm as furious with his mother as I am the police, judge and prosecutor.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Oh, absolutely. There is stuff not shown in this documentary, like any documentary, and someone had to make the decision what to put in and what to leave out and how to present the information that was included. I don't know if he's guilty or not - the jury that heard the whole case got to make that decision. But for dramatic value, this was a tough series to beat.
By presenting it the way they did, you can come to one of two conclusions: the jury got it right based on what was not shown in the show, or they jury got it wrong based on what was included in the show.
What it did show was how much we enjoy trying cases in the court of public opinion (including aviation forums). At the end of each day, each team of lawyers got to repeat their performance in front of the TV cameras.
No. Not true. We are shown video footage of actual witnesses presenting evidence, and prosecutors making statements, and judges issuing rulings. It is true that there is a selection of what we are shown. But there is no dispute that what was shown actually occurred.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
This is somewhat interesting:
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/...d-a-new-piece-of-evidence-that-coul/21299766/
The discrepancy could be explained, of course, by Avery having separated the car key so he could move, dismantle, or sell the car later. But that seems a bit unlikely because discarding the other keys would have served no purpose, and in any case the other keys were never found.
Also, I believe that it was pointed out at some point that the car key that was found contained none of the victim's DNA. Avery's lawyer (or maybe it was the investigator) said that suggested that the key had been scrubbed. But it could also be that the key was a spare one, either obtained from Teresa's home or made from the car's VIN number.
One way or the other, it's another thing about this case that doesn't quite make sense.
Rich
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/...d-a-new-piece-of-evidence-that-coul/21299766/
The discrepancy could be explained, of course, by Avery having separated the car key so he could move, dismantle, or sell the car later. But that seems a bit unlikely because discarding the other keys would have served no purpose, and in any case the other keys were never found.
Also, I believe that it was pointed out at some point that the car key that was found contained none of the victim's DNA. Avery's lawyer (or maybe it was the investigator) said that suggested that the key had been scrubbed. But it could also be that the key was a spare one, either obtained from Teresa's home or made from the car's VIN number.
One way or the other, it's another thing about this case that doesn't quite make sense.
Rich
Lindberg
Final Approach
That doesn't make what I said untrue. All "reality TV" includes footage of actual people saying and doing actual things. That doesn't mean that what you see on TV has any relation to what happened in reality. I know some people still believe that what they see on TV is an accurate portrayal of what happened on some island or in a beach house, kitchen, real-estate transaction, or restaurant. But it isn't. And this TV show is no different.
Actually, it does. Your statement that "all these posts should be prefaced with 'according to the producer/writer/director'" means that the source of the facts is the producer/writer/director. That's not true. Unless there is a dispute as to the integrity of the video (and there is not) the source is the evidence is the witnesses themselves.
I do not dispute that the context is up to the directors. I also do not dispute that the inferences to be drawn from those facts is up for debate.
atbroome
Pre-takeoff checklist
Lindberg
Final Approach
Au contraire, the medium is the message. Your defense of the show suggests you believe it is impossible to misleading edit video. But as I pointed out, the most popular genre of television is based on exactly that, misleading editing of video to create drama.
The Life of David Gale, one of Kevin Spacey's worst movies, actually does one thing very well, if you pay attention. And that is demonstrate how the deliberate selection of factually-accurate information can convince you of something that is completely untrue. In doing so, it exposes the harsh limits of inductive reasoning (sorry Sherlock), which, ironically, is what all these innocence proclaimers, including MaM, generally rely on.
Finally, in the court room, presenting an alternative scenario is not the same as creating reasonable doubt. If it were, no criminal would ever be convicted.
One thing we know with 100% certainty is that if Avery did it, he didn't do it as the state claims. There is no way that he slit her throat in the bedroom and shot her in the head in the garage and didn't leave any of her blood behind. The Avery's are pigs and neither of those locations show any evidence of having been cleaned in the past 20 years, much less cleaned at the level necessary to wipe out a throat cutting and head shot.
The only evidence tying him to the crime was found by the people who knew he was innocent of his previous conviction. People who let him rot in jail anyway despite that knowledge. People he was suing. And the coerced testimony of an intellectually disabled minor who thought he would be allowed to go home and study for his test at school the next day after he confessed to murder.
I'm with his lawyer. I almost hope he's guilty because otherwise this is too much to bear.
