Making a Murderer (w/ Spoilers)

#476
#476
bamawriter said:
Can you link the bold?

Avery's defense included Martinez in a long list of possible third parties, but I've seen nothing that lays out his propensity to violence nor his actions on November 5th. In fact, a note in an appellate court decision gives me the impression that the defense looked into whether Martinez was on the property on 10/31/05 and struck out.

Judge Willis has been skewered in the wake of the documentary for prohibiting the defense from naming other possible suspects. While I'm no legal expert, upon reading the trial transcripts, I'm not sure that he didn't rule properly. The presentation of possible third parties has to meet the legitimate tendency test outlined in State v Denny. It's not enough to say "Person X could have done it." There must be some evidence that links that person to the crime, some indication of motive, and evidence of opportunity. Essentially, the defense can't roll out an unlimited list of possibilities simply because suspicion can be raised. None of the list of possibilities raised by the defense could meet the legitimate tendency test required by Denny, with the exception of Brendan Dassey, whom the defense made the conscious decision not to pursue.

I haven't made it all the way thru the trial, nor have I read all of the Appellate Courts' decisions. But so far, I'm not sold on the idea that the defense had nearly enough to meet the Denny standard on any of the list of possibilities. And the Denny standard really isn't all that strict. It simply requires more than "X person could have done it, so my client isn't guilty."

While I think the cops never gave adequate attention (or any attention at all) to other possible suspects, the defense had a year and a half to link anyone else to the crime and couldn't do it.
Click to expand...

[youtube]https://youtu.be/9zePg5OfvyU[/youtube]

It is hard to make somebody a suspect in court months after the cops had already blindly followed the rabbit hole that was leading to the conclusion they were satisfied with. That being said, an ax murderer being a frequent visitor to the salvage yard and also having been there the day the car was discovered raises enough flags that, if I'm the judge, I would want to explore at least a little bit. If the investigators had labeled him a suspect from the start, he very well could have had enough against him that even the most bias judge would have to acquiesce to the admittance of him as a suspect in trial.
 
#478
#478
I think they need to start looking at Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fud. Pretty shady characters if you ask me.
 
#480
#480
SamRebel35 said:
It is hard to make somebody a suspect in court months after the cops had already blindly followed the rabbit hole that was leading to the conclusion they were satisfied with.
Click to expand...

Not really. If you present motive, opportunity, and a shred of evidence you've met the Denny standard. Just based on the Appellate rulings I've read, the defense didn't even pretend to have these three when it came to Martinez.

That being said, an ax murderer being a frequent visitor to the salvage yard and also having been there the day the car was discovered raises enough flags that, if I'm the judge, I would want to explore at least a little bit.
Click to expand...

A judge isn't allowed to simply decide that, absent an actual evidence, he's going to allow an affirmative defense simply because there's a really bad guy who lives up the road. That's why Denny is the law in the first place.

If the investigators had labeled him a suspect from the start, he very well could have had enough against him that even the most bias judge would have to acquiesce to the admittance of him as a suspect in trial.
Click to expand...

That is an absolutely massive "could have". I'm not defending how the cops investigated this case. It's indefensible. But the defense knew of this guy's existence and could find nothing to link him to the crime. Denny doesn't require that the defense prove that a third party committed the crime. But they had to find something that linked him to it, and they couldn't.

From my, admittedly limited, searching, it appears that the defense initially offered a list of almost 20 possible suspects, and then limited it to 9 for the pre-trial Denny ruling: Martinez, Tadych, the 4 Dassey brothers, Earl and Charles Avery, and a guy named Robert Fabian. Upon appeal, the defense had limited their list to just the two Avery brothers, Tadych, and Bobby Dassey. They had almost 4 years between crime and appeal, and couldn't find anything that linked Martinez to the crime.
 
#487
#487
bamawriter said:
Not really. If you present motive, opportunity, and a shred of evidence you've met the Denny standard. Just based on the Appellate rulings I've read, the defense didn't even pretend to have these three when it came to Martinez.



A judge isn't allowed to simply decide that, absent an actual evidence, he's going to allow an affirmative defense simply because there's a really bad guy who lives up the road. That's why Denny is the law in the first place.



That is an absolutely massive "could have". I'm not defending how the cops investigated this case. It's indefensible. But the defense knew of this guy's existence and could find nothing to link him to the crime. Denny doesn't require that the defense prove that a third party committed the crime. But they had to find something that linked him to it, and they couldn't.

From my, admittedly limited, searching, it appears that the defense initially offered a list of almost 20 possible suspects, and then limited it to 9 for the pre-trial Denny ruling: Martinez, Tadych, the 4 Dassey brothers, Earl and Charles Avery, and a guy named Robert Fabian. Upon appeal, the defense had limited their list to just the two Avery brothers, Tadych, and Bobby Dassey. They had almost 4 years between crime and appeal, and couldn't find anything that linked Martinez to the crime.
Click to expand...