The only evidence tying him to the crime was found by the people who knew he was innocent of his previous conviction. People who let him rot in jail anyway despite that knowledge. People he was suing. And the coerced testimony of an intellectually disabled minor who thought he would be allowed to go home and study for his test at school the next day after he confessed to murder.
I'm with his lawyer. I almost hope he's guilty because otherwise this is too much to bear.
Not at all. I am saying that the video of the testimony that we see isn't contradicted as being altered. Those witnesses really said what we see them say. I specifically said that the context is chosen by the producers, which is the point you are making. And this point you make about context is true, and no doubt that context matters. No dispute at all about that. But when the witness testified that the seal on the box containing Avery's blood was already broken, and there was a needle hole in the top-- those are true statements. This is not just according to the producers. It's according to those witnesses. Now, what is the significance of those facts? That's where the debate comes in, and the context matters. But the facts are the facts. Your saying that there is a question about them because all we have to go on is the producer's word for it just ain't so.
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
What the producers presented is factual. It many not include all the facts, but, for the standard of "reasonable doubt", it is adequate that most "peers" should be able to find a "not guilty" based on what we know. The Defense, and, in the case of public opinion, do not need to find Avery INNOCENT, they just need to find a "reasonable doubt", which, it appears most people have.
If you don't think there was poor serving of justice in this story, especially with the nephew, then that is not the fault of the producers.
Dassey's mother was a nutcase, for sure. This was a very "interesting" family overall.
I think I'll just continue to fly over Manitowoc County!
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wasn't it Dassey's own lawyer, or his investigator, that referred to them as a "one branch family tree"?
mark.staggs
Pre-takeoff checklist
Yes--the investigator that coerced a mentally challenged kid to draw the crime scene and admit to the crime. A drawing that was given to the prosecutor to then be used in the case against him.
How that lawyer and investigator can live with themselves blows me away. That was the toughest part of the whole series, IMO. His own defense team took advantage of someone that's quite obviously mentally deficient, for most likely to get good public exposure and attention for their own personal gain.
vkhosid
Cleared for Takeoff
Outcomes aside, this brings up a question...Shouldn't his attorney be working FOR him? What could the attorney/investigator have to gain with helping the prosecution? Also, I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there some sort of "professional code of conduct" or "ethics code" that prohibits doing such things?
Just for clarification, that last sentence was a general question, and not directly aimed at this movie/documentary/trial/situation/whatever.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Yes, and yes. The attorney probably just didn't want to work the case that hard, and presumed that like most criminal defendants, that Dassey was guilty as charged. As a result, he just wanted to get the client to plead guilty and move on to the next case. The attorney may have even thought what he was doing--encouraging his client to plead guilty-- was in his client's best interest. I could see in that attorney's face during the first interview that he wasn't going to be a good trial attorney. He was a step down from the stuttering appointed attorney in "My Cousin Vinnie." There was no way he wanted to go to war in a high profile murder case.
Last edited:
vkhosid
Cleared for Takeoff
I could see where a scenario like this would make sense. However, isn't there a difference between saying, "Hey, I think you should plead guilty", and actively working to strengthen your opponents (prosecution) case?
Of course.
vkhosid
Cleared for Takeoff
So, is doing one vs the other illegal in some way?
I am not familiar with Wisconsin's Rules of Professional Conduct, but I assume that they are similar to most every other states rules which are based on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In this respect, the rules are pretty much the same: Ethically, the decision whether to plead guilty is up to the client. The attorney has a duty to zealously represent the interests of his client. The attorney has to use the skill and knowledge of a reasonably competent attorney. That means telling the client the facts of life, and then following the client's direction. It absolutely does not mean letting your client be interviewed, without your attendance, by the prosecutor or the investigating officer. It absolutely does not mean conspiring with your hired investigator to manipulate your client to confess unwillingly to a murder. These things are so shocking to me that I wonder how the attorney still has a license to practice law. But that's just my opinion, and I know nothing about the standards of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in disciplining the members of its bar. I could also see a legal malpractice claim being brought for civil damages. I do not know Wisconsin criminal law to know if there is a criminal violation. But I suppose if a prosecutor were inclined, they can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But is there any prosecutor that you think in Wisconsin would pursue that attorney at this point?
Lindberg
Final Approach
Brian Williams and Lester Holt said every word in this video.
It's possible some of the words they left out might have also been significant.