The major problem is the police didn't seem to investigate anyone else. How is the defense supposed to get evidence or provide motive? The defense doesn't have a police force; they don't have the authority to detain someone they suspect; they can't get a warrant to search a home; I don't think they even have the ability to force the police to try to match the unknown fingerprint on the Rav4.

Avery was lucky to have the money to hire a private investigator and really good attorneys that were able to poke holes in the prosecution's case. But the defense shouldn't have to follow up on every lead that the police should have investigated... they don't have the resources or the authority.
 
#488
#488
red butler said:
The major problem is the police didn't seem to investigate anyone else. How is the defense supposed to get evidence or provide motive? The defense doesn't have a police force; they don't have the authority to detain someone they suspect; they can't get a warrant to search a home;
Click to expand...

They do have the ability to request subpoenas. They may not have the investigative powers of the police, but Denny doesn't require the defense to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. They just have to proffer something that has probative value.

I don't think they even have the ability to force the police to try to match the unknown fingerprint on the Rav4.
Click to expand...

The defense can't force the police to get print samples from any and every suspect the defense wants to name. But the defense has access to all evidence as part of discovery. And in the case of Martinez, they could have compared his print against the RAV4 since his prints were already in the system. I have no idea if they did or didn't, but they absolutely could have.

Avery was lucky to have the money to hire a private investigator and really good attorneys that were able to poke holes in the prosecution's case. But the defense shouldn't have to follow up on every lead that the police should have investigated... they don't have the resources or the authority.
Click to expand...

How many suspects should the police be required to look at in any given case before they are allowed to make an arrest? Is there a correct number?

In this case, the defense was given free reign to present evidence that the police unfairly targeted Steven Avery at the expense of a thorough investigation. But, it's not the duty of the police to investigate any suspect that a criminal defendant wants to name. It is the duty of the defense to present evidence that the police missed or ignored something that would have pointed them elsewhere.
 
#489
#489
bamawriter said:
How many suspects should the police be required to look at in any given case before they are allowed to make an arrest? Is there a correct number?
Click to expand...

I generally agree that the police don't need to eliminate an infinite number of suspects before they make an arrest. My point is that a handful of suspects should have been considered before they zeroed in on Steven Avery. When Halbach was reported missing she hadn't been seen for days. At the time, the police thought Zipperer was the last appointment so Avery wouldn't have been the key suspect. So the police should have been working to eliminate people that were close to her as suspects.

Days after she was reported missing, the Rav4 was found. Then it's reasonable to assume the focus of the investigation would have shifted to people that had access to the Avery property i.e. the Avery brothers, the Dasseys, Tadych, and Martinez.

Once the blood was ID'd, obviously Steven Avery was the prime suspect. But as we've heard from the police calls, they wanted to know if Steven Avery was in custody the minute the car was found. At that point the number of suspects still should have been about a half dozen people.
 
#490
#490
red butler said:
I generally agree that the police don't need to eliminate an infinite number of suspects before they make an arrest. My point is that a handful of suspects should have been considered before they zeroed in on Steven Avery. When Halbach was reported missing she hadn't been seen for days. At the time, the police thought Zipperer was the last appointment so Avery wouldn't have been the key suspect. So the police should have been working to eliminate people that were close to her as suspects.
Click to expand...

I think this is a misstatement of the facts. The police knew that the Avery job was on her docket for the day. Auto Trader had both on her calendar. And they did talk to George Zipperer while looking for her.

Days after she was reported missing, the Rav4 was found. Then it's reasonable to assume the focus of the investigation would have shifted to people that had access to the Avery property i.e. the Avery brothers, the Dasseys, Tadych, and Martinez.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why Martinez would be a suspect at that point. Martinez's name came up as someone that the defense pointed to in the run-up to trial. There's never been any evidence that he was anywhere near the Avery property on 10/31/05. I'm not sure why he'd receive the same scrutiny as The Averys, Dasseys, and Tadych.

Once the blood was ID'd, obviously Steven Avery was the prime suspect. But as we've heard from the police calls, they wanted to know if Steven Avery was in custody the minute the car was found. At that point the number of suspects still should have been about a half dozen people.
Click to expand...

I absolutely think the cops narrowed in on Avery, I think they rushed to judgement, and I think they planted evidence. And the Court let the defense go to town on those theories. But I'm not seeing any legal standard by which the Court can be said to have erred by not allowing specific names to be thrown out absent any evidence of legitimate tendency.
 
#491
#491
bamawriter said:
I think this is a misstatement of the facts. The police knew that the Avery job was on her docket for the day. Auto Trader had both on her calendar. And they did talk to George Zipperer while looking for her.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the phone conversation the investegator had where he was upset that he had to go back to Zipperer's because initialy it appeared Halbach did the Zipperer job after Avery's. Anyway, I think it's perfectly logical to try to retrace her steps as part of the initial investigation. But at some point they should have conducted interviews with the people close to her in order to narrow down the list of suspects.


I'm not sure why Martinez would be a suspect at that point. Martinez's name came up as someone that the defense pointed to in the run-up to trial. There's never been any evidence that he was anywhere near the Avery property on 10/31/05. I'm not sure why he'd receive the same scrutiny as The Averys, Dasseys, and Tadych.
Click to expand...

I would have thought Martinez would be a prime suspect because he routinely had access to the property and he tried to kill his family with an axe on the day the Rav4 was found. How many cold blooded killers does a small town like Manitowac have anyway?
 
#492
#492
red butler said:
I'm referring to the phone conversation the investegator had where he was upset that he had to go back to Zipperer's because initialy it appeared Halbach did the Zipperer job after Avery's. Anyway, I think it's perfectly logical to try to retrace her steps as part of the initial investigation. But at some point they should have conducted interviews with the people close to her in order to narrow down the list of suspects.
Click to expand...

This is another spot where I think the documentary has left a false impression in the minds' of viewers. The cops did talk to Halbach's family, ex-boyfriend, roommate, and friends after she was reported missing. It's detailed in the transcripts, but the documentary conveniently leaves it out. All of them are alibied pretty well on 10/31/05.


I would have thought Martinez would be a prime suspect because he routinely had access to the property and he tried to kill his family with an axe on the day the Rav4 was found. How many cold blooded killers does a small town like Manitowac have anyway?
Click to expand...

The salvage yard is a place of business. No one had to have a key card or an access code to enter it. The fact that he'd been there at various random times is meaningless. Unless he could be placed there on 10/31/05 it makes no difference.

As to your last question, I won't be vacationing in Manitowoc, WI anytime soon.
 
#493
#493
bamawriter said:
This is another spot where I think the documentary has left a false impression in the minds' of viewers. The cops did talk to Halbach's family, ex-boyfriend, roommate, and friends after she was reported missing. It's detailed in the transcripts, but the documentary conveniently leaves it out. All of them are alibied pretty well on 10/31/05.
Click to expand...

If they are alibied pretty well, why did the ex-boyfriend testify that he was never asked for an alibi? What do the transcripts say were the alibis for the boyfriend and roommate?


The salvage yard is a place of business. No one had to have a key card or an access code to enter it. The fact that he'd been there at various random times is meaningless.
Click to expand...

This is the exact point for why Steven Avery should not have been the only suspect when the Rav4 was found. Now if the blood was not planted, it's a moot point because Avery's the killer.
 
#494
#494
red butler said:
If they are alibied pretty well, why did the ex-boyfriend testify that he was never asked for an alibi? What do the transcripts say were the alibis for the boyfriend and roommate?
Click to expand...

I don't recall off hand because it was about 1400 pages ago. A Calumet Co sherrif testified to it. I also recall some context on the ex's 'no' answer, but will have to go back to remind myself.

Either way, the boyfriend was never even on the defense's final list for the pre-trial Denny motion, so they must have felt comfortable that he didn't do it.

That said, I'm fairly sure he erased her voicemails.

This is the exact point for why Steven Avery should not have been the only suspect when the Rav4 was found. Now if the blood was not planted, it's a moot point because Avery's the killer.
Click to expand...

Again, I pretty much agree.
 
#495
#495
That's another issue. Why was the ex in her phone records and deleting voicemails?
 
Last edited:
#496
#496
bamawriter said:
I think this is a misstatement of the facts. The police knew that the Avery job was on her docket for the day. Auto Trader had both on her calendar. And they did talk to George Zipperer while looking for her.



I'm not sure why Martinez would be a suspect at that point. Martinez's name came up as someone that the defense pointed to in the run-up to trial. There's never been any evidence that he was anywhere near the Avery property on 10/31/05. I'm not sure why he'd receive the same scrutiny as The Averys, Dasseys, and Tadych.



I absolutely think the cops narrowed in on Avery, I think they rushed to judgement, and I think they planted evidence. And the Court let the defense go to town on those theories. But I'm not seeing any legal standard by which the Court can be said to have erred by not allowing specific names to be thrown out absent any evidence of legitimate tendency.
Click to expand...

Give an example and how they did it?
 
#499
#499
bamawriter said:
The key wasn't in his room. No way it could have been missed that many times. I think they found it in the car and moved it to the bedroom.
Click to expand...

And, so "they" were just holding on to the key and waiting for the opportunity after multiple searches to put it in the trailer?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top